Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority yea 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.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Contents

[edit] Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Yea:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed principles

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 15:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Based on Talk, it appears that many of the objections raised by Nohat and others have been (at least partially) resolved by edits to the policy page. Indeed, the phrase "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" is nohat's, who "voted" against. Martin 15:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I personally approve of this principle, but I would say, based on Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that the community has not yet affirmed this as policy, and therefore I am hesitant to make it a principle here. Are we allowed to establish as a principle a proposed policy? I was an early and ardent supporter of the policy, and remain one, but I don't know if we can treat it as established.) Given Martin's reasoning, I feel safe in accepting. Jwrosenzweig 21:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No:
Abstain:

2) The English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3) Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Mav has a point, but I believe the word "significant" accomplishes the purpose. Granted, we're not defining it well, but these things are hard to define...I think the guiding principle, though, is that obviously we include a number of minority perspectives in contentious articles, and this is good, but not all perspectives are deserving of encyclopedic treatment.)
  4. Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (noting "significant" and "sufficient")
  5. I agree with both Mav and James - significant minority viewpoints should be included; this (by definition) excludes extremist ones. →Raul654 19:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Too broad. There are extreme minority views (most often the idiosyncratic views of the editor) which should not be included.
Abstain:

5: Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

1) User Avala created a template, Template:NAM, which because of the large number of countries involves was quite large and would reasonably, if accepted by the Wikipedia community, be added to about 100 articles. Avala's initiative was contested by User Snowspinner who first blanked the template [1] and then listed it as a candidate for deletion [2]. See [3] where although the page was severely criticized there was failure to achieve a consensus to delete the page.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 20:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2) It is probable that to User Avala, who has a Serbian background, the Non-Aligned Movement which was founded by Tito has more significance than is usually accorded it by Wikipedia editors.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:09, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Martin 20:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) ("finding of probable fact? :)")
  6. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (How is this a finding of fact? And why is it important? I'm confused.)

3) User Avala, in his attempts to find a solution to this problem created the templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

4) The templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm were not considered an acceptable solution to the "large template problem" and were deleted. User Avala tried out Template:NATOm in a few articles, see [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9]. These were promptly deleted and Avala did not pursue the matter.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

5) Considering the matter of User Avala's actions concerning Template:NAM raised by User Snowspinner as a whole: Avala proposed an initiative which he attempted to defend when it was challenged but did not engage in behavior which violated Wikipedia policy, See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) (some bits were borderline disruptive, but I think Avala didn't cross the line on this one).
  7. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

6) User Avala created Template:Serbia and Montenegro, which is now Template:Serbia and Montenegro. This was criticized by Snowspinner and others as being "too small", see MediaWiki talk:Serbia and Montenegro and its page history. Avala's response to this criticism can fairly be criticized as defensive and insistent. The template remains in use, see Serbia and Montenegro.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Martin 21:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I didn't think Avala was particularly at fault, given his trouble with the language, and that he'd just had a prior dispute with Snowspinner on a related matter. A bit of minor irritation, no harm done. It was defensive and insistent, but can't really be criticised on that basis.
Abstain:

7) User Avala engaged in a dispute regarding the use of the honorific "your majesty" in the article, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom removing that language from the article 4 times in an 8 hour period. Again in the face of general opposition Avala's response was to be argumentative and insistant, see Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Yea. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Switching from yea -- upon reflection, I think we unfairly single out Avala's behavior. While he was the worst of offenders, I think, he was dealt with very harshly -- I think a lot more could have been done to assume good faith and generally act with pleasantness on the many who opposed him there. I would support a version of this finding that noted that there was an atmosphere of hostility -- Avala may have been the worst, but he was goaded into some of it, I think.
  2. Martin 22:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) There's the lack of nuance that one might expect (and be frustrated by) in a non-native English speaker. To criticise either side at this level would be micromanagement.
  3. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

8) In the face of general opposition from other editors, who felt that evidence of the charges was not sufficient, User Avala inserted into Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek notes that both men were being accused of war crimes. In pursuit of this objective Avala engaged in an edit war, see, For Drnovsek: [10] [11] [12] [13] and [14]. For Kucan: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. including these 4 insertions which occured in a period of 4 hours: [28], [29], [30], and [31] . Again Avala was defensive, insistant and abusive.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 14:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Here again, I'm moving from yea to abstain -- less certain than in 7, since here I think Avala is more clearly instigating rude behavior, but again, I think he's being given some help. I know from painful personal experience how hard it is to behave civilly when someone is being rude to you. I also know how vital it is, and I'm not seeing that editors who deal with Avala are making enough of an effort. I'll have to think about this one. Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

