Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur

Case closed with no ruling

Accepted for arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to /Evidence please.

• Recuse Fred Bauder 11:23, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Recuse. Martin 16:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Since I only made one edit to the relevant article, and have made no edits since, and due to the passage of time, I believe that, despite being named in the original request, I can retract my recusal. Martin 22:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Delirium 02:58, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
• I've been one of the people reverting him so I must recuse myself. If just one more AC member has to recuse then this presents a serious problem. --mav 07:41, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Camembert 23:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 16:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am requesting arbitration concerning an interminable reversion war on Zviad Gamsakhurdia (history/talk). Despite a clear consensus following a request for comment, User:Levzur has persisted in deleting a section of the article that he does not like in order to impose his own POV, often dishonestly marking his edits as minor "corrections". I should add that the section in question was originally written by myself but was subsequently rewritten by MyRedDice. I am making this request on the basis of being the original author; others may wish to join as co-requesters.

(para modified 29 Apr 2004) A reversion conflict has also developed on Nino Burjanadze, in which Levzur has repeatedly deleted valid alternative transliterations of the subject's name without explanation or comment. Levzur has again violated the three reversion rule and there is every sign that this will become another, even more pointless editing conflict.

Please see User:Levzur/Evidence for details of this dispute. -- ChrisO 10:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: The mediation committee has been involved in this case but Levzur did not agree to mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and User talk:Levzur -- sannse (talk) 10:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

N.B. Levzur has since blanked his talk page - the reference that sannse quotes is at [1] -- ChrisO 15:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee the fact that Levzur has now begun a series of simultaneous reversion wars from anonymous proxy servers, making it very difficult for a number of editors to work on about 10 articles. I would be grateful for the Committee's urgent attention in this matter. Details are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur/Evidence#Anonymous_reversion_wars. -- ChrisO 11:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love ethnic politics. Well, as of 1-May Levzur has said he's forsaking Wikipedia. Let's see if he does so. One thing I noticed is the limited use of the edit summary. I really think the edit summary should be mandatory for non-minor edits. --The Cunctator 16:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think there's any point in us looking at this case for the moment (I won't be, anyway - there's other stuff I can spend my time on). We can see what's to be done if and when Levzur makes a return. --Camembert

It appears that he has, only now editing without logging in. South Caucasian languages and Iberian-Caucasian languages have both been reverted anonymously within the past 48 hours from 213.157.209.197 and 213.157.209.234 - proxy servers on Levzur's ISP, Rustavi 2 Online. I'll unprotect Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Nino Burjanadze to see what happens - I predict that they will soon be reverted anonymously from Rustavi proxies. If that happens, I suggest that the arbitration be taken forward. -- ChrisO 16:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, the Gamsakhurdia article has been reverted again from a Rustavi 2 Online proxy. Could this arbitration please be taken forward? -- ChrisO 09:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He returned on May 9 as User:213.157.202.207 and once again vandalized the page. RickK 05:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Also on May 11 as User:213.157.209.226 and May 12 as User:213.157.209.235. See [2] and[3]. Same pattern of behavior as before. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And again on June 10 as User:213.157.193.211, within 48 hours of the articles in question being unprotected (they've since been reprotected by User:Bryan Derksen). -- ChrisO 10:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just so you all know, we are discussing this behind the scenes as it were (on the arbitration mailing list) - we're not ignoring you. My feeling is that a ban is in order. --Camembert

Note that because there have been three recusals from this case, there are only seven arbitrators able to take part. Therefore, four arbitrators voting for or against any point will consistute a majority and be enough to pass or reject it. --Camembert

Is anything actually happening on this? It all seems to have gone very quiet... -- ChrisO 10:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like that, doesn't it. I'll give people a kick, see if anything happens. --Camembert

• Although it was not made explicit on wikipedia:revert at the time of Levzur's edit wars, a review of Wikipedia policies such as wikipedia:staying cool and wikipedia:dispute resolution, together with common practice and community expectations, strongly suggests that "When reverting, explain your reasons for doing so" is a longstanding de facto Wikipdia policy. See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette ("Avoid reverting and deleting" and "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate")
  • Support:
    1. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    2. Delirium 07:53, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
    3. Camembert 19:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    4. Martin 22:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I agreed with this when I wrote it elsewhere too ;-))
    5. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    6. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• • Oppose:
  • Abstain:

• Deletion of apparently legitimate content is expected to be accompanied by an explanation: see Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes ("Deleting without justifying").
  • Support:
    1. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    2. Delirium 07:53, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
    3. Camembert 19:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    4. Martin 22:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    5. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    6. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• • Oppose:
  • Abstain:

• Levzur has reverted edits to articles and removed information without comment. For example:
  • User:MyRedDice's edit of April 18 [4] was reverted by Levzur on April 21 [5] with the edit summary "rv". Levzur made no comment on the article's talk page.
  • Deletion of info from Nino Burjanadze [6] with no reason given either in the edit summary or on talk. He continued to delete this information ([7] for example) even after his reasons for doing so had been queried on the talk page [8]
• Support:
  • 1. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    2. Delirium 07:53, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
    3. Camembert 19:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    4. Martin 22:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (excessive reverts, in fact, which motivates revert parole below)
    5. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    6. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Abstain:

1) When reverting, Levzur must respond on talk pages to any substantive objections by those who disagree with him over the content of articles. If Levzur reverts a new compromise or proposed solution, he must explain on the talk page why the reverted version still fails to address his objections.

• Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium
  3. Camembert 19:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 22:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (also applies to any sock puppets, of course. People should be explaining reverts anyway.)
  5. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Abstain:

2)In light of the general disruption to the Wikipedia he has caused, Levzur's editing privileges are revoked for one month.

• Support:
  1. Delirium 07:53, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Camembert 19:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose:
• Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) (See below; seems... perhaps an unsuitable remedy.)
  2. Martin 22:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I'm not clear it's necessary)
  3. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• (I don't know if the fact that Levzur only edits anonymously now is an issue - we might want to think about how that might affect rememdies, perhaps. not given it much thought, maybe not a problem, thoughts? Camembert)
  • Hmm. General practice for anonymous 'nuisance' editors is to block them until they go away, AIW. If a logged-in editor decides to put himself under such (more stringent) guidelines / levels of acceptability, so be it, perhaps? I dunno. James F. (talk) 23:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it affects enforcement, perhaps? But surely not these remedies. Martin 22:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3) Levzur is placed on indefinite revert parole (as was applied to Wik, for example).

• Support:
  1. Martin 23:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gutza 13:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC), but if this fails I'd like to fall back automatically to the one month ban or whatever other ban is agreed on ASAP, if I'm unavailable at that time
  4. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Abstain:

4) Levzur must not delete content without first providing a reason for doing so. If reverted, for subsequent re-deletes ruling #1 regards reverting applies.

• Support:
  1. Martin 17:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Abstain:

5) If Levzur consistently fails to abide by, or tries to evade, any of the rulings made against him by the Arbitration Committee, the Committee may apply an immediate ban of up to one month. Such bans will be at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, following a simple majority vote of the Committee.

• Support:
  1. Martin 17:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 03:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Abstain:

I propose closing this case as "no ruling necessary". Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia. While he appears to be making a handful of edits anonymously, these are being dealt with via reverts in the normal manner. The current situation does not require arbitration. Accordingly, we close the case without ruling. Martin 19:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeay:

1. Martin 19:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 19:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 00:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. the Epopt 13:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain: