Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis
Case Opened on 3 March 2005
Case Closed on 18 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.
- 1 Involved parties
- 2 Statement by Psychonaut
- 3 Statement by FirstPrinciples
- 4 Statement by CyborgTosser
- 5 Preliminary decisions
- 6 Final decision
- 6.1 Principles
- 6.2 Findings of Fact
- 6.3 Remedies
- 6.4 Enforcement
Statement by Psychonaut
Please limit your statement to 500 words
This user has shown a pattern of neglect and abuse of Wikipedia policy which has continued despite repeated warnings from fellow editors. Alleged inappropriate behaviour includes:
- posting machine-translated articles (e.g., de:Spira)
- posting duplicate articles instead of contributing to existing ones (e.g., Rasputin, Grigory Yefimovich, Genetic Engineering Career)
- deleting perfectly good information from articles (e.g., Image:Gravity not fictitious.png)
- listing perfectly good articles for speedy deletion without justification (e.g., U.S. gubernatorial elections, 2006)
- engaging in personal attacks on users (e.g., , )
- damaging templates and image tags (e.g., )
- creating a template for the express purpose of attacking other users (Template:Troll, )
- posting homework assignments as articles (e.g., , )
- recreating VfD-deleted pages under another title (e.g., , )
- adding pointless or libelous comments to Talk pages (e.g., )
- consistently failing to leave meaningful edit summaries which, in light of his tendency to make inappropriate edits, means fellow editors keeping an eye on him must check each of his edits individually
- uploading images without including copyright information; most of these are rather obvious violations of fair use (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Picture List).
- uploading images with incorrect copyright information; he seems to have little or no understanding of the terms "fair use", "copyright", "public domain", and "GFDL", and moreover refuses to educate himself on this matter when others point out his mistakes (e.g., , , , User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Celebrity images)
- uploading images with gratuitous nudity – note that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with nudity per se on Wikipedia, but in these cases it seems to have little or nothing to do with the articles he is modifying (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Picture List)
The user has been warned about these behaviours on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis, but for the most part he has either neglected to respond or responds with personal attacks. In some cases he has apparently stopped the offending behaviour, but in others (especially the last four points) he continues.
As per the policy that "vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures" from Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, I believe this matter warrants going straight to arbitration. This user is creating far too much work for his fellow editors. —Psychonaut 10:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Notice to respondent)
Statement by FirstPrinciples
I would like to second Psychonaut's concerns. JarlaxleArtemis has a lamentable history of poor conduct, despite repeated constructive comments from other users on his talk page (although, to be fair, he has also made some decent edits). Of particular concern to me are his negative comments to new users (particularly B-Ryan who he seems to have scared off forever); his repeated, egregious and wilful violations of image copyright and image tag policies; and his (almost) complete failure to enter into dialogue or even respond to constructive criticism. Also, for what it's worth, he is (by his own testimony ) a 10th grade student, hence he possibly lacks a little maturity in these matters. -- FP 13:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by CyborgTosser
I concur. JarlaxleArtemis has been creating a lot of work for a lot of editors. Although I hate to jump to this kind of conclusion, as I know we have a lot of good young contributors, his refusal to listen to other users' concerns leads me to believe he lacks maturity to handle with appropriate seriousness anything less severe than arbitration. However, if we make it clear to him that his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, then perhaps he will mature as a contributor. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- Accept. Judging by the behaviour cited other means of dispute resolution are not likely to be adequate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:01, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
- Tentatively accept. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. ➥the Epopt 15:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 21:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Nohat 20:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
No personal attacks
- Passed 8-0.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
- Passed 8-0.
3) 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 8-0.
4) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.
- Passed 7-0.
5) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate.
- Passed 8-0.
Findings of Fact
- Passed 8-0.
2) JarlaxleArtemis has uploaded images with, and attribued to previously uploaded images, questionable or entirely incorrect copyright tags and has persisted in doing so despite being warned repeatedly by other users to stop. 
- Passed 8-0.
Ignorance of Wikipedia policy
3) JarlaxleArtemis's above actions, among others, do not appear to arise out of malice, but instead are apparently a result of ignorance of Wikipedia policies.
- Passed 7-0-1.
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.
Requirement to read policies
1) JarlaxleArtemis is required to read and understand the Wikipedia policies he has violated, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. Once he has done so he shall, on the wiki, prepare and sign a statement that he has done so and present it to the Arbitration Committee. He shall not be permitted to edit outside the Wikipedia namespace or his userspace until he has done so.
- Passed 8-0.
Bans for continued ignorance of policy
1) If JarlaxleArtemis, within a period of three months after having provided the above statement, continues to make edits that an adminstrator feels ignore Wikipedia policy in the fashion outlined above, he may be be banned for a short period of time (up to one day) and reminded to review the policy he has violated.
- Passed 6-0-1.