Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

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, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

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] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Civility

1) Wikipedia requires reasonable courtesy toward other users, including assumption of good faith on their part, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

2) The central policy of Wikipedia, the pole star, is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates inclusion of an article of fair statements of all significant points of view on the subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Probation

3) Users may be banned either directly or via the mechanism of Wikipedia:Probation from editing articles which they disrupt by tendentious editing or other activity.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Focus of dispute

1) The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which, according to Zephram Stark, deteriorated due to the aggressive editing of others. and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Removed names of specific editors Fred Bauder 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    ... but might prefer other wording, below. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Tries and fails to address the main issues of this case. →Raul654 09:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. I prefer 1.2 below ➥the Epopt 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Different wording

1.1) The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which, according to Zephram Stark, deteriorated due to the "aggressive editing and other actions" of a group of editors including Carbonite, csloat, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Willmcw. Stark has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article; see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Support:
  1. I think this might be easier for others to swallow; I've removed the "complex ambiguities" useage, as it didn't seem to add anything, and have added more editors who took part in the dispute on the other 'side'. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Zepharm Stark's inability to deal with complex ambiguities is the essence of the problem. Fred Bauder 21:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. As above, tries and fails to address the main issues of this case. →Raul654 09:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Focus of the dispute - alternative finding

1.2) Zephram Stark launched a prolonged, aggressive campaign to dramatically alter the terrorism article to conform to his personal views. His actions there were characterized by a sustained pattern of antisocial behavior and a staunch refusal to listen to others.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 09:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. He went too far, but labeling him as "antisocial" goes way far. Using the same criteria George W. Bush could be labeled antisocial. Fred Bauder 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed with Fred. James F. (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strike "antisocial" and I wil support this statement. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Focus of dispute

1.3) Zephram Stark engaged in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article terrorism over an extended period of time, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Acceptable. →Raul654 17:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Ethnic slurs

2) Frustrated by opposing editors, Zephram Stark made an edit on his talk page referring to them as "fucking Jews" [1] [2]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Unrepentant attitude

2.1) Zephram Start continues to make ethnic slurs, declaring that he just likes to do it [3]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption of talk page

3) Zephram Stark has removed others' comments from article talk pages [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Extended disruption

4) Zephram Stark's editing of terrorism is marked by dogged persistence and lengthy argument. Opponents are many, supporters few; see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikilawyering

5) Zephram Stark has engaged in "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" involving dismissal of this case on spurious grounds [5] and has attempted to alter proposed decisions in this arbitration case against him [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:23, 10 November 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 for ethnic slur

1) Zephram Stark is banned for one month for ethnic slurs.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) second choice Fred Bauder 05:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's a bit too short for my tastes, but with the other remedies, I can live with it -- Second choice →Raul654 07:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. far too short ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too short in light of [7] Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban for multiple offenses

1.1) Zephram Stark is banned for six months for personal attacks, edit warring, and attempted interference with the arbitration case against him.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. First choice - →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC) First choice Fred Bauder 05:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (Changed, since he can't seem to stop the offending behavior even while this case is about to close.)
  6. James F. (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Changed, as with Mindspillage.
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Too lengthy.
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Too long. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Probation

2) Zephram Stark is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any article the editing of which he disrupts by lengthy argumentation or edit warring.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - (In reply to Epopt) Not great by itself, but good in conjunection with other remedies.
  4. as Raul: if other remedies are sufficient, this will help ➥the Epopt 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. far too mild ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Abstain:

[edit] Ban from terrorism and related articles

3) Zephram Stark is banned from Terrorism and all related articles.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. permanently, I assume ➥the Epopt 00:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Blocks enforcing bans

1) Should Zephram_Stark (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) edit any article or talk page from which he is banned he may be blocked briefly, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Though perhaps we should make this an automatic, implicit part of probation?
  4. →Raul654 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[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.

  1. I think we have all we need here. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder Fred Bauder 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    The longer ban has now passed. →Raul654 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Close. →Raul654 03:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. as long as he is banned for six months or more, I am willing to close — I object to closing this case with any lighter remedy ➥the Epopt 05:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Zephram_Stark_Proposed_decision_e71d.html"