Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/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 aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay 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 enacted.

On this case, 2 arbitrators are recused and 1 is away/inactive, so 5 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 aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] No personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  16:30, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Truth not a defense

1.5) It is not a defense to a charge of personal attacks that they are true or in good faith believed to be true.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Bloody Crom on a rubber raft, NO!!! ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So if someone is a bit slow to catch on, it's ok to call them a "moron", and if someone is emotionally upset it is ok to call them "crazy"? And we are going to adminster IQ tests and send the user off for psychiatric evaluation and if it turns out that the slur is "true", well then, SHINE ON! Fred Bauder 18:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
So if I write that a user is a vandal after he vandalizes the main page, that vandal can charge me with making personal attacks? If I write that a particular account is a sockpuppet of a particular user, that sockpuppeteer can charge me with making personal attacks? If that's the kind of litigatory environment you want, well, I sincerely hope you don't "SHINE ON," because I would find it impossible to remain a member of this committee under those conditions. ➥the Epopt 18:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. There's a difference between calling someone a moron and (for example) calling him a troll. Both are pesonal attacks, but the former (for all practical purposes) cannot be proven true on wikipedia. On the other hand, calling someone a troll, a label based on their behavior, is quite provable (or disprovable). Furthermore, euphamisms (like 'trouble user') serve only to whitewash discussion. →Raul654 18:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with epopt. →Raul654 18:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. In all honesty, I'm not sure what to think here... -- Grunt   ҈  04:19, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) I get the idea, but I'm not sure at all this is the wording for it ...
  3. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is complex. Obviously "moron" cannot be justified by a defence of "truth", and accusations of mental illness are much more often an attempt to belittle and dismiss than to understand or sympathise, but a this is too varied a problem for a general principle - I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Certainly "truth" is not always at defence. (note. see below for more comments on this particular case)

[edit] Civility

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.

Aye:
  1. (Have we passed a principle similar to this recently?) -- Grunt   ҈  16:43, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] No good deed goes unpunished

3) It is fundamentally unfair to attack User:Jimbo Wales on the basis of global generalizations such as his interest in the Objectivist philosophy or his status as founder and financial supporter of Wikipedia. As a collaborative project whatever failings Wikipedia has are not properly attributed to him personally. He is subject to reasonable criticism regarding decisions he may make from time to time which may be expressed on User talk:Jimbo Wales or other Wikipedia forums and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to ordinary editing.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) Don't think philosophical decisions like this are really the arbitration committee's business. If someone feels that Wikipedia's failings are due to the Objectivist views of its founder, that's their prerogative. (Personal attacks are a separate matter, and already covered under 1 and 2 above.)
  2. This is utterly wrong. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I would be more inclined to say this is true of _all_ contributors, regardless of who they are. -- Grunt   ҈  21:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Grunt. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Jimbo is a big boy and can take care of himself. I'd say it applies to all contributors at least as much as it does to him.
  4. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provocation

4) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  01:21, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) "Yes" as applied by Xed's treatment of Modemx.
  6. →Raul654 17:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. It may well be a good idea in theory, but Xed was neither new nor inexperienced, making it irrelevant to this particular case. Ambi 15:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) as Ambi
Abstain:
David Gerard 00:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) I say 'yes' to this one, but I certainly hope this isn't implying Xed is a new or inexperienced user. "Yes" as applied by Xed's treatment of Modemx.

[edit] Good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour

5) Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (the bracketed bit sounds weaselly, but I think it's needed to accurately represent community sentiment.)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I agree with both - it does not *excuse* it, but it is a mitigating factor. →Raul654 17:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sure, since the parenthetical comment is entirely moot ➥the Epopt 20:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Do not retaliate to personal attacks

6) Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I know (from personal experience) that it's very hard to avoid responding in kind, but in principle, yes, this is a very good idea. →Raul654 17:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

7) 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.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 17:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - yes, this is surpremely important.
  5. sannse (talk) 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) As Raul says
  6. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed's attack on Jimbo Wales

