Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
- Cberlet (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
- Intangible (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
[edit] Summary of case
Intangible engages in:
- Reverting with little or no serious discussion
- Making sweeping edits and deletions with misleading subject lines
- Contentious and confrontational discussion page interactions
- Walking editors in circles on discussion pages
- Idiosyncratic use of language and translations
- Attempts to revise Wikipedia categories citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
- Revising articles citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
- Sanitizing articles about right-wing groups and their ties to the far right and neofascism
- POV pushing through wholesale deletion of the term "far right" from numerous pages
Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate.
[edit] Statement by Cberlet (talk • contribs)
Intangible is an aggressive and confrontational editor with an idiosyncratic POV and a combative style that is contentious and very disruptive. Intangible deletes whole sections of articles with little or no serious discussion: Neo-fascism here. Intangible performs unreasonable deletions to POV push: here, here, here, here.
Intangible has launched a campaign or Renaming/Deleting Categories in POV way here, here, here, here, here, here.
In a short time Intangible has lined up a number of editors who are frustrated with the situation (see below). I note that Intangible has been blocked for 3RR here. Also, Intangible edits in a tag team fashion with User:Vision_Thing, see here and here.
The discussion on the page Nouvelle_Droite is an example of dubious translation and language issues, using an obscure cite to challenge majority scholarship, POV pushing, and arguing in circles. See: here.
Intangible engages in rapid-fire discussions on multiple pages, frequently declaring there is a consensus when none exists or that there is no discussion, has the same debate on multiple pages with multiple editors, then procedes to edit in an idiosyncratic POV way. The following series of edits was accomplished between the time I last asked for agreement for mediation and Intangibleresponding that he could not discuss the suggestion because an artitration was filed. I filed the arbitration because it was clear that Intangible was going to continue his pattern of disruptive and combative edits and circular discussion page entries: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].
There are several editors who have added their comments and diffs below.
--Cberlet 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Intangible
- This RFAr filing has no merit. I have only declined mediation once, namely here, because there was still an on-going discussion on Neo-Fascism#Section on the United States, which continued here. About my editing, I think it suffices to say that all my edits are sourced [13] [14][15] [16] (to name a few) and I am always happy to provide direct quotes from the sources I use [17] [18][19][20][21][22][23]. On multiple occasions I have asked User:Cberlet to use direct quotes or make explicit what his references are saying [24][25][26][27][28], alas to no avail. That this was needed was also put forth by other wikipedia editors [29][30]. And in the rare cases User:Cberlet is explicit[31], he uses a piece from the Institute for Historical Review#Journal of Historical Review, while other sources should be available.
- About my deletion of the section in the Neo-Fascism article [32], that that section was unbalanced and POV, which was later acknowledged here [33][34]
- About putting up articles or categories up for deletion, maybe User:Cberlet should have included these as well: [35] [36] [37] [38]. See also Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words implying a value judgement.
- I have only been blocked once for "3RR," this was because other editors kept removing a POV tag, after I went to the talk page to discuss my inclusion of this tag.[39][40][41][42] One of these editors, User:AaronS, was later found to be in contempt with the 3RR rule in removing this POV tag.[43]. See also User_talk:Intangible#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block.
- The goal which User:Cberlet seeks in this RFAr, "Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate," is utterly vague. I can only see this process as a character assassination; something that has become a custom of User:Cberlet ever since calling me an "apologist for neofascism."[44][45] I do not think ArbCom should also become part of this. Nonetheless, if need be, I am happy to defend this case more fully, to stop this pestering.
- Intangible 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- Accept. Dmcdevit·t 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Bans for disruption
1) Users who disrupt articles or sets of articles by edit warring or otherwise may be banned from editing in that area, in extreme cases from the site.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Euphemistic language
2) Wikipedia is not censored. The words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
3) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finding of the facts
[edit] Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is edits by Intangible (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) to articles which relate to nationalist or right wing European political parties. It is alleged that Intangible engages in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of such parties. Cberlet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and other have taken an opposing view.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring by Intangible
3) Intangible has engaged in edit warring, often without providing rationale for his reverts. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [46]
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring by Tazmaniacs
4) Tazmaniacs (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has engaged in edit warring, often without providing rationale for his reverts. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [47]
- Passed 6 to 1 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring by AaronS
5) AaronS (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has engaged in edit warring. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [48]
- Passed 6 to 1 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
[edit] Intangible placed on Probation
1) Intangible is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles for disruptive edits. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AaronS placed on Probation
3) AaronS is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles for disruptive edits. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.
- Passed 5 to 1 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (with one arbitrator abstaining)
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Enforcement by block
1) Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.
- Passed 7 to 0 at 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
