Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wik

mediation first?

Has the matter of Wik gone to the Mediation Committee yet? That is necessary to happen before going to the Arbitration Committee, no? Kingturtle 00:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not according to our Jurisdiction at wikipedia:arbitration policy, which permits us to accept cases that have not gone through mediation. In this case, the mediator discussion can be read at the mediation board, and it seems to suggest that further mediation would not be helpful. Martin 00:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The why does step four read: The other steps failing you must have requested mediation on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and tried and failed to resolve the dispute through the good offices of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in order to proceed to the last step, requesting arbitration. ? Kingturtle 00:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because it's inaccurate and it needs fixing, on account of we're halfway through sorting the process out.

I moved your comment here because (a) you're not an arbitrator and (b) this page is tough enough to manage without threadmode making it worse. Yes, this is probably elitist, but it doesn't make it easier to figure out the requisite four votes needed when a few hundred people can interject their two cents. Martin 00:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the metapage is overly posted. I was just following what looked like the protocol. Maybe you should remove the "Matters of" and "Evidence" from the metapage too. They are not formal requests. Kingturtle 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

targeting RickK?

Since the addition of my entry to this page, Wik has begun a campaing of reverting my reversions of POV material. He has turned his attention from reverting all of Anthony DiPierro's changes to reverting all of mine. RickK 04:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was Rick who started reverting all of Hector's changes. I reverted his reversions exactly like Rick reverted my reversions of Anthony's nonsense edits. The only difference is that I can't block Rick as he blocked me. --Wik 04:47, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I did not revert all of Hector's additions, unlike Wik, who announced that he would revert any and all additions made by Anthony, whatever their merit. RickK 04:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did not revert any and all of Anthony's edits either. If something was obviously correct, I left it in place. But if it wasn't obvious, I didn't necessarily waste time analyzing it, and reverted based on Anthony's history of stupid edits. And that's exactly the same Rick did with Hector, having once decided that Hector is on a POV crusade, he just reverted, thereby just pushing his own POV, as he has no less of a pro-American bias than Hector has an anti-American one. --Wik 05:00, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree about this blind reversion. It seems like VeryVerily (and at least for today, RickK) always just looks through my user history and reverts every edit I make, no matter what it is. Here's an example - I edit the French Communist Party page and note that for years the PCF was the largest political party in France. I also change the nickname of Pol Pot to the real name Saloth Sar, but that is a minor point, since he is just one of the millions of PCF members anyway. So what happens? VV goes through my user history and reverts everything I editted. So I go through his edit history and re-revert everything. Then RickK does what VV did and re-re-reverts once again what I had re-reverted. On the conflicts between users page, RickK accuses me of "adding blatantly POV additions". How POV is is to note that the PCF was France's largest political party at one time? It's a fact, look at election results. Anyhow, for today at least, RickK accusing Wik of being revert-crazy is the pot calling the kettle black. -- HectorRodriguez 06:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hope the arbitration committee is able to establish that these types of reverts are not to continue. 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 15:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • Please keep politics out of it. The wikipedia would be so much simpler if everyone shared my POV as well. You have (in my eyes) a strong American POV, that is not shared by 172 or Wik. Perhaps we should ban everyone who disagrees with us? Secretlondon 08:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is the matter now closed, since over seven days have passed since acceptance of the case and no decision has been made? -- Emsworth 22:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's a time limit on decisions being made. If there were a seven day limit, then all three current cases would just be thrown out, and that makes no sense. The arbitrators appear to be voting on the findings of fact and remedies at the moment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Decision. fabiform | talk 22:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the "Emergency Session" section of wikipedia:arbitration policy would imply a one week deadline. Since we got four cases going on at once, we've interpreted that a little more flexibly than perhaps we should. Martin 23:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For me four cases = four weeks to decide them all. I'm sure we will be able to go faster once everything is set up and we have some more experience. I'm spending as much time as I can on arbitration as it is. --mav 05:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

thank you Arbitration Committee

Thank you for making a ruling. Keep up the good work. I realize the process is time consuming, and that you have no previous Committees to refer to, but your work is vital to our community. Please take on more cases soon :) Kingturtle 23:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --mav

I will abide by the committee's ruling. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What a crock

Great. Wik gets a slap on the wrist, and Ed Poor, Hephaestos and I get warnings for doing what nobody else on Wikipedia had the guts to do. It's obvious that the Arbitration and Mediation process is nonsense, and I will not participate in it again. RickK | Talk 02:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I agree with you that arbitration didn't work very well in this situation, I believe that was because it was brought prematurely. As for not participating in arbitration, you really don't have a choice. Jimbo referred this case to the arbitration committee, and refusing to submit to arbitration, he says, "means an end to the privilege of editing." Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick, although a couple of people initially thanked me for temp-blocking Wik, I was acting unilaterally: i.e., as a vigilante. I would prefer that all of us follow a single set of rules, and that an enforcement policy be followed fairly. The "warning" I got merely restates as official policy what I've been hoping for all along. I am content. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heh, past history suggests Wik will be unable to control himself and will be back in the dock soon enough. The process has revealed more Wik supporters than I would have guessed, which is interesting to know. Stan 14:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Partially agreed: while the committee failed here in my opinion, I still welcome its existance. Hopefully future cases will be handled properly instead. — Jor (Darkelf) 15:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick: I'm unsure why you describe our reminder to Wik as a "slap on the wrist", and our reminder to you as a "warning", as if they were two very different beasts. They are both formal reminders.

