Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus

Case closed

Please see /Evidence and inform yourself before making a decision. Also add any evidence you might have to that page.

Complaint

Wik wrote (during his case):

"I want to ask for a ban of User:Cantus who behaves in an utterly inacceptable way by violating the three-revert rule (see for example shnorrer), then additionally calling in sockpuppets (User:Augusta), engaging in revenge reversion of pages he otherwise has no interest in (even in the case of a clear vandalism I had reverted on Ethics, he reverted it back to the vandalized version), and spamming my talk page".

I didn't wish discussion of this point to delay the Wik case, so I span this counter-claim (with the exception of evading his temp-ban, which was already considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2) into a separate request. Martin 00:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that problems with Cantus extend beyond his conflicts with Wik. Note his repeated reversions at Diana, Princess of Wales (as well as his attempts to move it to Diana, princess of Wales), and similar actions at Charles, Prince of Wales, and possibly other similar pages, in spite of the opposition of practically everybody else who's bothered to comment, and note that he's done this without once using the talk page. I think this kind of thing verges on trolling. john k 04:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus is currently engaged in revert wars all over Wikipedia with Wik. Whatever article the one edits, the other is reverting. This is unacceptable behavior, and should lead to immediate action against both. Rick K 03:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response by Cantus

I was never User:Augusta. User:nico has confessed he was.

I desisted in reverting [ Diana, Princess of Wales and Charles, Prince of Wales ] to my preferred version and cooperated with the community to solve the issue very quickly.

"Cantus is currently engaged in revert wars all over Wikipedia with Wik. Whatever article the one edits, the other is reverting."-- Complete and utter hogwash. Should we open a RfA on RickK for blatant lying? --Cantus 02:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(This edit by Cantus convinced me. --mav 14:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
- This earlier edit also convinced me. --Cantus 03:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of this case

Vote to accept. Martin 23:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:22, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
This edit by Cantus convinced me. --mav 14:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Excessive reverts
Harassment of User:Wik
Alleged use of sock puppets

--Martin 02:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and voting by arbitrators

Might be worth not moving to vote straight away - once arbitrators vote they have a tendency to not come back, which I think makes for worse decisions. Martin 00:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Right - having gone through what little we've been given on /Evidence... he's made a few too many edits in some cases. But generally he's discussed, which is a start. He vandalised Wik's talk page (seemingly in retaliation, though that's no excuse). And he's done a few dubious things with talk pages. If we don't get more evidence, my current plan is something like:

revert parole - no more than three reverts in a 24 hour period - sysop discretionary 24hr bans
vandalism parole - no vandalism - sysop discretionary 24 hr bans (but has to be proper vandalism, as defined on wikipedia:dealing with vandalism, not "something I didn't like")
instructed not to harass people.

I don't think blocking Cantus from editing the specified articles would help - from the discussion Cantus may well be able to help resolve the dispute he started. The revert parole will ensure he can't bully his way to victory, which should be sufficient. Martin 02:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision

Decision made 01 Aug 2004, 4-0; at time of vote, representing a majority of arbitrators who were active or who had voted on this issue. Martin 18:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finding of fact

1. As detailed on the Evidence subpage, Cantus made excessive reverts to a number of pages, including Mongolia, Template:Central Asia, Schnorrer. While Cantus did at least engage in some discussion over the matter, we find that these sterile revert wars, where little or no significant information is at issue, are inappropriate on Wikipedia.

2. As detailed on the Evidence subpage, Cantus made personal attacks on Wik, such as "Does Wik have a life? Are you jobless? Girlfriendless? Or are you just plain pathetic to be here all day?" in an edit summary to East Asia, as well as other attempts to harass and provoke him. While acknowledging that Wik likewise made mistakes, we rule that this behaviour is inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Remedies

1 Cantus is placed on revert parole, indefinitely, as was applied to Wik. As a result, he may not revert any page more than three times in any 24 hour period. This may be enforced by 24-hour temp-bans at sysop discretion, as per Wik.

2 Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation.

3 If Cantus gets into further sterile and pointless revert wars in the future, the Arbitration Committee may ban him from editing the pages involved in order to discourage him from wasting his valuable Wikipedia time.

Voting

(voting was seperate, but identical for each item)

For:
1. Martin
2. James F.
3. Camembert
4. Gutza

No opposing votes or explicit abstentions.