Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision

Discussion

Firstly I hope I am allowed to speak here, if not, please let me know ASAP where I should be speaking (thats why I have largely remained silent, I am uncertain of the policies on these matters, and don't wish top break rules).

I take issue with:

"On the evidence provided to the Arbitration Committee, he has generally adequately discussed the reasons for his changes, or reverts of the changes of others, and engaged with those who disagree with them."

I feel I have presented evidence to the contrary. I feel 172 does not discuss his reversions properly. I will attempt to make this more clear on the evidence page.

IMO a temp ban is not appropriate in the case of 172, I ask that he be desysopped, and/or restricted from reversion. I do not see him as behaving in a manner worthy of a temp ban, the vast majority of his work here is productive, and I am concerned that he may not react well to such a stern measure. Sam [Spade] 16:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, this is a fine place to offer your thoughts....you may not find that many arbitrators take time to respond, but do know that we read comments. I share some of your hesitancy concerning the principle about discussing reversions, and would welcome clarification on the evidence page (both from you and from 172 in his defense) -- I know 172 has often discussed his reversions, but I think that "generally" may be going too far as a characterization. I will review the evidence page in a few days to see what further evidence is provided, and consider what other wordings might be more appropriate in the meantime.

As far as the temp ban, it appears that all the arbitrators agree with you. The only proposed consequence is a revert parole, and I can't envision supporting a ban myself, even if it were proposed. Desysopping would likely only occur if it was clear admin privileges had been knowingly abused...it may be proposed, but I doubt it in this case. I am glad, by the way, to hear you acknowledge 172's work as "productive" in a majority of cases -- arbitration is much easier on us all when users can see some of the shades of grey. Thanks for your comments, and for remaining patient during this necessarily slow and careful process. Jwrosenzweig 04:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absoloutely. I understand the point about desysopping, and I know of no example of 172 having abused admin powers. I do feel his actions as an editor have reflected poorly upon his position however. That said, I have seen these temp-bans drive quality editors away, and I very much do not wish to see this repeated. As I have tried to make clear to 172, the sum of what he does here is positive, and even if his errors are large, his contributions are yet larger. Sam [Spade] 11:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, Sam, and for providing more evidence.

The problem is that revert paroles, potentially leading to temp bans, are the best method we have of restricting the level of reversion of a contributor. I suppose an alternative would be to forbid him from using the admin "rollback" feature. Hmm. Martin 13:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172 has solicited my comments on this case, since I've been involved in trying to deal with previous disputes involving him. To the extent that the remedies here address edit wars, it appears that he has reduced his participation in such conflicts. The proposed revert parole seems okay to me - since it appears 172 now generally follows the three revert rule, he's hopefully not going to cause any trouble in that regard. It doesn't hurt him much to be forbidden from doing something he doesn't want to do, and if that makes the remedy "ineffective", well that's exactly what we want anyway, right?

The prohibition on using "rollback" concerns me, however. While 172 has used this feature inappropriately before during edit wars, he's in the company of quite a few other admins in doing that. Furthermore, he does also use rollback for its proper purpose of dealing with vandalism. So an absolute prohibition on pain of desysoping seems extreme to me, since it doesn't consider circumstances in which he might justifiably use the feature. Is he going to be automatically desysoped if he makes just one rollback for an edit that really was vandalism? I would suggest something more along the lines of a stern warning about the use of the rollback feature, and revisit the question if there are future infractions. --Michael Snow 22:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A very important point. Thank you for raising it. Martin 16:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Caveats

Reading over the matter a few things occur to me. Much of the complaint seems to be that 172 reverts without giving explanations. It seems as well that when doing reverts he often uses the "rollback" feature available to admins. I think it should be pointed out to non-admins (and remembered by admins) that the rollback feature does not give the person using it the ability to provide an edit summary. Rather, the edit summary is automatically provided. If editors who are reverting are required to provide an explanation for each reversion then the rollback feature presents a problem since though being designed to automatically revert it gives no opportunity for one to give an explanation as to why the feature is being used. Perhaps the problem then is not with 172 as much as it is with the rollback feature? Perhaps one solution, rather than banning 172 from using the rollback, is to modify the rollback feature so that the user can provide an reason for its use?