1) It is the assertion of User:Xed that User:Jimbo Wales, founder and chief financial supporter of Wikipedia, due to his allegiance to the principles of objectivism as exemplified by by writings of Ayn Rand is opposed to solicitations of voluntary contributions of funds to be applied to relief of the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. In support of his assertion he cites "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" an article posted on the conservative website FreeRepublic.com (which was originally posted by the Ayn Rand Institute) and the change of a box soliciting donations from its position as a banner at the top of the Main page (Template:Helpout) to the In the news section of the Main page, see Xed's post to Jimbo's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Status of donations article

2) After debate Template:Helpout was restored. Jimmy Wales' response, made later, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F favored discussion of the matter. Although no longer linked from the In the news section of the Main page the article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which is linked to from a number of Wikipedia pages has been developed by Wikipedia editors.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Nature of link cited by Xed

3) The article "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" which Xed describes as "a deranged tract which calls charity 'extortion' and rants about 'billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians'" addresses the use of government funds, not voluntary contributions and is thus irrelevant to solicitation through links from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Though I'm not sure why this warrants a FoF. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) Don't see the need for the arbitration committee to judge the content of FreeRepublic articles.
  2. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) As Delirum

[edit] Xed's characterization of Wikipedia

4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia as compared to donations to tsunami victims asserting that less prominant placement of a link to donations was "a decision which probably led to a great deal of suffering" see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I make note of the fact that at the time of this edit there is no indication that the characterisation is anything but completely serious. -- Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Exchange with and regarding Jimmy Wales

5) Earlier there had been an exchange of posts concerning User:Secretlondon between User:Jimmy Wales and User:Xed on User talk:Xed: [1], [2], [3], then User:Pakaran weighed in [4] [5]. At this point the question of the donation box on the Main page comes up [6] [7]. More continues [8] (noting a clarification by the Ayn Rand Institute)

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack by Slrubenstein

6) Following the edit [9] User:Slrubenstein posted the following personal attack, "You have such a small, petty mind." See this edit: [10] for the state of the article at that point.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Dispute on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism

7) In the meantime a dispute developed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism involving User:Xed with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront, and attacking User:Jayjg, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/VfD. This resulted in a serious of hostile posts on User talk:Xed with an exchange of personal attacks and insults by User:Mel Etitis and User:Slrubenstein. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/Exchange.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack by Xed

8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein on User_talk:Slrubenstein "So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Reference to tsunami relief

9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief (which Xed had been discussing on other pages) [11] [12] surprised Slrubenstein [13] who explained his meaning, "You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo." Slrubenstein elaborated further "You moron, etc" [14] comment: "maybe he really is a moron?"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Insulting email

10) Xed sent an insulting email to Slrubenstein but as there is sufficient evidence on Wikipedia itself of personal attacks that it is not necessary to decide the question of whether it should also be considered. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#15_February_2

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) - I'm not sure email evidence is within our jurisdiction.
    We don't need to worry about that with this wording: "...it is not necessary to decide the question of whether it should also be considered." -- Grunt   ҈  16:50, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) If we're not going to consider it, then...
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) We don't need to explicitly not look into given evidence from outside Wikipedia
  5. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) as David

[edit] Xed's contributions

11) Xed was responsible for starting and maintaining WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project which has significantly improved the quality of innumerable articles within Wikipedia (see e.g. Economy of Africa).

Aye:
  1. It is important to note that Xed is not meritless as some of his opponents seem to be making him out to be. -- Grunt   ҈  20:34, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Although good edits don't make up for bad ones - David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. →Raul654 16:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) - I agree. It is sometmies too easy to overlook someone's good contributions and focus only on the problems surrounding them.
  2. Fred Bauder 01:40, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC). Although his contribs have hardly been all that all-fired brilliant - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#8-15_February_2005 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#25_February_-_4_March_2005 (the latter being from just before this arbitration).
  7. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks by Slrubenstein during arbitration

12) During arbitration User:Slrubenstein has on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision continued to engage in personal attacks "I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean that he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit", "personality disorder"

