Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Case Opened on December 7, 2004

Case Closed at 00:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. 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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties[edit]

Request by User:Radicalsubversiv regarding User:Chuck F.

Statement of complaint[edit]

Evidence has been compiled at User:Radicalsubversiv/Chuck F.

Chuck F, also known by countless anonymous IPs, is a chronic problem user, who since his arrival here in early September has become one of Wikipedia's most prolific edit warriors, mostly -- but not exclusively -- for the purpose of inserting a strong Libertarian POV into a variety of articles. He has violated the three revert rule on at least twenty-five separate occasions, spanning at least twelve different articles, sometimes reverting as often as once an hour for days at a time. Along the way, he has engaged in personal attacks, created nonsense articles to illustrate a point, changed others' votes on VfD, used deceptive edit summaries, removed well-sourced NPOV material without explanation, used dozens of open HTTP proxies to evade blocks, flagrantly disobeyed a temporary injunction from ArbCom and engaged in any number of other anti-social behaviors.

Every mechanism suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (except the use of an advocate) has been pursued, most of them multiple times by different users. These have all failed. Chuck mostly disregards comments posted to his talk page(s), shows no interest in working towards consensus on article talk pages (though he does offer "explanations" of his edit warring), and has vandalized the crafting of Requests for comment. He accepted mediation with Rhobite after being threatened with arbitration; that mediation failed, and Rhobite has expressed his feeling that further mediation is unlikely to be helpful. (In the interests of full disclosure, he has just requested mediation with me; my judgement is that such one-on-one mediation is unlikely to solve the problem. Moreover, the fact that he requested mediation only after I began accumulating evidence for a second RfA strongly suggests this is merely a delaying tactic.)

The Arbitration Committee recently closed a case Chuck filed against Reithy. Arbitrators seemed to offer three reasons for closing the case: First, that Reithy had been banned. Second, that the evidence against Chuck was "not fully developed". And third, that "disputes regarding Chuck F have not passed through the dispute resolution process."

To respond to each of these in order:

  1. Chuck's chronic and willful violations of policy began before Reithy arrived and have continued since his banning. Thus, a separate case to deal with Chuck's actions is appropriate.
  2. A fairly comprehensive timeline of evidence -- in the preferred format and including a large amount of material not introduced in the Reithy case -- has been compiled.
  3. With all due respect, arbitrators were fundamentally incorrect in stating that disputes regarding Chuck had not passed through the dispute resolution process, as the evidence now clearly demonstrates (look for the items in bold) -- evidence which includes actions taken since the case was closed.

Finally, Chuck's behavior has, if anything, worsened since the case was closed and the injunction lifted, already resulting in one 24-hour block and the protection of several pages.

Specifically, I would like to ask that the arbitration committee take the following steps:

  1. Immediately re-impose a temporary injunction prohibiting Chuck from editing in the main namespace (in deference to Improv, Chuck should specifically be allowed to edit User:Improv/lib_draft_dec2004). Reason: his revert rampages over the past two days.
  2. Impose a punitive long-term ban for habitual and willful violations of official policy, with automatic extensions for each he time evades it using sockpuppets/open proxies. Reason: he seems to regard policy, particularly the 3RR, as advice which he can ignore, probably because he's never had any clear consequences for violating it.
  3. Subsequent to a ban, place him on some form of probation, preferably covering violations of the three-revert rule and making non-trivial edits w/o using Talk. Reason: he can no longer be trusted to edit freely.