9) Both User Avala and User Snowspinner and the others who have opposed Avala's edits and initiatives have poorly developed negotiating skills and display failures in mutual courtesy. While Avala often reacted too strongly, Snowspinner and his colleagues were dismissive of Avala and guilty of stonewalling, claiming that matters under dispute were "settled", that Avala was opposing "consensus", etc. rather than seeking solutions which would have accommodated his initiatives and the Serbian and other points of point of view Avala had put forward.

Yea:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 14:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) yes, but it should be "Snowspinner and some of his colleagues".
  4. the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. In the case of HRM, I saw lengthy attempts to discuss the issue, all of whom opposed Avala's changes. More to the point, I do not endorse negotiation in all circumstances, particularly when one person is opposing a large number of others. To do otherwise would be an invitation for crackpots and POV pushers. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Raul. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Raul's ultimate conclusion, although I have to add that I think we characterize some of the discussion of HRM too generously if we call it discussion -- I grant that there was consensus, but there was also rudeness, and not only from Avala. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 02:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 03:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I find no evidence of the problems in the findings of fact in recent edits, most of which are noncontroversial edits in the Serbian area. I guess the question remains unanswered of what his behavior would be should he jump back into a controversial topic and a dispute arise. In any event he appears to be avoiding conflict at this time. I don't see the problems as one of conforming to majority rule, but of ensuring that should Avala add information from a minority viewpoint that it be supported by substantial authority rather the flimsy basis he relied on previously. In any event should a conflict arise he should not try to settle it by endless repetitions of his position and reverting. Fred Bauder 04:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (per Fred)
Abstain:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I don't know that the findings of fact demonstrate this, but I am satisfied with it as a consequence.)


2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 04:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. --mav 08:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 04:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I don't understand -- it looks to me as though every content dispute will be submitted to dispute resolution....and dispute resolution isn't supposed to legislate content. Perhaps I misunderstand.)
Abstain:

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

Aye:
  1. --mav 08:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) Violation of the three revert rule will enable admins to ban Avala for 24 hours.

Yea:
  1. →Raul654 02:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 04:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 19:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Martin 15:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (replace with "nay", should the proposed 3RR change take place)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

I think we need to do much more policy work on negotiation as a step in dispute resolution including extensive presentation of effective techniques. Certainly in this case all participants have failed abysmally in negotiation. It is not sufficient to simply state your non-negotiable position on a talk page. Fred Bauder 13:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Avala's misuse of vandalism in progress is worthy of note. The featured article candidates looks worthy of dismissal, at first blush. Martin 22:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would propose consequences, but as I'm obviously not in step with the majority of arbitrators on this, I think it would be fruitless. Based on my votes above, I have a hard time seeing what, beyond a moderate censure, perhaps a restriction from a few pages (?), would be appropriate, but I know I have seen Avala's actions as far less serious than the rest of the AC has. Is someone intending to bring this to a close? If nothing is proposed soon, I suppose I'll have to offer something, but as I note above, I think my proposals would not be the "will of the council". Hoping for closure, Jwrosenzweig 20:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's been nearly two months since this case came up. Is applying sanctions this belatedly really going to help anything? If Avala has been a non-problematic user in the meantime, then it seems the problem has already solved itself. --Delirium 03:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
If Avala is not currently causing trouble, then nothing will happen to that user under the proposed remedy. --mav 03:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

  1. the Epopt 14:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) Withdrawn. the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposed to closure:

  1. We have no remedies or enforcement above. Unless the above votes to close proceedings are implicit acceptance that no censure or consequence of any kind is necessary, I urge my colleagues not to close this case. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Whoops! Sorry I missed that. I'll see if I can cook up some proposed remedies soon. --mav 19:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Disagree as currently stands. James F. (talk) 21:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close 2

  1. Since all rememdies now have enough votes to be enacted, I move to close. →Raul654 05:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Jwrosenzweig 15:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Close. --the Epopt 15:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yep. mav 20:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Avala_Proposed_decision_8630.html"