This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Out of order; we don't do content issues. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

The Republic section of Wikipedia and all of its articles dealing with the subject are subpar and are woefully inadequate. Furthermore, the theme of all the articles dealing with republic are of ONE theme that is the British republican meaning

"Any government without a king".

I propose that the Republic article be about the ****Various**** definitions of republic. As of right now, there is no article dealing with the Various definitions of republic. The Wikipedia Article on Republic states that there is various definitions but doesn't discuss them. Then, the Article on Republic should direct the reader to various definitions; such as Machiavelli's definition of republic, the Classical definition of republic, the American definition of republic (i.e the "democratic republic]]. WHEELER 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The Arbitration Committee deals with allegations of improper user conduct and, in special circumstances, with other issues of potentially project-wide importance. It does not decide content disputes on particular articles and certainly is not going to decide on the appropriate definition(s) of "republic." Newyorkbrad 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I would disagree. It is about the ""consensus"" refusing to allow NPOV. What is going on Mr. Newyorkbrad is that the ""consensus"" is enforcing a ONE opinion in the republic article AND all related articles are slanted to conform to ONE opinion in defiance and against Wikipedia policy. My so-called "bad behavior" is because Wikipedians are not following policy. Maybe, Wikipedians need to recheck the policy and start adhereing to it. Maybe the focus should not be on me but on others as well! WHEELER 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, if you want to talk about conduct, why "propose that the Republic article be about the ****Various**** definitions of republic."? That's clearly a proposal about content. If you have a proposal to make about conduct, make it and the ArbCom will consider it. Try to attach pronouncements on content issues and they'll just be rejected - you're shooting yourself in the foot. -- Nema Fakei 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• And this would be a view held by a tiny minority; to reconfigure Republic to it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. This is, however, the underlying content dispute here: WHEELER alone disagrees with several editors (not all of them British). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

"To reconfigure republic" is undue weight---there is not even a one sentence in that whole article about describing the "various definitions". User:Pmanderson and User:Jpmorgan, all this is supersilly. There is not only any weight given, but totally censorship of the minority view!!!! And all the articles ARE slanted to prevent any minority view!!! The minority view is NOT presented anywhere in Wikipedia so you are all blowing smoke! The Dominant party controls the rules and it gets to slant the rules to bolster its side. What undue weight? I can't even get ONE sentence in. There is absolutely NO presentation of the minority viewpoint whatsoever!!! What the hell am I going to stay around for? What goes on is the total censorship of the minority viewpoint! WHEELER 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The question is one of significance. If only a handful of people in the entire world subscribe to your viewpoint, then it is not a significant minority viewpoint and does not deserve mention, per WP:UNDUE. Those you accuse seem to be suggesting that although you can point to selection of sources who say things which are compatible your viewpoint, at most one other person directly supports your claim, and PMAnderson disputes your interpretation of Rahe as well. Given these facts, it would be inappropriate for any of us to agree with your position on inclusion, whether we're socialists or monarchists or aristocrats or anything in between. Hence, insofar as this proposal has anything to do with conduct, I would argue that neither I nor PMAnderson nor SimonP have contravened WP:NPOV - intentionally or otherwise - by disagreeing with WHEELER and by making edits to that effect. I await coherent evidence to the effect that the consensus is being abused. -- Nema Fakei 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

"This reflected an understanding that citizenship was not a right but a privilege. indeed, the lack of any belief in "rights" in the modern sense led the classical republics to focus on the duties of citizens and constitutes the great theoretical difference between the ancient and modern conceptions of republicanism. The modern republic originated in and draws its principles from modern political philosophy. The shift started with Niccolo Machiavelli's ( 1469-1527) rejection of the classical understanding of virtue and justice. Classical republics had sought through rigid education and carefully prescribed duties to inculcate a certain view of duty in their citizens. However, Machiavelli rejected this standard on the basis that human beings did not, in fact, seek to do what is good per se, but only what is good for themselves. With Machiavelli, self-interest or the desire for self-improvement, not the advancement of transcendant societal interests, was identified as the primary motivator of human beings." International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965.

This info was found in an Encyclopedia. This is a significant minority view and is printed in an Encyclopedia that seeks to be "authoritative and definitive". There is a difference between Classical republics and modern republics. The problem here at Wikipedia is that Classical republic and Classical republicanism are defined by the definitions of Machiavelli who is NOT a Classical republican. Furthermore, the Roman republic is defined by Machiavelli's definition of republic and doesn't refer to Classical republic. Ancient Rome is a Classical republic. So I am quoting from an Encyclopaedia with many editors. This is not original research. I am having a tough time with the Consenus here. They should give it some room. WHEELER 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sparta needs to be added to the List of republics.

For evidence, see talk page.

Comment by others:

Same comment as (1) above. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I strongly urge that the article Mixed government be merged with Classical republic. The proper title of "mixed government" is a republic. To seperate it from other definitions of republic, it is now called a "Classical republic". WHEELER 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Same comment as (1) above. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that Wikipedia gather some really hard academic gurus on this, sponsor a symposium, a meeting to flesh this content out. If wikipedia is a source and a verifiable source with references, and this issue is contentious beyond a nominal degree, there is mass confusion of this term, I suggest that more heavy hitting guns be involved. WHEELER 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:General disclaimer covers that I think (I could be wrong). Kwsn ^(Ni!) 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't conduct research or hold symposia to decide on encyclopedia content. Per longstanding policy, we wouldn't publish original research, even if we conducted it ourselves. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

5)

This has been moved to a proposed remedy below. Sancho 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

6)

• I am on vacation this week, and will have much less access to the internet than I expected. (I had hoped, while away from my books, to search out evidence for this case.) At the rate this is going, it is unlikely to matter; but I will not be able to comment at length on any major advance in this case until Sunday or Monday. Please do continue without me; just don't take it to closure - not that I expect that to happen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Moot. I'm back; although I will not be addressing this case today. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

7) Significant additions to proposals in the workshop are unlikely, and there has been ample time for evidence. Hence it seems sensible to move to the voting stage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Arbitrators, if you have any suggestions (that haven't already been mentioned) on proposals below, or questions you need answering, could I ask you to give a chance for your recommendations to be acted on before taking this to a vote? If not, all well and good. I hope this is the correct procedure I'm using. -- Nema Fakei 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

• Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate. Sancho 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keeping comments short, and focussed on a single content issue (a single sentence, or a single source) at a time helps to avoid the discussion from degrading into an unmanageable dispute. Sancho 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've been trying to come up with something similar. -- Nema Fakei 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You know, I like how when it comes to me---All sorts of rule appear out of thin air! Mr. Sancho, PLEASE, link to Wikipedia policy about "Talk pages". I have done nothing but present evidence. And On one occasion, i put on the talk pages something for posterity, another's WP outrageous claims. This Wikipedian goes around deleting everything I do, reverts me AND then writes the most outrageous stuff with NO references! Sparta is now a Monarchy? Why shouldn't that be on the talk page---discussing what another editor wrote and other Wikipedians let slide for Five days--But I get immediately reverted! That should be discussed! on the talk page! This is all I get here at Wikipedia is people making up new rules for me every time! WHEELER 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This isn't a "rule". This is a proposed principle that I would like parties to comment on. Do you not agree with the above principles? I didn't even say that these apply solely to you. I believe they are true in general. Sancho 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I forgot to include the links you asked about: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice and the points labeled Avoid excessive markup, Be concise, and Keep the layout clear. Sancho 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2)

