Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Proposed findings and remedies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed - Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority yay vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yay or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Contents

Arbitrator findings of fact

all proposed

1. Wik has engaged in numerous edit wars throughout Wikipedia on dozens of articles, which has caused considerable disruption and inconvenience to a number of users. Without making a specific determination on the merits of the contents of any or all of the contentious articles, we find that this sort of behavior, even if the article contents are justified, is not conducive to Wikipedia's progress.

Evidence in support of this finding:

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 1:

  1. mav 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 09:40, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (as shown by the Evidence page, and the investigations of a number of arbitrators)
  6. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) (with the evidence, and hopefully more)
  8. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 1:

  1. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Sorry for the long explanation below, but since I'm the only one voting this way so far, I think it's called for. The evidence provided above obviously supports the fact that Wik has engaged in one edit war. The evidence provided above doesn't however support the finding that Wik has engaged in numerous edit wars. On the other hand, looking myself for extra evidence, I do find that Wik has engaged in some edit wars, but I do not find that he is to blame for that a priori. I cannot condemn the fact that some Wikipedian sees things in a particular way within NPOV. Yes, even if that leads to an edit war. I find that his actions were (if only subjectively) intended to keep the respective articles within reason, and that he acted out of good faith in protecting what he saw as the NPOV in those articles. Therefore I won't agree with the finding that he somehow purposedly got involved in edit wars. That is where my formal statement ends in this matter. I want to add something for the record however: I reserve the right to hold the same view in any matter involving Anthony DiPierro. I do not uphold the principle stating that if one side in a conflict is right, the other necessarily has to be wrong, or vice-versa.)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed finding of fact 1:

2. Wik has, for at least a brief period of time, engaged in a habit of "auto-reverting" all edits by Anthony DiPierro, with the explanation that he feels Anthony diPierro to be a troll, and thus his edits to be worthy of removal without evaluation. Again, without making a determination on the good faith of Anthony diPierro, we find that this is contrary to established Wikipedia policies, which only allow reversion regardless of merit for users who have been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

Evidence in support of this finding:

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 2:

  1. mav 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 09:40, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)(with the evidence, and hopefully more)
  8. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 2:

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed finding of fact 2:

3. We find that Wik has failed to make appropriate use of edit summaries, failing to describe or explain his edits. The misuse, abuse, or non-use of edit summaries is frowned upon by the community at large, and has unnecessarily lengthened these disputes.

Evidence in support of this finding:

  • Failure to mark reverts as "rv" or "revert" on McFly: the following edits to that page are unmarked reverts: 15:55, 4 Mar 2004; 15:56, 4 Mar 2004; 16:44, 4 Mar 2004; 16:57, 4 Mar 2004; 14:14, 8 Mar 2004
  • A review of Wik's contributions demonstrates a dearth of decent edit summaries.
  • Reverting List of U.S. political families purely because of a misspelt "occurence", and failing to explain this in either edit summary or Talk page.

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 3:

  1. mav 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 3:

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed finding of fact 3:

  1. Delirium 09:40, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC) (likely true, but not severe enough to warrant censure, imo)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) - seems too trivial to comment on, as Delirium says.
  5. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

4. The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 4:

  1. mav 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 09:40, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I take nohat's point, but I do think a user's overall behaviour might affect the remedy we choose, so this seems appropriate to me)
  7. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) (having to vote on this is inherently unrelated to anything; nohat has a valid point, but I wonder what his opposed vote was intended to represent. Oh well, maybe this is the kind of issue where private deliberations could have helped)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 4:

  1. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) (It is not the arbitration committee's responsibility to aggrandize)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:09, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed finding of fact 4:

Arbitrator remedies

all proposed

1. As the major problem in this case appears to be excessive reversions and edit wars, we note with great interest the emerging community consensus on how to properly deal with edit wars. A proposed policy that would place a limit on the number of reversions per day a user may engage in, as well as allowing for temporary 24-hour bans for violators of the policy, is currently being formulated with a wide degree of support at Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Revert wars considered harmful (with discussion and a vote on the talk page).

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:

  1. Delirium 09:41, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 12:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I've added an update to reflect the progressing discussion, but I support both versions)
  6. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:

  1. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) See my argumentation above; also, see the "proposed resolution" above. I wouldn't want to raise all other arbitrators against me, but what exactly are we voting for here? The thing we are voting for or against is a neutral statement: "we note with great interest [...]. A [...] policy [...] is currently being formulated [etc]" -- so what?! What "remedy" in this matter is shown in this proposal? Again, this might be another reason why private deliberations might be useful. (And then again, just for the record, I agree with the idea of being able to impose edit count limits; I just can't agree with the formulation of this proposed resolution.)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 1:

  1. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I don't necessarily disagree with this personally, but I'm not sure we as a committee should be making broad hints as to which direction Wikipedia policy should take.

1 (update). As the major problem in this case appears to be excessive reversions and edit wars, we note with great interest the emerging community consensus on how to properly deal with edit wars. A limit on the number of reversions a user may engage in has a wide degree of support, and a proposed policy allowing for temporary 24-hour bans for violators, and other consequences, is currently being formulated at Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version/Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars, with discussion and a vote.


2. We remind Wik (and Wikipedians generally) that auto-reverting any one user's edits is only acceptable if that user has been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:

  1. Delirium 09:41, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 12:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  8. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Although I don't find that Wik has engaged in deliberate edit wars, he never seemed to have let go.

