Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts

User:66.20.28.21 contribs and other accounts

Case Closed as of 6 January 2005

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.

Statement of complaint

The above user has engaged in a edit war that's epic in scope (stretching from June 2004) and completely flies in the face of consensus. Specifically, he has targeted the articles Phil Gingrey and Rick Crawford, inserting material that is extremely POV (he asserts that Gingrey is a war criminal for his role in Guantanamo Bay) (diff). Upon first seeing this material, I reverted in June 2004 and attempted to discuss the matter on Talk:Phil Gingrey (June 23 version of Talk). However, no matter how much discussion was done, there was never any willingness to compromise. I believe the material to have essentially no place in an article on Gingrey, and so removed it. I considered the matter closed, as the anon user did not edit again for some time.

In July 2004, he returned (I believe) as User:168.9.250.3 (contribs). He repeatedly inserted the same material into the two articles, and was reverted by several users, including myself, User:Hcheney, User:Alteripse, and User:TacoDeposit. This pattern continued through August and September, during which he was also reverted by User:Khalid and User:Isomorphic. No users wanted to include any of his material.

In September, several new accounts began editing the two articles, such as User:GreatLeapForward, User:Dreisshh, User:AMoll, User:InHere, and User:EasyMassood. They all made exactly the same edits to the articles, and all displayed the same refusal to discuss their edits, despite repeated requests (User talk:AMoll, User talk:EasyMassood). I believe them to be sockpuppet accounts.

On September 25, Phil Gingrey was protected; it was unprotected on October 8. During the interval when it was protected, the same edits continued to be made on Rick Crawford. Immediately upon unprotection, the pattern continued on Phil Gingrey.

Recently, the intensity of the editing has increased; over a few days, a reader had an equal chance of encountering the neutral version and the POV version (which includes sentences like "Gingrey's single-minded focus on social issues misses the mark" diff). He has also taken to attacking articles that I have listed on my user page, such as inserting his own opinion of the electoral college in swing state (diff). In addition, he has begun using misleading edit summaries, such as "New link", for inserting the same inaccurate and biased material (diff).

I really don't know what to do about this. There would seem to be a few options, none of them very palatable--permanent blocking of the IPs, permanent protection of both pages--so I'm hoping the arbitration process will provide a solution. If there is no possibility of discussion, then permanent blocking would seem best, but I'm willing to defer to the wisdom of the committee--any ideas would be helpful.

After repeated requests on article talk and user talk, there has never been any compromise or, recently, even willingness to engage in dialogue, and thus I believe mediation would not be helpful. I respectfully request arbitration. Thank you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I support banning this editor and sockpuppets, not because of his political views, which are probably shared by many here, but because of offensive behavior.

• He refuses to honor or even acknowlege our NPOV policy.
• He usually refuses to discuss changes.
• He reverts without negotiating content even when factual errors have been pointed out.
• His edit summaries are frequently dishonest, misrepresenting reversions as new material.
• Ample examples in the history of Phil Gingrey and Medical torture.
• Very few of his edits add anything of value to the articles.
• This person does not appear to be here for any reason other than political advocacy, if not just to exasperate and annoy, and has been given many explanations, requests for improved behavior and warnings.
• He has no respect for this project and the other editors here and I resent the time wasted for the rest of us.

This is the kind of behavior that drives away good editors. Please, can we show that we can protect ourselves from this? Alteripse 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So what is the answer? Page protection one by one? How do we protect ourselves against someone like this? Alteripse 12:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[In response to Fred's comment]

• • Fred, look again. I don't give two hoots about this article, but do you think his description of the community attitude toward a landmark as "grotesque" "pervasive ugliness" "pathetic emotional need" belongs in an encyclopedia? This user is not pasting nonsense, and I did not claim no portion of any edits have been decent. Your comment unfortunately sounds like defending an accused obdurate pickpocket, burglar, and forger by saying, "he just walked past that person without stealing from him." Just review the idiotic POV stuff in Phil Gingrey and medical torture under all his aliases and you will understand this clown knows exactly that his postings are POV and is telling us he doesn't care, he has no intention of accommodating community standards or respecting other opinions. Fred, don't you think a user is a problem for the community if he is a problem for multiple usefully contributing members of the community? If we tolerate this clear an abuser of multiple policies, we have no standards and will do nothing to defend or enforce our policies. If so, it hardly seems worth my efforts. Alteripse 21:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. My first introduction to this guy was an edit marked 13th October "revert: OK lets stop the edit war by leaving it this way" on the medical torture page. At that time, he at least gave one or two good edits. Since 19th October, it has been a pure revert war. As far as I know from his comments, the version I revert to does not contain anything he finds objectionable. It is the lack of Phil Gingrey he finds objectionable. He has used two new sockpuppets in this fight, User:ShepsleH and User:PippaNipple, the latter of whom has created the Representative Gingrey article, a copy of the Phil Gingrey article with the disputed POV edits inserted. Kyz 17:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also Marietta, Georgia. Same user, same sock puppet accounts, same pattern of behavior. Despite the absurd over-the-top bias in GLF's edits, I patiently laid out my case on Talk:Marietta, Georgia for why I believe the edits should not stay, and asked him in direct messages to his talk page and in revert comments to please read it and respond to me. I even pointed out that I'm probably almost as liberal as he is, hoping he would be enlightened as to what motivates us good people to work against him. He has not responded, but continues to revert. I would very much like not to have to watch that obscure and relatively unimportant page like a hawk—I was having some success in hunting other vandals before GLF occupied my time. Incidentally, it appears to have been in retaliation for my efforts to keep the Marietta page clean that GLF vandalized using the Dreisshh sock puppet account. This person should be banned permanently, and his reappearance should be watched for with readiness to hard-ban any future IP addresses and accounts he uses. --dreish~talk 22:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (4/0/0/1)

