Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case closed

This arbitration involves accusations against Wik levied by a number of other Wikipedians. The decision can be read at the bottom of the page, and was reached on 15 March 2004.

Contents

[edit] Evidence and statements

For details see /Evidence

[edit] Statement by Wik

Obviously I reject any accusations of wrongdoing against me, and I have replied to them sufficiently elsewhere. Taking the statements below as an example, it is easily seen that my enemies here are trolls (Anthony), POV pushers (Darkelf, VeryVerily), and people who can't distinguish between those and serious users when complaining about edit wars (Kosebamse, RickK). Edit wars are a bad thing just like real-life wars are a bad thing, but one has to distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. It is absurd to demand a sort of "edit pacifism" and say that if any POV pusher attacks an article, one should rather ignore that than waging an edit war. My edit wars were all defensive. Even some of my critics have had to agree that I'm usually right in the substance. It's not my fault that there's no better mechanism for deciding disputed content, as I have repeatedly urged.

Now for my part, I want to urge action against users Hephaestos, RickK, and Ed Poor for blocking me against the rules (Hephaestos and RickK twice each), and against Anthony DiPierro for being a blatant troll.

[edit] Statements by others

  • Wik continually reverts pages without explanation if he was not the last editor anymore. Wik refuses to negotiate or compromise, calling those he reverts 'trolls, POV pushers, and morons' (his words, from his talk page). He often marks his reverts as minor in an attempt to hide them. Jor 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik has admitted to reverting edits I have made "on principle" solely because they were made by me. He rarely if ever makes comprimises in edit wars, and rarely if ever accepts comprimises proposed by myself or third parties, saying that there's "no need to compromise with trolls." On this very page he stated that if an edit I made "wasn't obvious, [he] didn't necessarily waste time analyzing it, and reverted based on [my] history of stupid edits." The problem isn't that he participates in edit wars. The problem is how he participates in those edit wars. One thing I would like to have established is that these types of reverts are inappropriate. Reverting an established user without even doing a basic search to find the facts, and without even giving so much as a reason on the talk page or even in the comment section is not acceptable. If you've done a basic search and the information is not verifiable, then I can see removing it, once, with a comment "non-verifiable." But to go on reverting 5, 10, 15 times, with no comments, when a link to the verification is right there in the added references section is completely unacceptable. Wik has even gone so far as to remove my external links apparently without even looking at them. This is tantamount to a unilateral ban Wik has attempted to enforce against me, although he has graced me with the ability to add "obviously correct" material. Anthony DiPierro
  • Wik is a good contributor on political articles. He can be over-keen but his actual content is high quality. It always takes two to edit war, there are no "innocent" participants. Secretlondon 22:10, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • First, let me say that I may be not too neutral in this matter, as I have sometimes expressed my opinion that Wik's behavior is highly counter-productive. Also, I have protected several pages because of edit wars in which he was involved. However, I am not aware of having been involved in quarrels over article content with him. I would like to share my impressions on his views about his conduct and about Wikipedia as a whole. Wik and I had an extensive discussion about his behavior and views (archived here), and I have summarised my thoughts in this mailing list post. It is my impression that his views have not changed since then, but that his pattern of editing has even worsened (see for example his edit history for 12 and 13 February). Although highly unlikely, it seems possible that he is still acting in good faith despite the enormous amount of discussion that the Wikipedia community has directed at him to convince him of the destructive effects of his actions. Kosebamse 22:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik is constantly in a state of edit and revert war. People spend much too much time having to protect pages he is reverting. He refuses to abide by the three-revert war, and will revert just for the sake of reverting. He never puts comments on an edit, except for "rv", and will not even explain why he is reverting. RickK 02:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • After yet more encounters with Wik, I am forced to agree that a ban is appropriate. He is replaceable; whatever contributions he makes, one of hundreds of other contributors could make as well. And users like him and 172 who show a lack of respect for other users are not simply "good contributors," however much they write, because they do not work collaboratively. Such behavior has caused me to waste a lot of my time defending pages from reverting and such nonsense, time that I could have spent writing new articles and content. There is a long list of new content items I've been planning to add had I not been repeatedly sidetracked into dealing with recalcitrant and belligerent users. I expect others have had similar experiences, which leads me to conclude that Wik's would-be contributions are not worth this cost. Well, that's my two cents. -- VV 21:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that Wik is a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia- he has defended content and the NPOV opinion on many controversial articles, and has detected and dealt with many trolls. Granted, his tactics are rather 'vigilante,' but I don't think that he is acting outside the boundaries of wiki-law. As he has often stated, he does not abide by the 'three-revert' guideline because it is not an official rule. In my opinion, unless you have automatic page-protection, you need the people defending pages against trolls to be just as stubborn and insistent as the trolls themselves. - DropDeadGorgias 22:18, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik is a great resource on Wikipedia. As for the edit/revert wars, I hate them and I wish Wik would quit getting involved in them, but it takes two to tango. I say compare how much those who engage with Wik in edit/revert wars have actually contributed to Wikipedia. Dori | Talk 06:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik's enormous contribution to Wikipedia cannot be underestimated. Mintguy (T) 11:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik might be a fine contributor if he were the only one working on Wikipedia. However, he's not, and is historically impervious to any argument presented by any other person on any disputed point. On the off-chance that remedies are still being pondered, I propose that he be trained in the ways of discussion by being disallowed from reverting any change by a logged-in user, unless he gets agreement from one or more other people via the article's talk page first. The sole remedy proposed as I write this, a "warning", is totally pointless, because Wik has already repeatedly ignored direct messages from Jimbo, and as various statements in the "evidence" show, does not consider himself to be constrained by anything that is a mere suggestion. Stan 22:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik makes countless house keeping edits, including typos, redirects, correcting links and my own atrocious spelling. His dedication to Wikipedia is unquestionable and perhaps its the reason for his ruthless behaviour against people who he considers wrong. I hope the arbitrators keep this in mind. Muriel 08:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for accepting this case for arbitration