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 2:

3. We decline to take action beyond a warning in this case, especially in light of the fact that Anthony del Pierro has engaged in a number of edit wars with many other Wikipedians, so Wik's actions might be said to have been provoked. We will take further action in the future if such auto-reverting becomes a habit.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 3:

  1. Delirium 09:41, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 3:

  1. mav 12:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  6. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 3:

  1. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I don't consider Anthony's actions an excuse. On the other hand, I'm none-too-convinced about the options below).

If and only if proposed remedy 3 does not pass:

4. In light of the finding of fact that Wik has demonstrated a pattern of consistently engaging in edit wars with others, we rule that Wik shall be placed on probation for a period of one month. If during that time period Wik violates the 3-revert rule, he will be banned for the rest of his probation. It is hoped that the threat of an extended ban will be enough to help Wik kick his apparent revert habit.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 4:

  1. mav 12:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I will only support at most two of the options given in proposed remedies 4-6; this is my first choice)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (most favoured)
  3. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 00:09, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 4:

  1. Delirium 00:38, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC) (I see no reason the 24-hour bans for violating the 3-revert rule can't suffice to stop the edit-war problem)
  2. Martin 01:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Because of the size of the ban, I fear that any attempt to apply it would be controversial, unsuccessful, and increase conflict. I would support a 24 hour time-out ban, which I have added as "remedy 7" below)
  3. Nohat 16:12, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  4. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 4: Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I'm simply undecided on this.

5. In view of the finding of fact that Wik has engaged in blindly reverting edits made by Anthony del Pierro, we rule that Wik shall be banned from editing for a period of one week. We hope that this will serve as a lesson that reverting edits by a non-banned, non-vandal user without checking those edits is not acceptable behavior.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 5:

  1. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 12:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I will only support this remedy if my first and/or second choice for this section is not enacted)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (least favoured)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 5:

  1. Delirium 00:38, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC) (given that Anthony has been banned by other sysops for the same issues, I feel we can hardly ban Wik for auto-reverting him)
  2. Martin 01:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I would support a brief ban, but not with this wording)
  3. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 16:12, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  5. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 5:

  1. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

6. Since it is apparent that much of the angst against Wik arises from his many small edits to articles and edit wars over those small edits, we feel that limiting the number of edits Wik can perform in a single day may be helpful. We therefore rule that for a period of one month Wik shall be limited to 10 edits per day. This may be done via a technological fix or it could be done informally (with the penalty for violating the terms of this ruling to be determined).

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 6:

  1. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 12:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I will only support at most two of the options given in proposed remedies 4-6; this is my second choice)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) (mid-ly favoured)
  4. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 6:

  1. Delirium 00:38, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) - the fact that Wik edits a lot is not itself a problem - it's what he does with those edits.
  4. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 6:

  1. Martin 01:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

7. We rule that Wik shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period Wik reverts the same page more than three times on the same day, he may be given a 24 hour "timeout" ban, at sysop's judgement. This measure is intended to be in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply. Thus, if the community decides to permit sysops to temp-ban users in revert wars, Wik may be banned for an additional 24 hours, above the normal banning period.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 7:

  1. Martin 01:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 16:12, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 00:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (vote changed from abstain)
  4. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 01:23, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 12:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 7:

  1. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (too complex, and therefore easy to game)
  2. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed remedy 7:

  1. mav 01:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) I don't understand this one. Would the 24 hours be in addition to violating the general '3-revert and you get a 24 hour timeout' rule that looks to become policy for everybody soon (thus meaning a 48 hour block for Wik if he violates it)? Please clarify the description and I might vote for it.
As it's worded currently, this is sort of backing-up the three-revert "rule" (which for the moment is not being backed up by bans at all) rather than adding to it. That said, if you wanted to make it into a 48-hour ban, then I wouldn't have a particular problem with that. --Camembert
  1. Delirium 12:16, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC) This seems sort of like saying "we're especially going to enforce for Wik the rule that everyone is subjected to". But Wik is already subject to the 3-revert rule, just like everyone else (given that it has 89% support in the poll, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and start enforcing it today, for everyone).
The fact is that at the moment the three-revert rule is not enforced by bans. This remedy says that it will be enforced by bans in the case of Wik. Whether it then becomes a wider policy is up to other users, not the arbitration committee. If the policy were to become enforced by bans Wikipedia-wide then in my view there would be no need for a remedy specific to Wik. --Camembert 17:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What Camembert said: "soon" is not "now". This remedy would apply now. If the community decides on some policy on reverts, that will apply then. I've tried to clarify. Martin 23:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess I still oppose that then. If it's okay for users in general to engage in excessive revert wars, then it's okay for Wik to do so as well. Either ban anyone who does it, or ban no one who does it, imo. I'd lean towards "ban everyone who does it", myself. --Delirium 00:38, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
OK, but we as a committee are not in a position to ban everyone who does it, are we? I mean, if we had other cases of excessive reversion to deal with, then we could deal with those too, but as it is we're only in a position to deal with Wik. So... --Camembert 01:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding temporary blocks

proposed

1. RickK, Hephaestos, and Ed Poor are reminded that temporary blocks are intended to be used in cases of repeat pure vandalism, or following clear community consensus. While the community is discussing extending the use of temporary blocks to cover other cases, individual sysops should not attempt to short-circuit that discussion.

Arbitrator votes for proposed warning:

  1. mav 06:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:42, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 14:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 19:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 13:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 16:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
  7. Camembert 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (though perhaps we could tone it down a little, as the blocks were on the whole made when there was a perceived power vacuum, and were done with the best of intentions)
  8. Gutza 00:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed warning:

Arbitrator abstentions on proposed warning: