From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Statement by Snowspinner 3 statement by User:WHEELER 4 Preliminary decisions 4.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0) 4.2 Temporary injunction (none) 5 Final decision 5.1 Principles 5.1.1 No original research 5.1.2 Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary 5.1.3 Neutral point of view 5.1.4 POVs of editors 5.1.5 Splitting of articles 5.1.6 Advocacy 5.1.7 Civility 5.2 Findings of fact 5.2.1 Not original research 5.2.2 POV of articles 5.2.3 Incivility 5.2.4 Lack of faith 5.2.5 Talk page style 5.2.6 Use of Wikipedia for advocacy 5.3 Remedies 5.3.1 Recommendation to improve talk page style 5.3.2 Reminder of Wikipedia's policy on advocacy 5.3.3 Recommendation to review neutral-point-of-view policy 5.3.4 Admonishment to avoid original research

[edit] Involved parties

• Snowspinner
• WHEELER

[edit] Statement by Snowspinner

Please limit your statement to 500 words

WHEELER is a POV pusher who seeks to have Wikipedia conform to his own viewpoints about classical virtues and Christianity, and who will aggressively edit war anybody who tries to stop him. He typically justifies his edits with a wide variety of sources, and seems either unaware or uninterested in the fact that he is offering original research. For example, when his article Classical definition of republic was deleted on VfD. He listed it for undeletion, and was widely shot down, despite his repeated citation of sources, on the grounds that what he was offering was original research. He then listed it again at [1] citing yet more sources. This relisting followed the previous listing by less than a week.

A standard example of his edit warring can be found in the discussion at Talk:Arete (excellence), where he fights at length over the proper definition of "virtue" and whether Arete is one. A much older variation on this edit war can be found at Talk:Effeminacy, in which WHEELER demands that the article be primarily about classical virtues instead of any contemporary usage of the word, which WHEELER views as a corruption.

This is also demonstrated in his proposed policy addition at User talk:WHEELER/Principles of Definition, which amounts to a declaration that Wikipedia should pursue some pure form of Truth (With a capital T, it seems). He similarly requests that Wikipedia be organized as a classical republic, with juries of one's peers, at [2]. Exactly what this means is not wholly clear.

A case against WHEELER was brought some time ago by 172. It was rejected and directed to mediation. As the problem persists, I think the case bears looking at. Snowspinner 03:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] statement by User:WHEELER

I am a Classicist. I am trying to write articles for Category:Classical studies. The Classical meaning of words is very different from modern words. We live in an era where everything is "political". Words are used as political rudders, the meaning of words is changing. My whole outlook is to preserve Classical Antiquity and its meanings and language and culture. It is very important that things don't mix. The Classical world is much different from the modern world. One can see the difference between effeminacy and classical definition of effeminacy. The articles need to be kept seperate. One is a modern connotation and the other is the standard, classical definition that has lasted for years. These two worlds need to be kept apart.

I am trying to get an external link to the article [Republic] and I am having a devil of a time at Talk:Republic. I have been doing a lot of reading and new information I receive makes it more certain that the [Classical definition of republic] be revived. I have a ton of evidence that needs to be re-considered. I have tried to put it back up on VFUD but User:Snowspinner has deleted it. I stopped. I don't know why my re-request was deleted. I think it needs some serious study. But I am engaged in talking and trying to find a compromise. The Article Reactionary is an example of me and User:AndyL did together. We took a small useless article and grew it into a huge and beautiful article for Wikipedia. Since we have finished a long time ago, it hasn't been altered much. It is a sign of what I can do with others and it turned out great!WHEELER 16:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

• Accept. Dispute resolution has previously been tried and failed. Incivility still appears to be the order of the day... on whose part, I cannot yet determine. -- Grunt   ҈  03:57, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 04:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - David Gerard 12:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ambi 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 14:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 19:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] No original research

No original research.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary

2) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Passed 7-0

[edit] POVs of editors

4) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Splitting of articles

5) If a subsection of an article grows past a certain point in size, it is generally desirable to split that subsection into its own article and leave an appropriately-sized summary in its place (e.g. "History of (country)" articles are normally branched off from "(country)" articles).

Passed 7-0

[edit] Advocacy

6) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy

Passed 6-0

[edit] Civility

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Not original research

1) Some of WHEELER's work has incorporated novel interpretations of source material in a way that has been regarded as original research by other contributors [3]. WHEELER has acknowledged this, for example in relation to some of the content of the article "Classical definition of republic" [4]

Passed 6-0

[edit] POV of articles

2) WHEELER's articles notably exhibit a classicist point of view and frequently need to be cleaned up significantly to achieve a neutral point of view.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Incivility

3) WHEELER's classicist point of view has often put him at odds with those he terms modernists, which has led to all around incivility in his dealings with those users. [5] [6] [7]

Passed 7-0

[edit] Lack of faith

4) WHEELER has expressed his lack of faith in other Wikipedia editors that edit articles he has originally written. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Passed 7-0

[edit] Talk page style

5) WHEELER uses extensive formatting including bold, underline and all-caps in his talk page comments to emphasise his opinion [12]. This has the effect on readers of making him appear to be shouting or ranting, and increases the impression of incivility.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Use of Wikipedia for advocacy

6) WHEELER has stated that one of his intentions on Wikipedia is to "preserve Classical Antiquity and its meanings and language and culture" [13]. This could be regarded as an intention to use Wikipedia as a vehicle of advocacy.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Recommendation to improve talk page style

1) An official recommendation shall be made to WHEELER to change his style of commenting on talk pages to one that give a calmer and more reasonable impression and to strive to work better with others.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Reminder of Wikipedia's policy on advocacy

2) WHEELER is reminded that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate a viewpoint.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Recommendation to review neutral-point-of-view policy

3) Both sides of this dispute are recommended to re-read the policy on NPOV and to understand that NPOV is inclusive of all significant points of view.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Admonishment to avoid original research

4) WHEELER is admonished to take care in his writing to ensure it conforms to Wikipedia's policy on no original research. He is requested to read this page and to discuss any aspect of this that he feels are unclear with other contributors.

Passed 7-0