Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/FAQ

A quick FAQ of questions folks have asked about this, drawn from wikien=l, the talk page, and IRC.

Add your own questions, if you like.

Good edits

Wik shouldn't be banned (/criticised/told off/warned/whatever. He makes too many good edits.

Yes, Wik makes many good edits. In the previous case, we had a specific finding on that, so the arbitrators are certainly aware of this, and took it into account:

The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. - Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.

That said, the relevant Wikipedia policies don't (currently) allow for exceptions for longserving or prolific Wikipedians. Indeed, often Wikipedians hold oldbies to higher standards than newbies. So the arbitrators couldn't overlook the bad stuff because of the good stuff. Martin 00:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wik was right... behaviour vs content

When Wik got into revert wars, he was, more often than not, right.

or

Why are you focusing on Wik's behaviour, when he was right on the content?

My personal opinion is that yes, Wik was often right. However, I'm not an expert in the wide variety of subjects those revert wars were about, so this is scarcely an informed opinion.

In general, the arbitration committee is likely to focus on behaviour not content. We're not content experts. The only special knowledge we have is a knowledge of Wikipedia, its guidelines, and how it works, so that's our focus. For what it's worth, when Jimbo had a similar role, he did much the same thing.

Perhaps Wikipedia needs some form of content arbitration or vetting or master editors or whatever. That's something that we, as a community, will need to decide in the future. Martin 00:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you rule on Wik's rudeness and personal attacks?

Well, some of us definately wanted to do so, but not enough. I was one of those who didn't want to. Reasons include:

The stuff on his user page (the worst stuff) was removed after a request by Danny.
In general, the rude comments weren't a major issue, compared to the rude style of editing (some of those requesting arbitration made this point), so there was a concern of "micro-management"
There was some rudeness against Wik as well.

We didn't excuse or support Wik's rudeness. We don't think it's a good thing. wikipedia:no personal attacks is still policy. We simply declined (as a body) to rule on the matter at this point. The community always has other options to address rudeness: wikipedia:remove personal attacks, or the other forms of wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example. Martin 00:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What about Cantus?

Cantus is just as bad as Wik, if not worse. And what about X?

Cantus was temp-banned by quickpoll, and given an additional one day ban by the committee for evading that temp-ban (for a total of two). Wik's accusations of inappropriate reverting of Cantus will be considered seperately (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration), and will probably lead to a similar parole to Wik.

If anyone else has been behaving inappropriately, by all means take appropriate steps - see wikipedia:dispute resolution. Martin 00:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Length of ban

A week's ban is too long/too short!

Well, Wik was warned that breaking his parole would lead to a one day ban. He used two sock puppets to break his parole a few times. In the case of Cantus, we felt that evading a temp-ban was worthy of doubling the ban period (one day to two days). So the ban doesn't look too far off, on that basis.

In the end, it comes down to a judgement call, and while some arbitrators felt that a longer ban was warranted, in the end the one week ban got the most support. Martin 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]