Case Opened on 10 March 2005

Case Closed on 27 March 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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.

• Dr Zen
• Snowspinner
• Raul654
• Cool Hand Luke

Please limit your statement to 500 words I've been asked to submit this case by other users. Dr Zen is an intractable edit warrior who's sense of consensus appears to be that he is right and everybody else is wrong. This manifests most clearly at Clitoris, where he has persistantly waged an edit war to remove an illustrative picture of a clitoris from the page. He has made it clear that he has no intention of listening to consensus, and that he will revert until the cows come home. The page quieted down late January when he left for a while. Upon his return two days ago, the page has been the subject of an edit war once again. He has also attacked admins who have suggested that this act might be vandalism as "bullyboys" as in , where he also declares his intention to keep reverting. Needless to say, this sterile edit warring and aggression towards anyone who dares disagree is problematic.

It should be noted that Raul654 should recuse in this case, due to having blocked Dr Zen, and that Theresa Knott and The Epopt should consider recusals as they have vowed to revert Dr Zen's removal of the picture. Snowspinner 22:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

This case is a fairly straightforward example of one user - Dr Zen - who hasn't gotten his way and refuses to stop fighting to get his way. Every day, Dr Zen removes the picture from Clitoris, arguing that it is offensive and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

This dispute has been going on for some time. Primarily at Zen's instigation, clitoris went through a 5 month seige (there's really no other word for it) from September until January. The article protected for very long periods of time, during which talk page many was filled up times over. The article stabalized after 6 polls - each of which favored keeping the article in its current status quo - and an arbcom case which saw Cantus banned from the article, for doing exactly what Dr Zen is dong. Dr Zen became inactive in January. After he left us, the problems ceased and the article stabalized.

On his return a week ago, Dr Zen resumed his argumentum ad infinitum. He was told that if he kept it up, he would be banned. He did, and was. Following a request from Dr Zen, Cool Hand Luke kept his months old promise to unban Zen if his (Dr Zen's) action caused him to be banned, citing his flagarantly wrong interpretation of the three revert rule. Cool Hand Luke believes that because Dr Zen had not reverted the page 3 times, this somehow made it ok for him to disrupt Wikipedia by reverting it once per day, forever. In other words, Cool Hand Luke interprets the three revert rule to mean that as long as you don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours, you're not doing anything wrong.

As this is a straightforward case, the remedies should be fairly straightforward as well - Dr. Zen should be prohibited from editing on Clitoris (the same chastening Cantus recieved for the same offense) and Cool Hand Luke should be directed not to unblock Dr Zen in the future. Dr Zen should be further instructed to refrain from repeating his actions elsewhere - that is, removing pictures from other articles on Wikipedia because they are 'offensive'. →Raul654 03:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Am I to have a statement?

I don't have a position on this editor. He's clearly not behaved prudently, but I'm unsure whether he's a troll so I tend to assume good faith.

I certainly think that editors who game the 3RR should be banned. In fact, I feel rather strongly about this—the rule does not give users license to revert three times daily. However, I fail to understand how one revert per day (totaling only seven in two months) could have possibly run affoul this rule. Moreover, I don't understand why I'm being singled out. I'm not the only editor who unblocked this user.

Incidentally, I don't believe Raul654 is correct that Dr Zen has led this edit war since September. Point of fact, he actually supported the picture until November. He even reverted the page to remove a proposed disclaimer no less than four months ago. . Perhaps Raul654 is thinking of Anthony DiPierros hyper-agressive editing in early December? Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Recuse. →Raul654 22:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 22:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse of course Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Mediation et al. seem unlikely to help. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Accept. I'll need to see more evidence before I'd consider much in the way of sanctions, but it seems that there's quite likely a case to answer. Ambi 07:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Why bother? You might just as well go straight to the sentence. Accepting the case shows that you are going to ignore policy. I've breached none at all. Stubbornness is not a crime here and neither is editing with a minority POV.Dr Zen 22:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Accept. By stating "I won't change my mind" he has implicitly refused all forms of dispute resolution that do not involve force. ➥the Epopt 13:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  I note that you removed my comment. This is a misrepresentation of what I said. I said I would not change my mind that NPOV is nonnegotiable. No proceedings here will change my mind about that. It is fundamental to Wikipedia.Dr Zen 23:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Recuse - David Gerard 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 02:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse - I was involved in this dispute. --mav 03:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

1) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Passed 6-0.

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of personal attacks.

Passed 6-0.

3) Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Passed 6-0.

4) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Passed 6-0.

1) There has been a consistent consensus to keep the photograph in the article Clitoris; there was, for example, no significant attempt to remove the image between Dr Zen's last removal attempt in January and first removal attempt in March.

Passed 5-0.

2) Dr Zen has repeatedly removed the photograph from Clitoris via means of revert warring despite being warned by several individuals not to do so.

Passed 5-0.

3) Dr Zen has stated that he believes he is editing within Wikipedia policy .

Passed 5-0.

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.

1.1) Dr Zen is prohibited from removing or otherwise altering the manner of appearance of any photographs on the article Clitoris. This prohibition will apply indefinitely.

Passed 5-0.

1) Dr Zen may be blocked for up to one week by any administator who feels a given edit by Dr Zen constitutes a violation of the prohibitions described in Remedies passed during this case.

Passed 5-0.