• Articles should aim to present facts as facts where uncontroversial, and accurately represent scholarship to date on controversial issues.
• Points of view held by significant minorities should be included and given weight according to their weight outside WP, not their weight among WP editors. Points of view held by very small minorities should receive passing mention or none at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The phrasing of undue weight had not yet been adopted when the participants in the WHEELER case were enjoined to read WP:NPOV; but it did say "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Note that some participants in this case were not parties in the prior case in which WHEELER and others were involved. Still, parties at the core of the dispute should all have read the relevant phrases, as almost all parties have referred directly to WP:NPOV; tracts from the section on WP:WEIGHT have also been quoted on Talk pages. -- Nema Fakei 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Only WHEELER (and Simon P as a witness) were involved; but the old wording is as clear on the point at issue as the new; possibly clearer on the matter of whether we should follow (our own reading of) primary sources against modern scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I quote Paul A. Rahe, "magesterial" Three volume work on Republics, Ancient and Modern, that IS modern scholarship. And AGAIN, I ask where in Wikipedia policy that IT be "'"""""Modern scholarship""""""". Again, like the above, Rules are created for WHEELER to jump through. Rules ONLY Wheeler has to conform to. Show Me in Wikipedia Policy where "MODERN SCHOLARSHIP" ONLY. Primary sources? All Wikipedia requires is that it be FACT! A fact printed in a book; that it be published!. That is what Wikipedia policy says! You guys just keep on making up the rules! WHEELER 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WHEELER, I did actually answer your question the first time; it's there, if you care to read it. -- Nema Fakei 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see above where I quote from International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965. What I am talking about has ALREADY been published in another encyclopaedia of great effort. They maintain that their encyclopaedia is "authoritative and definitive". So this must be given some weight at Wikipedia. WHEELER 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am glad to see this new find, and have said so in the relevant places. But back on topic, If you have any disagreement with the principle outlined above, please do say so.-- Nema Fakei 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3)

• Editors are reminded to treat each other with civility. Editors should not make personal attacks nor prejudge content based on their appraisal of the author's character.

On reading a post of PMAnderson's, a minor textual amendment in the first sentence occurred to me. The original remains above.

• Editors should treat each other with civility. Editors should not make personal attacks nor prejudge content based on their appraisal of the author's character.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

So I riduculed a guy, so what? I spent three months in boot camp and numerous times had my ass chewed out for doing stupid stuff. If it is warranted. If you write stupid stuff, you deserve to eat some humble pie. It's commonsense. I don't harass anybody. I don't chase after people. The man stepped in his own stuff. You Mr. Fakei, ended up having to delete this man's total paragraph since it was totally off the wall! I refer you to Mr. Murray's comment: "You just can't stop learning at WP. A facinating discussion here. I propose a compromise as added at 1. Perhaps some of the discussion above could be condensed into a footnote to accompany the entry." --Kevin Murray 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC) @[Talk:List of republics]

Right after Mr. Murray pulls up evidence that there is an older defintion of republic. I couldn't access the site. Then User:Pmanderson runs off edits the article without no input on the talk page and then writes the most outrageous claims. User:Pmanderson begins with the word "Archaizing" which is BIAS against Wikipedia policy and calls Sparta a Monarchy. Sparta has been called many things but never a monarchy! Then he labels the Roman Empire a "republic"! I mean come on! have some commonsense here! When I get angry and pushed to the point, I will explode and these people know how to do it too. WHEELER 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above was a statement of principle, it is not an accusation against you or anyone else: you will notice your name is not mentioned. Do you disagree with the principle that editors should: "treat each other with civility" and "not make personal attacks nor prejudge content based on their appraisal of the author's character."? -- Nema Fakei 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am socially autistic. And I do lash out when I do play by the rules, I presented copious amounts of references and I get the run around. I do need to work on my civility. WHEELER 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4)

• Essential to maintaining a civil and therefore constructive atmosphere is the assumption of good faith.
• Although good faith is an assumption which can be disproven, content edits perceived to be false or even mendacious should not be taken as good evidence of bad faith unless they constitute unambiguous vandalism.
• Even where bad faith is shown or perceived, it is still inappropriate to respond with incivil remarks. Use polite criticism and deal with vandals and their like through the appropriate channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

5)

• Wikipedia's content should be formed by free editing in the first instance, and, where there are conflicts, by discussion on the talk page, and building consensus for acceptable versions.
• Challenges to an existing consensus should be addressed with the view to persuading other editors and establishing a new consensus. Wikipedia guidelines on civility assist this process.
• The consensus process is also used to carry out other policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That is to say, discussion on talk pages is used to determine whether content is in keeping with policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Part three seems especially relevant to this case. Sancho 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

6)