Aside from rollback, this seems to be the case of one "edit warrior" going up against other "edit warrior"s and I think the ArbCom has to be very careful before taking sides in a conflict between edit warriors. Perhaps, if discipline is warranted it should be applied to both sides or perhaps some sort of mediation or perhaps a simple arbitration on the issues involved in the edit war (rarther than the edit war itself) is in order. Ie a ruling of which side is "right" in which conflict and a request that both sides now abide by that ruling. Snowspinner was quite good in mediating informally on the Lyndon LaRouche matter, perhaps he can be recruited here (ie to mediate on the issues rather than mete out punishment).AndyL 23:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rollback is supposed to be used only for vandalism. If an explanation for the revert is required, rollback should not be used. --Michael Snow 23:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That this is 172 and multiple others makes it feel reasonable to me to focus on 172. Most of those others will, if they likewise get into edit wars with many others, get here eventually, I hope. Not fast enough, I know. :( Martin 16:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I notice from 172's user contributions that he has lately ceased the impassioned reversions which have in the past characterized his editing. This role seems to have been assumed by users Shorne and User:Ruy Lopez. While the only evidence I have is the sparse editing by 172 and the intense edit warring engaged in by Shorne and Ruy Lopez I am somewhat suspicious that we may be dealing with the same users. We are certainly dealing with a group with the same political agenda to shape Wikipedia articles from a revisionist (as in Holocaust denial) point of view. For example with regard to the article Communist state where he in the past aggressively defended his ownership of the article that role is now being played by Shorne and Ruy Lopez, while 172 stays in the background, only occassionally posting something on their talk pages to egg them on and acting as a supposedly objective administrator to protect pages they are edit warring on. Fred Bauder 15:38, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from stating the inferences that I draw regarding Fred Bauder's mental health after reading the above. He is embarrassing himself again. 172 16:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there not some way of determining the IP addresses of logged in users? A simple examination of IPs may prove that someone is a sockpuppet and may also rule out sockpuppetry (for instance when IP addresses are located in different cities or countries).AndyL 05:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A developer can check IP logs, but frankly I don't see that it's necessary. I consider it somewhat possible that Ruy Lopez and/or Shorne may be new versions of the user(s) once known as Richardchilton, Hanpuk, etc. but the suggestion that 172 created any of these accounts as alter egos to play some kind of good-cop/bad-cop routine is pretty ludicrous. I've never known 172 to use sockpuppets and never observed any user with quite the same characteristics. In this case the patterns of editing, conduct, and writing style are all markedly and consistently different in my estimation. If this kind of allegation is worth taking seriously, we might as well decide that Fred and VeryVerily are the same person. --Michael Snow 21:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In that case I would prefer it if allegations of sockpuppetry not be thrown around unless there is hard evidence. If Fred's suspicions are so strong he should contact a developer and see if his suspicions are supported by facts. Otherwise, throwing out allegations like this in the wikienvironment are really just a smear. AndyL 22:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are easy answers here. Ruy Lopez is an incarnation of Richardchilton/Hanpuk/etc. Shorne is not, although he may have had other accounts in the past. 172 is not any of these people. Believe me or not, but those are the facts, which I can say with definitiveness, being an expert on these users. And I am not Fred Bauder. VeryVerily 00:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Ruy Lopez and Richardchilton match while Shorne does not. Styles do differ between the three editors and 172 also. Fred Bauder 13:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to provide Evidence to back up this accusation, they are welcome to do so. Martin 16:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asinine AC rulings

