Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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, 4 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 4 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] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Consensus

1) 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.

Support:
  1. Imported from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  23:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Imported from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  23:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. I modified the wording slightly. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert warring

3) Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Support:
  1. Imported from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  23:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

4) 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.

Support:
  1. Imported from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents. -- Grunt   ҈  23:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Consensus to keep image on Clitoris

1) There has been a consistent consensus to keep the photograph in the article Clitoris; there was, for example, no significant attempt to remove the image between Dr Zen's last removal attempt in January and first removal attempt in March.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:02, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dr Zen's removal of image

2) Dr Zen has repeatedly removed the photograph from Clitoris via means of revert warring despite being warned by several individuals not to do so.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:02, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dr Zen's statement

3) Dr Zen has stated that he believes he is editing within Wikipedia policy [1].

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:02, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 07:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:53, 26 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] Revert prohibition

1) For a period of three months, Dr Zen is prohibited from reverting Clitoris to remove the photograph thereof.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:11, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) Way too short.
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Nohat 07:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) If we decide not to prohibit this forever, then I think a much longer time period is warranted.

1.1) Dr Zen is prohibited from removing or otherwise altering the manner of appearance of any photographs on the article Clitoris. This prohibition will apply indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Nohat 07:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't see why Dr Zen should ever be permitted to remove the photo. Surely if there is consensus to remove it, someone else will be able to do it. (Changed the wording to be clearer about what is prohibited)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Assuming we can do so. -- Grunt   ҈  21:09, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
I thought we couldn't impose indefinite remedies? -- Grunt   ҈  23:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Blocks for reverting Clitoris

1) Dr Zen may be blocked for up to one week by any administator who feels a given edit by Dr Zen constitutes a reversion of Clitoris to remove the photograph thereof violation of the prohibitions described in section 1.1 of Remedies passed during this case.

Support:
  1. Nohat 21:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Standard enforcement. Reword to clarify that this is enforcement of the prohibition described above.
  2. Grunt   ҈  23:51, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
    If we think of more remedies, we'll need to expand the wording as I've done above. -- Grunt   ҈  20:41, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 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. Move to close - we've covered the major points of this case with a majority of arbitrators that are not recused. -- Grunt   ҈  20:44, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  2. Seconded. Nohat 04:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Aye ➥the Epopt 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Dr_Zen_Proposed_decision_2b90.html"