• Wikipedia's policy is constantly being improved, and we welcome constructive criticism of existing policy.
• Generally, such suggestions for improving policy should be direct at the talk page of that policy, though prior discussion of the merits of a policy at talk pages where proposed exceptions to or grey areas caused by policy problems is also useful.
• Disagreement with a particular policy does not constitute licence to ignore it. Until policy is changed, existing policy still applies, no matter what you think of it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

7)

• Content which satisfies the requirements of one policy but fails another is still in contravention of Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

8)

• Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
• Novel interpretations of sources and original synthesis of arguments are examples of original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sancho 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not doing original research. Just lately I found an encyclopaedia that is just about Politics and in it, it does discuss what I have been talking about. I am not doing original research. Here is the encyclopedia: International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965. It says it is "authoritative and definitive". It does say that Machiavelli began the shift in the meaning of republic. See above. WHEELER 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you've finally found what appears to be a good citation - I'll check it up when I'm able. Do you disagree with the above points?-- Nema Fakei 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

9)

• As lists usually contain only (or predominantly) article links, they are often not a suitable medium for presenting controversial information; detailed discussion of controversial topics should be included in (and talk page discussion to that end focused on) main articles.
• Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria as these ensure that a decision to include or exclude can be verified easily.
• Especial care must be taken in those cases in which the associated definitions are disputed.
• Definitions and inclusion criteria are related, but may not be identical in all cases.
• Criteria which make inclusion decisions clearer should be preferred to criteria that rely on value judgements, rapidly changing, speculative, or excessively controversial issues, so long as they result in a list that is encyclopaedic and useful to the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See the section "Helping lists out of policy limbo" on User:Nema_Fakei/List_of_republics_case/Evidence for how this relates to WP:LIST and why we need clarification on this. -- Nema Fakei 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

10) Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge; they should not make interpretative judgements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; quoted and paraphrase for WP:ATTFAQ. I.e., don't tell us what Cicero said, tell us what reliable sources say Cicero said. ATTFAQ suggests the reason for this is bad faith edits; but primary sources can be equally dangerous if approached in good faith without specialist knowledge, especially when arguing about usage of words in a language the editor doesn't know, based on a translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

ATTFAQ does not list itself as a policy page, but its advice is generally good in its own right, and indeed is linked to by WP:V, I think. I was not sure about the "without specialist knowledge bit", but thinking through it again, it is actually true so long as vocab doesn't count as specialist knowledge - any other policy would technically be WP:SYNTH or some other WP:OR material. -- Nema Fakei 22:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

ATTFAQ and its parent WP:ATT have a long and painful history; parts of them are plainly not consensus, and they are not policy. But other parts are widely agreed; and I think this is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not using primary sources. I quote Paul A. Rahe, magesterial Three volume Republics, Ancient and Modern. I quote M. A. Greenidge (1910) modern who wrote a whole book on Greek Constitutional History. I quote Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger Political Ideologies. And just of late, I ran into a Political encyclopaedia that accepts Rahe's research--International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965. I have solid footing for what I am saying. WHEELER 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

There is no need to defend yourself against a statement of principle. This is the section for proposed principles that are not directed at any one editor in particular. This section is much different than the " Proposed findings of fact" section below. It would be more constructive if your discussion in this section of the workshop be related to your agreement or disagreement with the proposed principle. Sancho 07:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

11) The intention of an author, and his endorsement of a given position, should not be tested by isolated quotations of a few words, such as a search engine can supply, but in the context of the work in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my evidence on Rahe. I do not intend to propose a finding of fact that this has been infringed, which would involve ArbCom in the content dispute; but it would be helpful to endorse it as a principle. The same applies (as far as I am concerned) to most of the other content policies discussed in this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

12) Wikipedia uses consensus to decide how its content policies apply to a given set of facts. A small number of editors claiming to be consensus can be overruled by a larger consensus obtained by the methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. WHEELER asserts here that consensus (or at least the consensus between the three other parties to this case) kills NPOV; this is the grievance he is asking ArbCom to remedy above. This proposal is the Wikipedian view of the relation between consensus and content policies; and I have given WHEELER a link to dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This is what I was trying to do with Principle 5. The brevity is good, though I'm not sure if it's more helpful in this case to spell things out, as miscommunication seems to be a bit of a theme.-- Nema Fakei 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

13) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

14) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

15) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) WHEELER's talk page habits create an environment that is hard to work in. Sancho 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) The remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER were:

1. An official recommendation shall be made to WHEELER to change his style of commenting on talk pages to one that give a calmer and more reasonable impression and to strive to work better with others.
2. WHEELER is reminded that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate a viewpoint.
3. Both sides of this dispute are recommended to re-read the policy on NPOV and to understand that NPOV is inclusive of all significant points of view.
4. WHEELER is admonished to take care in his writing to ensure it conforms to Wikipedia's policy on no original research. He is requested to read this page and to discuss any aspect of this that he feels are unclear with other contributors.
   • All were passed 7-0; closed 25 April 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is what we expected last time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Would it not be simpler and just to say "The Arbitration Committee notes its previous findings and remedies in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER" -- Nema Fakei 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

ArbCom is free to reword; but this will make it easier to propose finding of fact that these have been breached; I see you suggest one of these below. I will consider your wording as a remedy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2.1) WHEELER's style of commenting on talk pages has not changed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

Proposed, on the basis of Sanchom's /Evidence#WHEELER is hard to work with, and, in fact, almost all of WHEELER's comments, here and elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

2.2)WHEELER continues to advocate a political point-of-view

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Consider this edit on "Aristo-democracy" or this one, on the United States having always been a pseudo-republic, which gave up any pretence to republicanism when the Senate was directly elected in 1913. Such edits are commendably frank in disclosing WHEELER's purpose in editing Wikipedia; but that purpose is to push his politics. (Many editors have engaged in political discussion on talk pages; but most editors realize it's not what we're here for.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not comfortable with the wording here at all. Are you saying WHEELER is using talk pages as a forum for discussion or as a soapbox? If so, there are more direct ways of saying it. Are you saying that WHEELER continues to advocate WP's endorsement of a political POV? If so, I'd question whether it's humanly possible not to make a statement on a political topic that doesn't have political implications. If this is leading to a FOF remedy, or will be relying on a principle, it would be an idea to put them up so we can reword this to something less ambiguous. -- Nema Fakei 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I claim WHEELER has ignored, and may be expected to ignore, ArbCom's last ruling. This is proposed as a FOF, and echoes the wording of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I can't find "political" at all in the findings, or any variant thereof. I don't see where the wording or the phrasing's coming from, though I can see a possible link with RfAr/WHEELER/FOF2, whose wording is in any case far clearer. It sounds a bit like you're condemning WHEELER for having political thoughts, whereas what's wrong is more trying to get WP to endorse your POV. -- Nema Fakei 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a reference to the second remedy, quoted above, from WHEELER#Reminder_of_Wikipedia.27s_policy_on_advocacy. He was using WP to endorse his POV then too. But I would be content with Nema's rewordings below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others.

2.2.1) WHEELER's edits to articles continue to advocate his point of view, and frequently need to be cleaned up significantly to achieve a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a partial reword of PMAnderson's 2.2, partly based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER#POV of articles. I note that WHEELER's edits to articles themselves have been comparatively few recently, so its up to PMA to suggest and ArbCom to decide how relevant this is.-- Nema Fakei 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I will agree with this. I am renumbering because this is a FOF that WHEELER is not complying the second provision of the previous arbitration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2.2.2) WHEELER often uses Wikipedia and in particular its talk pages as a vehicle of advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a partial reword of PMAnderson's 2.2, partly based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER#Use of Wikipedia for advocacy. -- Nema Fakei 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree and renumber as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3)

• WHEELER has directly and frivolously accused other editors of conspiring against him.
• WHEELER's prejudice has prevented him from engaging constructively with editors he considers opponents or conspirators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 21:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4)

• PMAnderson has been overly dismissive of WHEELER, in particular with regard to his breadth of reading.
• PMAnderson's prejudice has prevented him from engaging constructively with WHEELER

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is very heavy weather from one (intentionally concise) talk page comment, intended largely to express sympathy.

