Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Outsider POV

Somehow I wandered on to this arbitration page regarding Dr. Zen and I have never had any dealings with him or any of the others involved. In fact, I'm still a bit of a tenderfoot at editing, I have been spending most of my time on Watergate related stuff. Somehow I wandered into this.

After reviewing all of the evidence and taking an in depth look at clitoris I think this whole escapade is nothing but a black eye for Wikipedia because it's the perfect example of people refusing to get along, admins included. Like I said I'm new but it hasn't kept me from noticing an ongoing admin war with banning and unbannig, the admins should be working to resolve this themselves because it's making all of you look bad.

This dispute hasn't followed the dispute resolution process either, it should be the article controversy that is being arbitrated, not Dr. Zen. As far as I can see there was a vote on this topic and the majority (a sizable majority, I didn't count it exactly) carried the day to remove it. At that point I think the image should have been removed. Now, if there are those who felt a majority wasn't enough and the image should stay the process should escalate to the next step which is RfM. In fact, I find it disturbing that the vast majority of mediation and arbitration requests are for users and not the disputes in articles.

What I think has happened here is too much attention has been paid to personalities and arguments and not the issue at hand. Assumptions were made about what processes would and wouldn't work to resolve the dispute and I think some hasty judgments were made on both sides. There's a process in place and the process should be followed, that's the best way to resolve things.

My personal opinion is the photo isn't very professional and it does far more to enflame passions than illustrate so at that point it's traveled beyond the realm of being encyclopedic. --Wgfinley 05:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wgfinley. This case was just opened, and the evidence I've posted so far is in no way exhaustive. It's become obvious, unfortunately, that the photo enflames passions. Whether or not it is encyclopedic is a matter of discussion, and I tend to disagree with you. However, I don't think that's the point (here). Dr Zen's edits and rhetoric lead many to believe that he'll edit war and be a real nuisance unless everyone else satisfies him. His appeals to NPOV are by no means straightforward or a part of policy, and at worse they're downright manipulative and false. I don't think he's a bad guy or that his POV is illegitimate – I do believe, though, that his behavior may need adjustment that (in view of his comments etc.) RfC and mediation are unlikely to solve. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I'll never accept it, I'll fight forever" is the common cry from parties that are going to mediation or arbitration for an issue. I was a school board member, I've seen a teacher's union and a board both cry the same thing and then saw them work out a deal. He certainly seems to be a polarizing figure and thus people are drawn to his mode of rhetoric. From what I've seen though he's usually had a reasoned argument to his position and hasn't gotten way out of hand. Secondly, there was a vote, the vote was in his position's favor, he executed the results of that and some admins didn't think that was correct. So who's to say he should be the one that should go to arbitration? How about admins that won't enforce votes or follow the process??

This is why, when you go down the road of ad-hominem assaults instead of looking at the argument on its merits that you get to this point. The issue that should be considered is the mediation of the disagreement between these parties on the article. Perhaps mediation would afford an opportunity to try to find some common ground somewhere, at least try. Then, if it goes to arbitration the article is being arbitrated, not the people involved who are having the dispute. That's the way I read the dispute resolution process. --Wgfinley 08:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually all the polls showed not only a large majority but a working consensus. Unfortunately you've got the direction of the consensus reversed--the result was to keep the picture inline. Dr Zen has been warring against that consensus for some months now which is why you see his case now in WP:RFAR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the last poll and it's 10-4, I thought that was to remove the photo and now I realize that wasn't what it was for (forgive me, trying to sift through discussion on that topic is arduous). This doesn't change the fact I believe the article should be the subject of mediation and then arbitration if needed and not Dr. Zen. --Wgfinley 19:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the polls went strongly in favour of the image, but this isn't consensus. I also wish this article could be mediated. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been down that "it's only a consensus if *I* say it is" avenue with Dr Zen. I kinda rumbled him when he objected loudly to someone else performed an edit supporting the overwhelming majority view, after he had performed an edit supporting an agreement agreed only by him, me, Theresa and Timbo. He didn't appear to believe his own words about consensus, or else he would have recognised that, since he felt it was okay to go in the face of an overwhelming poll, it was also okay for someone else to perform an edit he disagreed with. No, on Wikipedia, when we say we have a consensus it appears to me that we don't mean "everybody agrees that the thing is just fine", we mean "there isn't enough opposition to matter." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is, of course, always the option of discussion. Some may grandstand and say "this is a wiki, anyone can edit it" etc. etc. but what it really comes down to is this: if the overwhelming majority disagree with you, you don't have a license to disrupt the article and poison the wiki environment with the kind of rhetoric we've seen from Dr Zen until everyone else satisfies you. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely: that sort of editing poisons and entrenches the article. I'm just concerned about attempts to end debate becuase of the "It's a consensus unless *I* say it isn't" mentality. The option to show a disclaimer, for example, was a minority 9-to-25. In other words, the minority for that proposal was greater than 25%, and I think that merits some sort of further dialog. I think a more mutually satisfying solution exists. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Zen farewell

It appears Zen has gone on another hiatus. See his user page. His last four edits are telling as well. See [1] (articles: fuck off cunt bye). TIMBO (T A L K) 01:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment removed from Tony's evidence

LOL. Anyone would think that "consensus" meant "raging dispute"! (User:203.103.62.24)

Cool Hand Luke 06:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)