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:48, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:35, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Smarminess is unbecoming.
  5. Particularly strongly support - this is unacceptable. Ambi 15:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) I acknowledge Slrubenstein's apologies on these, but agree it needs to be made clear that such comments are unacceptable and the excuses given were, frankly, pathetic.
  7. →Raul654 17:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed's wide-ranging personal attacks

13) Xed has engaged in wide-ranging personal attacks on other Wikipedians: for example Jayjg [15] [16] [17] [18], Slrubenstein [19] [20] [21] [22] Hyacinth [23], Modemx [24], Neutrality [25], Jfdwolff [26], Ed Poor [27] [28], and Viriditas [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 17:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed's disruptive assumption of widespread bad faith

14) Xed has a pattern of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, mainly through assumption of widespread bad faith [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. [41], [42], [43], including spurious claims of personal attack ([44]; [45] in response to [46]).

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 17:41, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Xed: personal attack parole

1) Xed is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:10, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 00:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) - I'd like to reiterate that I think Xed does good work
  8. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Slrubenstein: personal attack parole

2) Slrubenstein is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:10, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 11:57, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) A bit too much, we banned Adam Carr for one day for similar behavior.
  2. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) I don't see a huge rash of personal attacks from him.
  3. David Gerard 00:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't think it's a problem of this magnitude. I think my forthcoming caution should get the point across that this sort of behaviour is unbecoming in an academic expert.
  4. sannse (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) the caution seems right
  5. →Raul654 23:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - give him a warning
Abstain:
I'll need to think about this one. Both points have merit. Ambi 04:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Discussions in the meantime have convinced me to strongly support this remedy. Ambi 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) I've decided "no", I like my forthcoming one better.
  1. I'm not sure of this one. →Raul654 00:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brief ban and warning of Slrubenstein

3) Slrubenstein, an experienced and sophisticated Wikipedia user, is banned for one week due to making a series of personal attacks on Xed, an inexperienced Wikipedia user who was engaged in disputes with other users. He is warned to avoid aggravating similar situations which involve conflict in the future.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I really don't think a full out ban is necessary. -- Grunt   ҈  16:15, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 23:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) Don't really see what good this would do.
  3. Fred Bauder 11:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) This is an ongoing problem that would not be adequately addressed by a brief one time ban.
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't think a ban is needed here. I'd hope that slr would get the clue and not do it again. Furthermore, Xed was far from inexperienced.
  6. →Raul654 00:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) - I agree with the above
  7. sannse (talk) 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Xed is banned for a pattern of personal attacks and assumption of bad faith

4) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Only if neither 4.1 nor 4.2 pass.
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) This seems right having seen the extent of the disruption
  5. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 17:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - I'm on the fence about this. I'm not sure we need to to go much further than the personal attack parole, and perhaps a short ban.

4.1) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for six months.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Preferred.
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 17:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) let's try three
Abstain:

4.2) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for one year.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Only if 4.1 doesn't pass.
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 17:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Slrubenstein caution to avoid personal attacks

5) Slrubenstein is strongly cautioned to avoid even the appearance of a personal attack, even when provoked. Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor, particularly an academic expert.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. But is this necessary if we pass a personal attack parole? -- Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
    I think it's worth stating. We do expect better of our more respected editors - David Gerard 16:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    This is implicit in a personal attack parole. -- Grunt   ҈  16:15, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
    I mean as a general statement of how the AC and (IMO) the Wikipedia community feel about respected academics - David Gerard 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (unless 2 passes, in which case this is contained in that - but I prefer this option) Agree with Fred that "academic expert" is not needed here... an "academic expert" has no special status here, they are subject to the same rules of civility as everyone else and the difference shouldn't need stating. (struck after discussion with DG and Grunt)
  4. →Raul654 22:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 19:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) Please remove reference to academics. Or replace it with the language, "Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor."
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed's personal attack parole

1) For the period of the personal attack parole, Xed may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator who feels a given edit or edit summary includes or constitutes a personal attack.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 18:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 05:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

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

  1. David Gerard 00:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) (effective 24 hours hence)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:11, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 01:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Xed_Proposed_decision_1bb3.html"