I do believe, however, that WHEELER culls his references to primary sources (mentioning only those which he thinks support his viewpoint) from somewhere (IIRC Rahe mentions all of them; he wrote a book on Machiavelli); and then googles for modern uses of the phrases he wants (which he bolds). Talk:Republic/Archive 4 shows this process clearly. It may be that I underestimate WHEELER; but it's not prejudice, it's experience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm proposing FOFs according to things I think ArbCom may find it worth considering. Though you're right, it probably needs more evidence than that. -- Nema Fakei 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

By all means; I don't take it personally. However, I don't think it's true; I haven't seen as much of WHEELER as Simon P has, but my opinion of WHEELER is based on his past behaviour, arguments, and editing. Prejudice would be coming to an opinion before the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. The rest of the evidence is to scattered and subjective to support such a strong wording. -- Nema Fakei 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

5) Nema Fakei, SimonP and PMAnderson have acted in concert in an attempt to override Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please don't propose findings unless you actually agree with them in some fashion. Playing a devil's advocate here merely wastes both your time and ours. Kirill 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed, in an attempt to turn this into a proposal. WHEELER, if you can formulate it better, add your own and I'll delete this. -- Nema Fakei 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Apologies, withdrawn, per [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:WHEELER&curid=475127&diff=148401026&oldid=148341191 here. It's just if there's any decision against WHEELER, I don't want it to be for lack of the opportunity to find in his favour. However, if he really doesn't want to engage with the process, I suppose it's up to him. I was suggesting this not so much in the sense of being a Devil's Advocate, but more in the sense of trying to find a compromise edit, albeit one I disagree with. -- Nema Fakei 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

6)

• WHEELER is well-accustomed to Wikipedia's interface and customs.
• WHEELER has the knowledge required to provide much useful information to Wikipedia.
• WHEELER persists in using his time and resources to further specific points of view within a narrow range of articles.

New wording proposed based on feedback

6.1)

• WHEELER is well-accustomed to Wikipedia's interface and customs.
• WHEELER could use his knowledge about the classical world to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.
• WHEELER has persisted in using his time and resources to further specific points of view, recently focusing on within a narrow range of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I disagree, variously, with all three points. If ArbCom feels the need to say something nice about WHEELER, "experienced editor" should suffice.

• WHEELER is not "well-accustomed" to our practices; he opposes them bitterly.
• I deny that WHEELER has useful knowledge; he does not report his sources accurately.
• Actually, while he has specific points to make, his range of articles is as wide as that of many editors; from Hermann Rauschning to Athenian democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

See below - yes, he pften opposes them, but he's quite able to read the rules, and aware enough to quote them. I've tried to reqord it to avoid seeming like I'm making any comment on WHEELER's use of sources - is this ok? -- Nema Fakei 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

If I understand Nema Fakei's intent correctly, what he means here is that WHEELER has been around Wikipedia long enough to know the rules & procedures -- or at least their intent -- thus he cannot plead ignorance as his defence. A proposed finding like this should be considered, since it's one thing to disagree with or ignore other editors but a clearly different one to consistently ignore all of the established guidelines which are available for reading by everyone. -- llywrch 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Almost exactly, but I would like to make a small clarification: I initially proposed this hoping we could get some remedy out of this encouraging WHEELER not to spend all his time on lost causes. Never got around to coming up with a good wording for that; I'll try to prepare one for tomorrow if I can. -- Nema Fakei 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply

7)

• WHEELER frequently misrepresents other editors.
• WHEELER's interpretation of external sources is also often controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Trying to be careful not to ask the ArbCom to say his use of external sources is often plain wrong, as that, I think, would be going too far in the direction of making statements of content. -- Nema Fakei 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

8) By applying heterodox definitions of the terms "republic" and "politeia" to various article and lists, User:WHEELER has engaged in original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is, I think, the important point. Wheeler's definition of republic coincides with no other definition ancient or modern. semper fictilis 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree here; see [ this comment]. "Aristo-democracy" is not any known meaning of res publica or politeia, and I see no ancient or modern authority which says that any of these must be a mixed government; not Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, or Rahe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) WHEELER is required to rewrite three of his own poor talk page contributions into acceptable contributions. WHEELER is also required to locate three instances that editors unrelated to this case, in articles unrelated to this case, have displayed similar poor talk page behaviour that led to poor discussion atmosphere. Sancho 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's a creative solution. It seems a lot of work for WHEELER, but I suppose it depends what the alternative is reckoned to be. If the ArbCom doensn't normally make suggestions like this, they should (even if they decide not to in this case). -- Nema Fakei 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

