Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen

message: * Comment. No previous RfC has been opened regarding this user.  Dr Zen declined mediation with User:LGagnon, but that was over a situation unrelated to the Clitoris article. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
Given the fondness for stagnant edit wars, I do not think user mediation or RfC are appropriate. There was an RfC on the inclusion of the image, along with a poll, a lengthy mailing list discussion, and some enlightening commentary from Jimbo. Considering his seeming lack of good faith with regards to consensus and his fellow editors, mediation seems fruitless. Snowspinner 23:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC). 
: From this very page - The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration.  Is there some urgency I am unaware of that this matter cannot wait to at least try earlier steps?  I think that it is only an incredible lack of good faith assumption to say these early steps would not be beneficial.  If everything is as clear-cut as you seem to think, and there is no utmost urgency, then taking a short time to follow the earlier steps would be appropriate.  Arbitrators should only set aside those requirements in extreme cases.  Trust in the fact that no matter how this case goes, there will always be edit wars over Clitoris.  They are easily reverted, and page protection is an option. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
::I agree. User requested mediation and even volunteered not to edit the article while mediating. RfC might also be productive. In any case, user's once-a-day reverts certainly don't merit this process-bending urgency. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to try RfC first. Dr. Zen's once-a-day reverts are annoying, frustrating, angering, detrimental to the editing environment in wikipedia, and horribly counterproductive to Dr. Zen's cause. However, I think it's not so terribly urgent that we shouldn't find out if he's actually open to civilized discourse and changing his ways. Before he went on hiatus, I had a lot of unfriendly and antagonistic interaction with Zen over at clitoris because I think we were both very frustrated. Recently, though, we've been having a rather civilized discourse at his and my talk pages. I think he's also expressed a willingness to open an RfC. If he continues, in the face of RfC, to stonewall with appeals to "consensus" and mischaracterizations or peoples' views, then RfAr might be the only option. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though after looking through Dr Zen's interaction with Raul654, Snowspinner, Theresa, etc., I don't blame anyone for thinking RfC would be useless. I think it's a good idea to try RfC, but the Arbitrators should take into account that Zen has said nothing that hasn't already been said ad nauseum, and he just refuses to see things differently. It seems that he'll make a fuss until he gets his way. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Zen had already asked for mediation prior to Snowspinner posting his Arbitration request.  That shows promise. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I have been talk to Dr Zen via email. Though I'm not officially a mediator, I would be happy to help here, least of all because I think he's a good editor even though I disagree with his actions in this case. I don't know if Dr Zen would be happy with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The picture itself is neutral. NPOV policy applies to the contents of articles not to definitions of "rough consensus" Furthermore removal of a picture against the wished of the overwhelming majority is disruption. The Epopt stated tuhat when you did this, he would add the picture back in. Why does this mean he should recuse? Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 16:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary from original request

message: Dr Zen's statement is inexplicably absent from the final version of this arbitration committee decision. The text of it follows:
I refuse to have anything to do with this. I have edited strictly within the policies of Wikipedia. I've asked both the admins in question to mediate. Neither even bothered to respond to the request. If I am to be witchhunted by a kangaroo court, fine. If the arbitration committee wants to punish someone who believes in consensus and working together towards a compromise, and reward hardline POV pushers who do not want any of those things, fine. I simply note that the person who has brought the arbitration has not been involved in editing this page for quite a while and has never discussed it with me at all, except to claim I am not editing in good faith, which I have always done. When I and other editors were working towards a consensus and had reached some notion of a roadmap, it was destroyed by hardline admins who used their powers to push their POV. You might or might not agree that this is the best route to resolving our differences. I certainly do not.
I have not "disrupted Wikipedia". I have simply edited an article how I see fit. We're all permitted to do that. If other editors disagree with our edits, they can revert them. That's how a wiki works.
Consensus should never mean "the majority wins". NPOV should never mean "include only the majority view". I won't change my mind. A thing does not become right because you hold a poll.
sigh We can all save a lot of time here by simply moving straight to the hanging. Forget the evidence. I plead guilty to the charges laid. Get the black caps out.Dr Zen 05:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Zen's statement