Also, you may note that Wik got, as well as a formal reminder, a three month probationary period, with the possibility of 24hr temp bans during this period. If you wish to assist the process, you may want to ensure that Wik complies by the terms of his probation, and apply a temporary ban if he does not. Martin 18:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NO way. It would be just what people like you are looking for to get me blocked. RickK | Talk 01:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See, now I'm just confused. The arbitration committee (as a group) has explicitly authorised sysops to temp-block Wik in certain circumstances, as laid down in "remedy three" of our decision. An administrator is unlikely to face much serious criticism for a block explicitly authorised by the arbitration committee.

Regardless of that, I hope you are at least reassured that Wik did not get off with just a "slap on the wrist". Martin 01:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm dubious of the effect a temp block would even have. Edit comments from Wik such as "rv, new UTC day" lead me to believe that after the three months is up, the situation will revert to what it was before and this case will again be in arbitration. - Hephaestos|§ 01:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So far, Wik is sticking to the terms set out by the arbitrations committee. For three months, we'll have relative peace, and we'll get experience with how well this remedy works. After three months, if this comes back to arbitration, the arbitrators are likely to hand down a stiffer sentence (at least according to what Fred said on the mailing list). I think it's a good result. -- Cyan 02:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, in fact he just got his first 24 hour block. MyRedDice obviously disagreed with the UTC 24 hour idea. fabiform | talk 03:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just used my judgement as a sysop, on seeing behaviour I felt might breach the probation. UTC (or any particular timezone) doesn't make much sense in an international project. Wik's suggestion of any 24 hour time period made more sense to me. I hadn't really considered the matter previously.

No doubt there will be future cases in which arbitration committee decisions are subject to interpretation. Folks have to use their judgement, in the end. Sysops who have a pattern of bad judgements will probably be asked by the community to resign as sysop. Martin 18:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd urge others to follow Martin's lead here - don't worry too much about how you measure the day. There's a certain amount of flexibility as to how to interpret "day" in the ruling. If you use your best judgement and act in good faith, you should be fine.

I'm a bit disappointed that some are saying this remedy is a failure so soon, by the way. If after a month or two things are no better or are even worse than they were before, then we can probably say this rememdy hasn't done us much good, but to me it seems too early to be making such judgements just yet. --Camembert

Clarification request

copied from user talk:Wik

Dear Wik,

The arbitration committee has investigated your case, and reached a decision. As a result of that decision:

The arbitration committee reminds you 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.

The arbitration committee rules that you shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period you revert the same page more than three times on the same day, you 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, you may be banned for an additional 24 hours, above the normal banning period.

Sincerely,
Martin (on behalf of the arbitration committee)

Does "three times on the same day" mean on the same calendar day (if so, according to which timezone) or does it mean three times within any 24-hour period? Also, does "sysop's judgement" mean that if one sysop bans me, another who disagrees with it could immediately unban me? --Wik 23:39, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest concentrating on avoiding making multiple reverts, rather than worrying about the exact definition of the word "day". You may wish to err on the side of safety. Martin 23:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you can't give a clear answer, I'll assume calendar days according to UTC. --Wik 00:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

You assumed wrong. See you in 24 hours. Martin 02:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

discussion continued here

[This] decision leaves some questions open, which probably no member of the committee thought about. Does "Three reverts in a day" refer to a calendar day, as might be typically assumed, or does "day" mean any 24-hour period? I asked on my talk page, but Martin failed to give a clear answer; I then said I would assume the calendar day, Martin didn't respond to that, yet he blocked me as soon as I reverted on a new calendar day, apparently because it wasn't 24 hours after the last revert on the previous day. I don't think he has the authority to decide this on his own anyway, and if so, he should have been clear. So I would like to have an official answer from the committee as a whole, and maybe Martin can be warned to adopt a more helpful attitude than he showed on my talk page. Furthermore I would like to know whether "sysop's judgement" means that a sysop can also unblock me if his judgement differs from another sysop who blocked me. --Wik 01:56, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

It is, to me, blindingly obvious that it means a rolling 24 hour period.

The sad thing, really, is that you're attempting to 'game' the system here, needing to work out exactly how much you're pissing everyone else off and whether you think you can get away with it. The point of the order was to encourage you to reform your poor behaviour, rather than merely act as a impediment on it.

Martin, now as in the past, enjoys my complete confidence.

James F. (talk) 02:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How this is "blindingly obvious" is beyond me. Normally when one speaks of the "next day", it is the next calendar day, even if it's just ten minutes away. If you meant any 24-hour period you should have been explicit about that. So I would still request a vote of all arbitrators on that. As to the point of the order, an impediment is precisely what it is. If you want me to stop reverting as many times as I'm allowed, you should either provide a system of content arbitration or explain why I should just let content in place which I know is wrong. --Wik 02:25, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, "day" means any 24-hour period, for the reasons Martin states above.

I can only repeat what Martin said on your talk page and what James has said above: rather than trying to work out exactly how many reverts you're allowed before you get a ban, you should concentrate on avoiding reverting so much in the first place. I note that you're currently involved in edit wars over Antinomy, Paradox and Schnorrer. I note also that you've not made any comment on the talk page of any of those articles. Reverting a page without any discussion is rarely a productive way to edit. It's better to explain why you think your version is best and to address the concerns of others on the talk page. --Camembert

You can hardly expect that this kind of punishment makes me see things your way, so of course I want to know exactly how many reverts I'm allowed, especially when Anthony is in no way restricted and even allowed to use obvious sockpuppets to hide his reverts. The substance of the three disputes is rather self-evident, I also explained it on my user page. As usual, you're exhibiting your bias by blaming me, as if Anthony made any comment on those talk pages. --Wik 02:40, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)