He was required, effectively under the same threat, to read and discuss our policies last time; will this do any more? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe that the second part of this remedy — that WHEELER locate unrelated instances of this behaviour — does mean something: that he understands what the problem is. Requiring the re-writes demonstrates that he knows how to correct the problem. Whether this is voluntary or not, I think this will have WHEELER take more away from this remedy than he would take away from a remedy that doesn't involve as much participation from WHEELER. I believe that the more you can get the learner to engage in active participation, the more that will be learned. Reading and discussing didn't work last time, but I think this more active education process could have a chance at succeeding. Sancho 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It isn't that he fails to understand our policy; the problem is that he disagrees with it. See this edit, under #Civility. I deprecate ArbCom sanctioning opinions, even this one; but we should propose remedies that will work. (Also, we really shouldn't require anybody to alter other people's comments; that's controversial even when done by well-trusted admins.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The alterations would be in his own user space. I just thought that WHEELER seeing the effects of incivility in discussions that he is disinterested with might help him to agree with the policy. I also think that we can only propose remedies that might work, as we don't know what will work. I think this remedy might work. Sancho 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you envision any automatic sanctions should he refuse or would you imagine it being brought to another ArbCom case? Is there a deadline, or are we happy for WHEELER to 'leave it to another time' whenever pressed?-- Nema Fakei 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I had in mind that probation and/or mentorship would be in effect until at least these steps were completed, even if the time frame of mentorship or probation had passed. Sancho 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I don't believe the arbitrators ever assign this type of remedy. He won't be directed to copy out "I must always be civil on my talkpage" 100 times in longhand, either. It would be good if WHEELER displayed an awareness that his behavior has been problematic, but to mean something that has to be voluntarily acknowledged by him, not coerced. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

2) The Arbitration Committee takes notice of, and affirms, its previous findings and remedies in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It is this text which I thought would make a good remedy, if ArbCom believes that the problem will solve itself; perhaps combined with mentorship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I should add here: I would be content with any one of these remedies, including this reminder and mentorship. If ArbCom chooses a ban, however, I won't complain; it gets boring chasing down WHEELER's sources and minding out how he has misread them this time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3) WHEELER is under six months controversy ban: he is directed not to make controversial edits to articles without consensus, and not to make long, rambling, and inflammatory edits to talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If WHEELER is genuinely willing to be sanctioned, provided he has access to our edit space, this is how to do it. It is up to ArbCom whether this is necessary, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3a) WHEELER is directed to avoid making substantial or controversial edits to articles, and to keep remarks on talk pages brief, to the point, and civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed in order to tidy up wording of PMA's Remedy 3). -- Nema Fakei 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) WHEELER is directed not to add any citations directly into articles, but, where he feels they may be useful, to add them all in one section, each with a comment of no longer than 75 words to explain which claim they support. If there are other editors who find WHEELER's citations useful and relevant, they can then verify them and add them in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Nema Fakei 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

5) WHEELER is banned for three months from all articles [and their talk pages]. involving Republics or Sparta.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As long as we're proposing bans; this one is simple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Does/should this include talk pages? -- Nema Fakei 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly it should, thanks; his conduct on talk pages brought you here. The [bracketed] clause is added with this edit; but it is an integral part of the proposal. Either we tolerate WHEELER's rants or we do not; if we do, we can tolerate (often by reverting) his article edits as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

6) WHEELER is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Slower alternative to ban (that is, I suspect it will amount to the same thing, as I doubt WHEELER will be changing his attitude any time soon). Civil and relevant talk pages are my priority, and this is a remedy directed at that. -- Nema Fakei 23:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

7)

• WHEELER is encouraged to make contributions on issues where he feels less personally attached.
• WHEELER is encouraged to help improve Wikipedia by tackling some of the more day-to-day work, such as expanding stubs and copyediting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on Findings of Fact 6.1. -- Nema Fakei 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