Re: This has caused disputes involving 172 to take on a prominence that they would not otherwise have had, disrupting the normal working of Wikipedia, and wasting the time of all concerned It takes two to tango in an edit war, but the AC is singling me out... With some AC members I'm sure that it's an editorial or personal bias... However, I think that the AC as a whole is out to single me out and discredit me because I have spoken out against its long history of asinine rulings. Whatever damage caused by a few back and forward reversions, it is nothing next to the damage caused by the AC itself. The AC systematically punishes serious editors like 168..., Wik, Adam Carr, RK, and now me while coddling the cranks and crackpots who are sabotaging our work. Because of the AC Wiki is falling under the control of an insular, legalistic cabal easily manipulated by trolls, fanatics, and fools... At this rate Wiki will turn into an utter joke within, say, six months. 172 17:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is asinine is giving this noted POV warrior a slap on the wrist. Fred Bauder 19:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Coming from Fred Bauder, the most fanatical POV warrior of them all and the Joe McCarthy of Wiki. 172 23:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe we have ever punished 168... If I recall, the case closed inconclusively. Martin 16:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it

While we're at it, get around to providing evidence against the factual standing of the content of that you are trying to remove in History of the United States (1865-1918) instead of putting on this dog and pony show with the AC. 172 23:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats a matter of POV, not of factual accuracy. I don't need to cite anything in order to correct obvious bias and editorial slanting. Sam [Spade] 23:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence demonstrating "obvious bias and editorial slanting." Nor was anyone else backing your position... I suppose, though, that you'll be able to continue to get away with these lies, as no one will probably bother to check the talk page. 172 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig's advice

I would prefer simply that 172 give edit summaries when reverting any established user, even those he finds trollish. Until the past few days-- when the rollback feature got brought up in Martin's votes-- I don't remember getting a warning about my use of this feature. But it's reasonable. I will follow Jwrosenzweig's advice and use it very sparingly, only in cases of obvious vandalism. 172 06:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool - I can change my votes accordingly. Martin 15:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Should 172 be blocked as a result of violating his revert patrol, and should he unblock himself, he should be subject to de-adminship. I find this proposed decision an especially unwarranted slap in the face. I have been an administrator for a year and a half, indeed for a longer span of time than many arbitrators have had accounts on Wikipedia. Over this course of time, I have protected, deleted, and moved scores of pages; I have blocked dozens of vandals; and I have 'rolledbacked' a considerable amount of vandalism as an admin. I have volunteered a considerable amount of time to strengthening governance of Wiki; and I have never acted in an unprofessional or unethical manner as an administrator. I have never used my position inappropriately to 'get my way' in a dispute. So it's outrageous that the Arbitration Committee is implying that there's any risk that I'll circumvent its decision willingly. If I haven't acted unscrupulously as an admin so far, why should the Arbitration Committee imply that this likely to change following this ruling? 172 06:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're the only admin we've ever considered putting under a revert parole, and it might be a useful precedent in future cases, where some admin might be less professional. However, I don't think it's necessary in addition to the existing remedy.The slow speed of arbcom decision-making is the problem, really. Martin 19:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More comments

Re: In past disputes, 172 has engaged in repeated "revert warring" with other editors - reverting articles many many times in the space of a few hours. This has caused disputes involving 172 to take on a prominence that they would not otherwise have had, disrupting the normal working of Wikipedia, and wasting the time of all concerned. While the individual disputes have been largely resolved, this underlying problem has not.

This is not true. I was involved in 'revert wars' only sporadically since I'd privately negotiated an edit to the arbitration case between VeryVerily and me earlier in the Spring of this year. For nearly half a year, I've been involved in revert wars no more frequently than the typical admin who is also an active writer/editor of our history and politics articles. I now chose to rally other editors and favor consensus driven change (as opposed to reversions) to maintain the quality of our articles, given the changes brought by the development of a conflict resolution process, of which the Arbitration Committee is a core. (The conflict resolution process did not exist when I stated out as a contributor on Wikipedia)... The arbitrators seem to be overlooking the fact that 'revert wars' were far more common (and even considered inevitable) in the early days of Wiki's development, as I was getting stated. (Indeed several of the more senior members of the AC got into their fair share of 'revert wars' before users like, say, Raul654, first started work on Wiki.) My point is that the process of managing conflict has changed significantly in the past year with the increasing power of the AC, and that I have already adjusted my tactics to these changes (unlike the users Michael Snow is bringing before the AC). I did so months before the AC had agreed to hear this particular case. In other words, both the individual disputes have already been resolved, along with the "underlying problem."