• Is an arbcom ruling necessary in this case? If he has no good edits to his name, and ignores attempts to communicate, then I don't really think an arbcom ruling is necessary. →Raul654 05:02, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  This edit seems reasonable enough: [1]. Fred Bauder 14:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

1. Provisionally accept, though cases without communication from one party are regrettful and normally short. James F. (talk) 16:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept the Epopt 13:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept Fred Bauder 11:15, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Advocacy or propaganda

1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy.

Passed 9-0.

No original research

2) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.

Passed 7-0.

Discussion of controversial edits

3) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Passed 9-0.

Neutral point of view includes only significant published viewpoints

4) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

Passed 6-0.

Findings of Fact

Edit warring and point of view editing

1) 66.20.28.21 (and the user's other accounts) has engaged in edit wars to advocate a point of view with respect to Phil Gingrey [2] and other articles. The point 66.20.28.21 repeatedly seeks to make is that Phil Gingrey, who is both a medical doctor and US Representative from Georgia, violates his medical ethics by the political positions he takes with respect to the use of medical information about prisoners being held by the United States and other matters involving "medical torture".

Passed 9-0.

Original research

2) Googling for the information which 66.20.28.21 seeks to add to Wikipedia produces only a few hits on Wikipedia and related websites consisting of the material added by 66.20.28.21.

Passed 6-0-1.

Insufficient discusson of issues

3) Despite attempts to communicate with the user, the user has made insufficient effort to discuss their changes to the articles in question and how they relate to the Wikipedia policies of No original research and Neutral point of view.

Passed 8-0.

Remedies

Ban from editing certain disputed articles

1) The user in question is not permitted to edit Phil Gingrey, Rick Crawford, or medical torture until such time as the user is willing to communicate with other users regarding their changes.

Passed 6-1-3.

Required to comply with NPOV

2) The user in question is referred to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and reminded that all edits must comply with this principle.

Passed 9-0.

Original research

3) Original research by 66.20.28.21 concerning the disputed issues they have raised concerning Phil Gingrey, Rick Crawford, medical torture or related articles shall not be placed in any Wikipedia article and may be removed by any user.

Passed 7-0-1.

Disputes regarding original research

4) Should a dispute arise between 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) and any other user regarding whether information they seek to add is original research or has an independent source, 66.20.28.21 shall utilize the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process rather than engaging in struggle using reverts.

Passed 7-0-1.

Enforcement

Reversion if no discussion

1) Edits made by 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) that do not conform to the Wikipedia's NPOV policy can be reverted by any user at any time. 66.20.28.21 should not replace any such edit (using any account or IP) without first agreeing the inclusion and wording with other editors on the talk page. Editors are encouraged to assist by suggesting alternative wording where possible. In all cases, it should be made clear to 66.20.28.21, via an edit summary or talk page comment, that the reversion is on the grounds of non-neutrality.

Passed 8-1.

Temporary bans for infractions

2) If 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) replaces edits removed as above, the account that made the edit may be tempbanned for up to 24 hours. Administrators making this ban should notify 66.20.28.21 that their ban may be lifted if 66.20.28.21 demonstrates a willingness to comply with the NPOV policy.

Passed 9-0.

Temporary ban for replacement of original research

3) 66.20.28.21 (under any account or IP) may be temporarily banned (one day for inital offenses, up to one week for repeated offenses) if he places original research or reinserts it after it has been removed into the disputed articles without establishing and citing an independent, relible source for the information. The blocking administrator may use his/her discretion in determining what an independent, reliable source is.

Passed 6-0-2.