Request by Radicalsubversiv

Response by Radicalsubversive to Chuck F's statement[edit]

This isn't the appropriate place for an extended back and forth, so let me just state for the record that I don't use AOL and never have, and that I oppose the inclusion of the unnamed AOL IP. I'm also perfectly happy to have my actions in dealing with Chuck scrutinized, because I don't believe I've violated policy. RadicalSubversiv E 13:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Response by Radicalsubversiv to Chuck F's second statement[edit]

Chuck is being seriously deceptive:

  • Chuck had a good month's worth of policy violations under his belt before Reithy even arrived (which was when I first encountered Chuck), including a major revert war with three separate reputable users on Exxon Mobil. Similar misbehavior has followed since Reithy was banned, most of which don't involve the AOL anon (and many of which don't involve me).
  • Chuck continues to use the behavior of others to justify his violations of policy. He knows perfectly well that others violating the 3RR rule doesn't allow him to do the same, but he doesn't care. I am not alleging that Chuck's actions are worse than Reithy's, merely that they are bad and need to be dealt with.
  • Chuck is now violating the rules of the new evidence page by altering my section instead of creating his own.

RadicalSubversiv E 20:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should also point out that Chuck has a very different view of "consensus" that most other editors I've encountered. One or two people agreeing with him on some broader question is seen as justification for him to revert to his heart's content. Moreover, failing to notice that he removed material without any explanation qualifies as a consensus to remove it. RadicalSubversiv E 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party[edit]

- Well, I'm actually impressed by Radical's pure dislike of me, he's spent an enomorous amount of time preparing this arbcom case. But that dislike of me is the problem, Radical has refused to talk with me/compromise in articles, rejected requests for meditation and even ask other people why are they wasting thier time trying to bother with me (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Improv/lib_draft_dec2004&diff=8123613&oldid=8123530). If arbcom takes this Case I ask them to please also look at Radical's complete lack of assume good faith policy. - - I also ask that Admin please check to see if radical is using AOL, as his edits are suspicously timed close to the anon aol user I've been reverting with. and Either way if that is radical or not that this case include that aol anon ip. Chuck F 13:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, it seems like Radical has gone thourgh every edit I've ever made and spinned his way - Let me just note that almost all of these problems deal either with Reithy, the anon aol ip hater(who I Would please like to be informed if this case includes him or not), Radical After my arb case(who as seen in the previous arb case, obviously violated good faith policy by assuming that I was only out to cause harm to wikipedia) or the final few edits are places where I was reverting along with the concenus of almost every other editor.

There are some edits in the begining that are otherwise I admit, but I haven't continuted that pattern(aka distrubitng to prove a point). In the next few days I will be going thourgh this load of evidence and giving my spin on all of it so this can be an even case thanks. Also I need to point out that the main contention here is people disagree with me on what contemporary libertarianism today(the cause of most major edit warring), I'd like everyone(including arbcom staff) to note that our fellow enclyopedia britticana agrees with me, and arguments used against me have essentialy been, no you're wrong and getting friends to gang up on me. see: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9370164&query=libertarianism&ct=Chuck F 17:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After going thourgh the evidence I also think that a large variety of my problem is that I revert all of a user's edits when some of it is valid(and I like how in this evidence page radical will make it seem like I was only reverting the valid edit), Radical found the worst possible angle and most sinster motives he could put on all my edits Chuck F 19:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary decision[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/2/0)[edit]

  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. →Raul654 18:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. Jwrosenzweig 21:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 03:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I will remain recused in this case - due to past mediation work -- sannse (talk) 00:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. -- Grunt   ҈  01:22, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Following official policy[edit]

1) Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral point-of-view[edit]

2) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Passed 5 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Arbitration evidence[edit]

3) Removing evidence from an Arbitration page is unacceptable.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions on controversial articles[edit]

4) Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point[edit]

5) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing of votes[edit]

6) Changing the votes of other people in a Wikipedia poll such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is a serious offense.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Revert warring[edit]

1) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have engaged in multiple revert wars on multiple pages on widely varying topics, including libertarianism, see page history, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Michael Badnarik, United States Libertarian Party, General Motors, McJob, Ron Paul, Roppongi Hills, Temple University, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Dred Scott v. Sandford, libertarian socialism, libertarian theory, Libertarian Party and Libertarian League. Often he brazenly ignored the three-revert rule, reverting dozens of times in a very short period. Many times he did not use talk pages or even edit summaries, or used them as forums for abusing other users. He did so even after being advised of policy and warned about his revisions. He continued to revert even after being reverted and asked to stop by dozens of well-respected users. He also continued to revert even after being temporarily blocked and having a RfC brought aganist him. (See the evidence page).