Re: He has certainly made quite a few good contributions, although through edit warring he has also caused more than his share of problems. When talking about his legitimacy (whatever that is) I find it hard to seperate the two. (Raul654)

Do I lack the legitimacy as an editor to correct the spelling of "separate"? (Just a good-natured joke-- sorry I couldn't help myself.) A few good contributions? How about 'a few' featured articles? I'm not into self-promotion (hence my desire to contribute anonymously), but come on! The fact that the AC agreed to hear this case without limiting it to certain disputes and/or a certain period, without even considering the complainants, is a slap in the face. This certainly will call my legitimacy as an editor into question among users who haven't worked with me or read my work. (This is the broadest 'investigation' that this committee has ever heard, considering that I've been hear for nearly two years and that I'm among one of the most active editors in Wikipedia's history.)

Yes, I've made a few tactical mistakes; and I am the first to admit this. (The most regrettable were my reversions on the Fidel Castro and the Kim Jong-Il this July, which was brought up in the evidence. Though I certainly stand by my uncompromising stance in that dispute, I could have-- and should have-- rallied other editors as opposed to dealing with this user unilaterally.) But why should this overshadow how I've volunteered so much time doing so much for nearly two years? An admin had to take a minute to protect the pages, and that's it. I protect pages all the time and I don't consider it much of a disruption. It takes far more time to write articles, which I used to be able to do all the time before my entanglement in this arbitration case.

Re: I find "legitimate" to be an ambigous term.

I prefer the wording that asserts that Arbitration Committee's criticism of reversions does not diminish my "legitimacy" as an editor. I also appreciate Martin's statement that I'm a "valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." The affirmation of statements are necessary for me to be able to continue working on Wiki, as I will not be able to function in the community without it given the fallout from the other rulings. A positive statement will balance the fact that the AC is on the verge of placing me on 'revert parole' without placing the complainants on revert parole too.

Otherwise, the AC seems to be implying that I was consistently in the wrong... Consider what a ruling that only singles out only my use of reversion without even mentioning the other editors implies. Am I or am I not the editor who has the facts on my side? That's probably not within the committee's jurisdiction to decide, but the page histories thoroughly demonstrate that I've always been ready to defend my reasoning on talk. Even the AC seems to understand this:

"User:172 has, like many Wikipedians, engaged in a variety of debates, relating to specific articles. On the evidence provided to the Arbitration Committee, he has generally adequately discussed the reasons for his changes, or reverts of the changes of others, and engaged with those who disagree with them."

In addition, even a former arbitrator (UninvitedCompany) is able distinguish to my use of reversions and those of the complainants. [1]

Thus, I'd like to ask the remaining members of the AC to join Jwrosenzweig's abstention on the revert parole. Considering uc's comments [2], it calls into question the fairness of the process to solely focus on my edits without considering the complainants. Moreover, I already adjusted my editing tactics months before this case was opened.

Thanks for reading my response,

172 07:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an addendum to my abstention, I will note that if at least one arbitrator joins my abstention, I will consider it enough of a sign that I am not alone that I will propose an alternative remedy in which all complainants are placed under revert parole also. I don't want to waste time with a proposal that no one prefers, but I do think it is more fair and reasonable. To reiterate my stance on revert parole, I personally would be happy to have it imposed on me, and I honestly behave at all times as though I were on revert parole, so I think it a very reasonable consequence to impose on others. Jwrosenzweig 22:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather see no one placed on revert parole... I can understand a warning. But I doubt that I can continue working on Wiki with the stigma associated with such a ruling... I also question the fairness. After all, I already pledged to avoid reversions; and I'll reiterate right now my pledge to voluntarily follow the three revert rule [3] In the past, revert wars were commonplace on controversial topics in history and politics, where I'd made the bulk of my edits. But with the strengthening of the conflict resolution process along with the growth in the number of admins, I understand already that reversions are now not only unacceptable but also ineffective. And I adjusted to these changes before this case was even opened. 172 01:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right: it's certainly not within my remit to decide the facts. Really, how arrogant would it be for me, with a GCSE in history, to presume to judge the truth of some matter of historical controversy?