  • I had initially formed an opinion that we could not accept these matters due to the rather tenative state of our policy on reversion, but on viewing an e-mail message on the Wikien list from User:Ed Poor in which he says, 'No one has a "right to instantly revert" -- with the possible of exception of the edits of a hard-banned user.' I have changed my mind and hereby vote to accept these matters in order to address the question of repeated, "automatic" reversions. Fred Bauder 15:58, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • The community interest in the matter of Wik is high, to the extent that I feel the arbitration committee is almost compelled to hear that case. I therefore vote to hear that case. Martin 00:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to hear the matters of Wik and Anthony DiPierro because there seems to be a fairly strong feeling among the general Wikipedia community that we should, and because I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. --Camembert
  • I vote to hear the Wik case (will decide on the others after we finish this one). --Delirium 00:32, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I concur. We should hear this case since there is a good deal of interest in the community that this dispute needs to be resolved. --mav 08:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to hear the matter of Wik due to community interest. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to hear the Wik case. --Nohat 17:09, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

This decision was accepted on 15 March 2004, following private discussion, and public discussion and voting at /Proposed findings and remedies. Martin 23:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] findings of fact

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:

Accepted 8-1, with one de facto abstention.

Minority opinion by Gutza, below.

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:

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.

3. 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.

Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.

[edit] Minority opinions on findings of fact

non-binding opinions of groups of arbitrators

Opinion of one arbitrator: With respect to finding #1, 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. --Gutza

Opinion of four arbitrators: 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.

--mav, James F. (talk), Martin, Nohat

[edit] Remedies

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).

Accepted 7-1, with one explicit and one de facto abstention.

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.

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.

3. 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.

Accepted 6-3, with one de facto abstention.

[edit] Minority opinions on remedies

non-binding opinions of groups of arbitrators

Opinion of two arbitrators: 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. Delirium, Gutza

Opinion of four arbitrators: We feel it would be appropriate to take further action beyond remedy #3 mentioned above. This further remedy might take the form of a stronger form of probation, a one week ban as a specific penalty for automatic reverting, or an edit throttle limiting him to a small number of edits per day for a set time. Fred Bauder, mav, James F., the Epopt

[edit] Regarding temporary blocks

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.

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.