Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Some aspects of the decision 2 My compliments 3 "bad faith" 4 a note 5 Proposed remedies 6 Additional remedy requested

[edit] Some aspects of the decision

Can we have a finding of fact along the lines of "It is reasonable to expect that an article on a concept will begin with and emphasize current usage of the concept, although the evolution of that usage is certainly relevent?" I think this is a major issue that goes beyond POV in this case - WHEELER is a POV pusher, to be sure, but he also has a second problem, which is that he disregards recent developments in the history of thought entirely. This seems to go well beyond what we usually talk about when we say POV, and I think a finding to this effect would be nice.

Could we have a finding on the degree to which WHEELER's incivility, bad faith, and POV pushing made it difficult or impossible to reach a compromise on the inclusion of classicist topics in articles such as Effeminacy, noting particularly the willingness to compromise on the part of many editors (Hyacinth springs to mind) that was rebuffed?

Finally, and this may be something the arbcom wants to run in terror about, what does one do in the case where a very reasonable case can be made that the decision of the community as expressed by consensus is totally wrong? Specifically, I'm thinking of Classical definition of republic. If the findings regarding the quality of WHEELER's contributions pass, it follows somewhat logically that the arbcom is saying the article was not original research and should not have been deleted. I'm OK with that, but in that case, what sort of behavior should win the day? Is WHEELER right to repeatedly relist an article for undeletion because of his perception that he is right and everybody else is wrong? Certainly we frown upon that most of the time. Can the arbcom make some sort of statement about whether or not being right is sufficient justfication to defy consensus? Snowspinner 15:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your final point alludes to the necessary policy changes I have mentioned repeatedly, and therefore is not something the arb com is going to be able to do alot about. I do think this case would do well to inspire policy reform and discussion thereof. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My compliments

My compliments to Grunt and his fine work, I think he strikes at the heart of the matter, particularly WHEELER's fine and copious (while classically biased) contributions and the unfair persecution and deletions they have endured, as well as the unfortunate lack of faith on his part (and incidentilly on the part of the a great deal of his opposition as well). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "bad faith"

"WHEELER has expressed his lack of faith..."

I would like to note that "lack of faith" is certainly not equivalent to "bad faith", so this section's title is misleading. I certainly also "lack faith" in the competence of many editors around here, but that doesn't make me a bad faith editor. this is not an endorsement of anything, just my 2 cents on how things are phrased at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point.. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'"Homosexuals have free reign in Wikipedia but anybody they percieve that is anti-democracy or anti semetic, which I am not, they are going to "run me out of town.""' - From one of the diffs cited as evidence in that finding.

If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is. Snowspinner 19:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

um, no, that's lack of faith, a pessimistic outlook based on his experience, apparently. bad faith is making insincere edits, e.g. disruption to make a point, stating falsehoods knowingly etc. As WHEELER's peer, I would point out that it is "free rein", not "free reign", that's a mis-spelling unworthy of an eminent classicist :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editing in bad faith would be doing those things, yes. The accusation, though, is that he is assuming bad faith. The relevent policy is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The precedent would be the case against Xed, where he was nailed for "widespread assumption of bad faith." Snowspinner 15:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Or, more specifically, for the personal abuse that so often follows from assumption of bad faith. And I do think "Homosexuals have a free rein in Wikipedia but anybody they percieve that is anti-democracy or anti semetic, which I am not, they are going to "run me out of town"" [1] is a good example of assumption of bad faith turning into personal attacks - David Gerard 17:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. it's about Wheeler assuming bad faith. How justified he is in this will of course depend on the situation, I am sure he would argue that his assumptions do not come out of the blue, but I think that clarifies the point. dab (ᛏ) 11:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a note

Ambi, an arbitrator, commented on the Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations' talk page:

This new organisation will have no right to "veto" users that they don't like, for the Arbitration Committee will still be able to reject (and indeed take action against the perpetrator of if necessary) any cases that are deemed to be frivolous, unwarranted or in bad faith.

To which I replied that the outcome of this case will be a good test of this theory. I also note that the arbcom didn't reject this case. I thought this worth noting here. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, thank you. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. However, with the evidence (And proposed findings) of incivility and bad faith, I hardly think the case is frivolous or unwarranted. What makes you think it's in bad faith? Snowspinner 17:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Because I do not believe that lack of trust in the ability of other editors to edit certain areas and a few outbursts warrant bringing an arbitration case, especially when no earlier steps of dispute resolution were tried, the prosecutor of the case had had minimal interaction with the target since last summer, and the editor targeted had immensely improved his earlier bad habits. And it was especially galling to see when other users were working quite successfully with the target of the case; try asking Wetman, say, for his opinion on W's editing. Then too, some of the lack of faith might have been warranted: some people who knew nothing of the subject were deciding it was "original research", and others were displaying shocking intellectual laziness ("I shouldn't have to read other sources"). The outbursts too were understandable, if not justifiable, and perhaps ought to have been forgiven: having a major article that had real potential amidst its flaws deleted outright (based on the opinions of, among others, those who can't be bothered to check sources) rather than edited into respectability would trouble anyone. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

As WHEELER's advocate I support all current proposed remedies, and compliment Sannse for her thought and care in writing them. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 17:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional remedy requested

I request a remedy akin to what David requested in the John Gohde case, namely an essay explaining why the policies in question are important and should be followed. Snowspinner 19:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a similar case, and the level of consequences should be in no way equivelent. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted, I think that remedy is drastic underkill for John Gohde and support a year ban. :) Snowspinner 20:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)