Actually, I suspect that Wik's two arbitrations were about as broad as yours. He made many more edits, each edit was smaller, and he got into more disputes.

You make a good defence, and your pledge is very welcome. I'm also aware that Sam Spade, who brought the case, is requesting only a warning (below). Martin 19:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But unlike Wik's case, not only have the individual disputes been largely resolved, so has the underlying problem has not, as I keep on saying, given the rise of a conflict resolution process (which means that repeated reversions are no longer an inevitable part of conflicts over point of view)... So I doubt that there will be any constructive consequences borne out of putting anyone involved in this case on revert parole (including Sam Spade). The problem has been solved without sanctioning anyone. The only effect of a revert parole would be negative-- diminishing the reputation of an editor among the community (which is likely to infer that a revert parole means that a certain editor is not to be trusted). 172 19:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

I wrote this earlier, and it seems it was ignored. I feel a need to repeat:

2) user:172 has, like many Wikipedians, engaged in a variety of debates, relating to specific articles. On the evidence provided to the Arbitration Committee, he has generally adequately discussed the reasons for his changes, or reverts of the changes of others, and engaged with those who disagree with them.

3) In past disputes, 172 has engaged in insulting or disrespectful behaviour of the sort that is worthy of censure. However, 172 appears to have resolved the majority of these disputes via earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, and no evidence has been presented of more recent behaviour of this sort.

I ask that those arbitrators who have already voted on these two statements reconsider in light of recent developments, and additions to the evidence. 172 has been involved in revert wars far more than the average admin, and rarely discusses them in talk. Sam [Spade] 21:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reconsidered, but my opinion is unchanged. Martin 19:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sam Spade 22:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whats most important

All other things aside, what is most important in all of this is that 172 become a better editor, not that he be driven away, or given a mandate to enforce his POV (which is legendary, even if he doesn't own up to it ;). I don't think anything official is needed other than a warning, perhaps a censure, and some stern advice should this situation repeat itself. he chose not to do it, but i have told him time and time again that if he only publically promises to strive to obey policy, and to lead by example, I would be completely satisfied! If this ends with him either feeling vindicated and able to do as he pleases, or so offended that he leaves the project, were all the worse from the experience. Lets make this a win/win, not a lose/lose situation! Sam [Spade] 02:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) I have already pledged repeatedly to avoid reversions. I repeated this over and over again in my postings above. 2) If anyone can provide concrete historical evidence challenging any of my work, I always can-- and will-- respond promptly in kind. 172 02:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I always tell you, yours is not a problem of factual innaccuracy, it is a problem of editorial bias. You state your opinions as tho they were fact, in the body of the article, and revert those who attempt to correct this. If yours was a problem of factual innacuracy or fraud, i'd want you banned, particularly given your copious contributions. Thank God thats not the case! Sam [Spade] 02:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me know if you can provide evidence of bias and the omission of important information in any of my work. Otherwise I'm not interested in empty finger-pointing. BTW, this conversation has digressed and should be continued on the relevant talk pages of any articles that you want to call to attention. 172 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172/Evidence. Let me know where you made such promises as I was expecting, I havn't been able to find them, only repitition of your innocence. Sam [Spade] 02:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved comments from non-arbitrator

I think the excessive numbers of reverts by 172 is worthy of censure, if we are considering a "general tendancy towards edit wars", as in the request for arbitration. The two pages Jimbo links to here, where 172 and Trey Stone edit war, seem particularly convincing. 72 apparently considers the matter to be "resolved", but I'm not sure what he means by that. The specific causes of individual edit wars may be resolved, but I don't see what is to stop the same thing happening again, the next time someone like Trey Stone or Lir or whoever refuses to give way to 172.

I'm currently feeling that a revert parole on 172 would be an appropriate sanction. My concern is that others with opposed points of view might take advantage of this. Martin 22:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Martin (In the unlikely event that [172 unblocked himself], I would expect the community to deal with it as they would any other instance of abuse of admin powers)

Since we are the ones putting him on revert patrol, I think it would be remiss on our part not to include some plan of action in the (admittedly unlikely) event that he uses his powers to unban himself. →Raul654 19:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)