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of templates[edit]

2) ChuckF removed the {{NPOV}} template [1] from an article that he was in a revert war over (the revert war dealt with POV issues). (See the evidence page).

Passed 6 to 1 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of content[edit]

3) ChuckF has repeatedly removed content and external links from articles in order to impose a point-of-view on them. In many cases he has given insufficient reasons for the removal. (See the evidence page). For example [2] removing large blocks of information with the edit summary "Minor" "Fixed spelling".

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstain and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

4) ChuckF has made many personal attacks. (See the evidence page).

Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstain and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

5) ChuckF has used sockpuppets in violation of the sockpuppet policy, having created them to deliberately violate or evade Wikipedia policy. Examples include 203.112.19.195–210.142.29.125, 200.55.11.49, and 208.62.52.1). (See the evidence page).

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of evidence[edit]

6) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have removed evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence. (See the evidence page).[3]

Passed 5 to 2 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring previous Arbitration Committee ruling[edit]

7) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have ignored previous Arbitration Committee temporary injunctions. Specifically, ChuckF has made edits to the main namespace several times (from 00:46 (UTC) Nov 16, 2004 to 03:05 (UTC) Nov 25, 2004) in violation of an Arbitration Committee order. (See the evidence page).[4] (violation of a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy)

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

8) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly edited articles in a point-of-view manner. (See the evidence page). Examples include [5] (Removal of material with the comment "More Article Bias removing"; [6] (Removing all criticism and placing it in separate article); [7] (Removing more prominant link to critical article); [8] ("POV nonsense").

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstain and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

9) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly vandalized articles and created nonsense articles, often disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Examples include 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit', Nut (hardware), and NATO at the 2004 Summer Olympics, in addition to vandalizing a userpage. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F/Evidence#Dec 5).

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing of votes on VfD[edit]

10) ChuckF (and various proxies and IP adresses associated with him) have repeatedly engaged in the malicious changing of votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (VfD). Examples include Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FahrenHype 9/11, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Market libertarianism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NATO at the 2004 Summer Olympics.[9], [10]

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

One-month ban for disregard for the previous Arbitration ruling[edit]

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are banned for one month for blatant disregard for the Arbitration community's previous rulings.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ban on editing some articles[edit]

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are hereby banned from editing any article related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including one week. Administrators are authorized to determine what relates to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology at their discretion.

Passed 5 to 2 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three-month parole[edit]

For repeated violations of the three revert rule, Chuck F is placed on a 3 month general parole. If during this period he violates the other remedies passed in this case, then he can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of his parole period banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This parole period starts after Chuck F successfully serves whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom.

Passed 6 to 1 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One-year revert probation[edit]

Chuck F is hereby limited to 1 revert per article per day and must discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page. This probation will last for 1 year and will start as soon as Chuck F is done serving whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom. Admins can treat anything more than 1 revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. If Chuck F demonstrates good behavior in a minimum of 6 weeks, then he can petition the ArbCom to stay this ruling.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One-month ban for vandalism/use of open proxies[edit]

Chuck F is hereby banned for 1 month for vandalism and use of open proxies to violate policy and to evade blocks.

Passed 7 to 0 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Removal of content[edit]

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) are hereby prohibited from removal of information or substantive content (including external links and references/sources) from any article. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a removal of information or content at their discretion.

Passed 5 to 2 and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Required edit summaries[edit]

ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by him) must give legitimate edit summary for every edit he makes, excepting those to his userspace. Should he not do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up to and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a legitimate edit summary at their discretion.

Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstain and enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)