Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 2 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Editing injunction on Robert Blair

1) Enacted. For the duration of this case, Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. He also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles. He may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 18:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) (effective 24 hours hence)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) (effective 18:59, 28 Feb 2005 UTC)
  4. Delirium 21:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Grunt   ҈  00:35, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 01:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Neutral point-of-view

1) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:49, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 20:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Because of wide-spread antiSemitism among Moslems, many of whom think the Prococols of Zion and similar fabrications are genuine, many Moslems, possibly including Osama bin Laden, hold views regarding Jews which are not well founded. This makes the example cited by Neutrality a special case. Fred Bauder 20:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 19:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Don't like the way this can be interperted. Osama bin Laden's point-of-view of Jews, for example is significant (it being shared by many). This doesn't mean that bin Laden's view should be given equal space in the Jew article. I would support if this principle simply affirms the official policy set forth at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutralitytalk 21:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Doesn't say "equal space." Similarly, creationism is of vast social and political importance, but still doesn't get a mention in scientific articles on biology - David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Advocacy and propaganda

2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:49, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Citing sources

3) It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits. This is especially important on controversial articles.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:49, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Do not remove references from articles

4) Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:49, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of relevant information

5) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:49, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Arbitration rulings

6) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:50, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous warning for non-NPOV editing

1) Robert Blair has previously been warned by the Arbitration Committee to improve his editing habits such that they are in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. [1]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:56, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of referenced material

2) Robert Blair has previously removed referenced material and their associated references from articles ([2], [3]) even after the above warning ([4]).

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:58, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Apparent POV-pushing

3) Robert Blair's apparent intention in making the above edits has been to advocate an anti-circumcision point of view in the articles in question.

Support:
  1. (When did this header become Support?) -- Grunt   ҈  22:06, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:11, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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.

[edit] Ban on editing disputed articles

1) For a period of one year, Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. He also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles. He may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  22:11, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. I suggest adding "Administrators shall interpret the phrase 'related to such matters' broadly" so as to avoid having to readdress what we mean. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I've added an 'Enforcement' provision - David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

1.1) For a period of six months, Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. He also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles. He may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Support:
  1. In case there's some reason for thinking a year is too long. Support iff 1) does not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  22:11, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. I suggest adding "Administrators shall interpret the phrase 'related to such matters' broadly" so as to avoid having to readdress what we mean. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefer a year Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Prefer a year.
Oppose:
  1. Too short. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.2) For a period of three months, Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. He also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles. He may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Support:
  1. In case there's some reason for thinking a year is too long. Support iff 1) does not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  22:11, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too short. ➥the Epopt 00:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with the Epopt. Neutralitytalk 01:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)Far too short.
  2. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of editing ban

1) When enforcing the ban on Robert Blair editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia or making any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles, administrators may use their own judgement in deciding what constitutes a violation of such. Such edits should be reverted and a block of up to 24 hours imposed.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:31, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 00:35, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 03:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

Robert Blair is a noxious editor. However, he's first come out of nowhere and then continued his POV-pushing after a warning. I strongly suspect him of being a sock puppet, though no-one has suggested prospective candidates. One to consider for that six months or year - David Gerard 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

[edit] Aye

  1. Move to close ➥the Epopt 04:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 19:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 23:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ok, let's close this thing. -- Grunt   ҈  00:40, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 19:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nay

What about principle 1 and the enforcement? They haven't passed yet. -- Grunt   ҈  04:37, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
The enforcement has now. Principle 1 still needs a vote. Ambi 06:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Priciple 1 now passed. --mav 19:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Robert_Blair_Proposed_decision_4e60.html"