8) WHEELER ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The ArbCom seems to be cautious about instructing bans of longer than a year. Given WHEELER's persistence and habit of wandering in and out at periods of months' intervals, a year-long ban would impress upon WHEELER sigificantly less, so I would say an indefinite ban should be considered. Whether a ban is a good thing is another question. I'm pretty sure I can remember seeing a handful of good edits while gathering diffs from his contributions. On the other hand, I've also quoted a lot more diffs from his contributions just on my section of the evidence page.-- Nema Fakei 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nope, he won't talk. I'm sorry, but I can't see this changing. Support. -- Nema Fakei 18:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• I agree with fictilis's assessment of WHEELER's usefulness, and have proposed a modification below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. I frankly don't see any reason that WHEELER should be allowed to stay. He has relentlessly pursued a bizarre interpretation and has done so in a highly disruptive manner. Indeed, I haven't seen a single edit that has improved any article. Wikipedia would be better off without his participation. semper fictilis 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Can't be an indef except in extreme circumstances I think. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

9)WHEELER is banned from Wikipedia for a year; after which he is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as a combination of the previous two. I'm not sure whether ArbCom should lower the boom, but this is probably a reasonable way to do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

1) WHEELER will enter mentorship to monitor and correct his poor talk page behaviours. The mentor will ensure WHEELER completes remedy (1). The mentor will ensure WHEELER contributes short comments, focussed on a single content issue at a time. This mentorship will be combined with with probation for these behaviours allowing a ban if WHEELER doesn't respond positively to the mentorship. The mentorship will last for at least three months and at least 50 talk page contributions of more than a paragraph each, and no longer than one year. The probation will last for one year. Sancho 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Probation portion struck out. Sancho 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, but I've made a separate proposal explaining the mode of probation (the wording copied from the most recent case I could find in which probation was accepted, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby). It makes more sense to ask the Arbitrators to vote on these separately; would you be prepared to remove the probation bits from the above? -- Nema Fakei 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure, that make sense. Sancho 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) Banned but allowed to copy from edit page from articles for transfer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ban me from editing at Wikipedia either article or talk page. Since I am an Editor at Wikinfo, I still would like to copy and move articles from Wikipedia to Wikinfo. It would make it easier for me if I copied the code with all the markup in the article. I just ask that this be allowed. If I break the editing of article or talk page, then I will lose the priviledge of copying from the edit page. WHEELER 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not into all this trouble. To improve some stupid articles, I have to go through all this is just too much trouble. Can't add a stupid name to the list of republics, can't say mixed governments are also republics, can't even mention the minorities view; and now all this trouble; no thanks. WHEELER 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Not, I think, technically feasible. Either WHEELER can access edit screens, or he can't. But there is something of the same spirit that can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Surely just a normal ban will allow WHEELER to 'view source', in the same way normal editors can view the source of the main page, but not edit it. Point of fact, a plain ban will not prevent him from viewing the source as an anon.-- Nema Fakei 22:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:BEANS; and there are blocks of IP's associated with banned users nowadays. In any case, I think this too severe. Not making controversial edits himself and not filling talk pages with capital letters is more than enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I've previously stated I didn't how best to approach WHEELER. Over the course of the ArbCom Case and looking back again at his edits, WHEELER has firmly persuaded me that his goals and those of WP are irreconcilable, that he is unable to contribute constructively to the project, that he does not and will not recognise incivility and other instances of poor judgement, and that he has no intention of changing his attitude. Hence, I am led to not merely defer to, but to agree with this remedy. I do not know if the ArbCom will pass this - and I hope I am wrong about this - so I will continue to propose and comment on alternatives which may bear fruit of some kind or another. -- Nema Fakei 23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hehe, just my luck, the moment I finally accept I've run out of reasons for opposing a ban, WHEELER turns round and finds what appears to be a good source! Not enough to actively oppose the remedy, but take my precedingcomment with a little caution. -- Nema Fakei 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Won't talk? Doesn't belong. Support.-- Nema Fakei 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Technically, this is a remedy; but I leave that for the clerks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3) Should WHEELER violate any ban imposed by this decision, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics#Log of blocks and bans; and his mediator should be notified.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Standard boilerplate, with addition of mediator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: