Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/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 they 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 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 /Workshop.

[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/disruption/reasonableness

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

2) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

3) Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

4) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point

5) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Staying cool when the editing gets hot

6) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soap box

7) Wikipedia is not a medium of advocacy or propaganda of any kind. Editors have an obligation to neutrally reflect on topics and issues, including those that are controversial, but should not demonstrate a pattern of editing that in effect causes an article to reflect a position of advocacy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Avoid bias

8) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Special exceptions

9) While patience is commended, even extreme patience and forbearance, there is no special exception for aggrieved users who for any reason, even one based on accurate identification of real problems such as systemic bias, repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines and disrupt the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. (Tried to fix grammar.) Not necessarily, productive editors are to be treated more lightly than unproductive editors, even if the infractions are equal, so as to benefit the encyclopedia most. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per Dmcdevit. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per Dom. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

10) Wikipedia:No personal attacks forbids repeated, aggressive personal attacks directed at opposing users or ethnic groups, whatever the excuse.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Repeat. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. 2) says this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Unnecessary to say again. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identification of problems

11) It is commendable to identify and point out problems with bias in articles or sets of article. It is appropriate to bring these problems to the attention of a project which is concerned with that area and to the attention of individual editors which regularly edit in that area.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia does not suppress information

12) Wikipedia is projected to be a compilation of all verifiable knowledge which can be gleaned from reliable sources. Included within such information is history of atrocity and outrage. Such information is not censored.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam's quibble apart. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Otherwise how could we write up the 20th century? Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I agree with the principle, but the wording "a compilation of all verifiable knowledge" is not accurate. The intention is to be an encyclopedia, which will often not be the same thing. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity and reliability

13) A sober discussion of the ethnic or religious background of a scholar might be useful in appropriate circumstances; blanket dismissal of scholars on the basis of their ethnicity is unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Controversial subjects

14) Certain subject areas are controversial. Editing in such areas requires courtesy if the editing process is not to degenerate into unproductive conflict. Users who disrupt editing in controversial areas may be banned from editing in those areas.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Reliability does not trump NPOV

15) Fair representation of all significant points of view may require use of sources of variable reliability. So long as a source is reasonably reliable it may be used as the source of information that might not otherwise be presented.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Source criticism has its place, but not above trying for neutrality. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Religious categorization is undesirable

16) Wikipedia editors should not be categorized according to their religious backgrounds or beliefs. The formation of religiously-based factions is discouraged, There is strong consensus for this, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Offered, as Timothy Usher points out, we did delete Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia based on similar considerations. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. This is not applicable. WikiProject Islam is expressly not categorising users according to religion. I also disagree that that link shows consensus against anything other than POV-pushing factions, which are not the same thing. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Sam. - SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Inapplicable, yes. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

17) It is helpful to assume that other users are attempting to build a useful information resource, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is unhelpful to assume that the purpose of other users is to impose a point of view.

Support:
  1. Proposed Fred Bauder 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Nature of dispute

1) This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles which concern Islam are at issue.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks and discourtesy

2) His excellency has regularly engaged in personal attacks, some directed at ethnic groups, "The Jews" [1] and "those kikes" [2], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_and_incivility. Personal attacks continue to the present, although in somewhat milder form [3].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] His excellency has pointed out bias problems

3) His excellency has pointed out what he considered to be bias problems to other editors [4]. However, the posts pointing out these problems have often been discourteous and accompanied by personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Concern about anti-Islamic bias

4) There has been concern expressed regarding anti-Islamic bias in Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Islam_topics. His excellency, nominal focus of this case, cites the articles, criticism of Islam and dhimmi, stating, '...the bias I spoke of is clearly evident. See Criticism of Islam and Dhimmi, bearing WP:NPOV in mind, particularly the bit on “undue weight”.'

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Deprecation of scholars on the basis of ethnicity

5) There have been instances where the reliability of scholars has been challenged on the basis of their ethnicity [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Reliability considerations

6) Sources which contain information regarding Islamic subjects vary in reliability. On the one hand, one encounters materials which, while it has the appearance of scholarly work, is little more than war propaganda. One the other hand, the provenance of Muslim sources may not be familiar to Western readers.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevant to the conduct concerns at hand. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. True, but unnecessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. A content ruling, really. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Obiter dicta are for somewhere else, really. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. True/irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] PBUH

7) (PBUH), an abbreviation of "Peace be upon him", or a similar expression, is traditionally inserted after mention of Mohammed by Muslims.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. But is severely deprecated by strong consensus on Wikipedia... what's the point of this? It's not clear. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm not certain this needs an ArbCom finding of fact to be taken as true. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. We don't use honorifics on Wikipedia, even when we should. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Alertness by Bishonen

8) Bishonen has shown alertness and good faith in dealing with the indefinite blocks imposed on His excellency Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't doubt it, no reason to state it. This is irrelevant to the focus of the case. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. True, and well done Bishonen, but unnecessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I suppose. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and disruption

9) Articles concerning Islamic subjects have been disrupted by edit warring and conflict.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Timothy Usher

10) Timothy Usher has engaged in incivility and edit warring regarding Islam articles. In particular, he has personalized the conflict and engaged in harassment of His excellency. (evidence, ie [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12])

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I would rather not focus on individuals at this point Fred Bauder 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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] His excellency placed on personal attack parole

1) His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] His excellency banned

2) His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Additional ban

2.5) His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users [13] during this proceeding. An additional ban of 6 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to 2 months Fred Bauder 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Happy with two months. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 12:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 17:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
I think ten months is too much in the first instance. I would be happy with a total of six months, i.e. if "consecutively" was modified to "concurrently". Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Indeed; agreed with Sam. James F. (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Probation

3) Any user who demonstrates inability to maintain civility towards other users while editing articles which relate to Islam may be banned from editing in that area by any administrator. Such bans shall be based on a documented pattern of personal attacks or incivility. Should a dispute arise as to the righteousness of a ban, the ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and the basis for them are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Only edits which follow a final decision in this case are acceptable as evidence for such a ban.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Far too broad, I prefer we stick to probation remedies against particular users or articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] His excellency placed on Probation

3.1) His excellency is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I would rather not focus on individuals at this point. Fred Bauder 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Timothy Usher placed on Probation

3.2) Timothy Usher is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I would rather not focus on individuals at this point. Fred Bauder 12:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Traditional Muslim usages

4) Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Removed link to Dos and Don'ts, as it has been deleted. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bishonen commended

5) Bishonen is commended for her alertness and good faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Even despite it not being a part of the case proper, it is worth noting. Too few sysops have good heads about them of late. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I'd commend Bishonen personally, but I don't think Arbitration is the place. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suppression of sectarian guilds

6) Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild shall be deleted.

Support:
Strong consensus for this, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia Fred Bauder 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. TI believe this falls within our mandate. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Offered. There is support for this on the /Workshop, but I believe it to be more productive of trouble than solving of it. Fred Bauder 14:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn until there are widespread expressions of support for it from the community. Fred Bauder 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. I'm certain this is an unnecessary step for us to take. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Let the community deal with these. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Community issue. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I question whether there is consensus, or whether there is consensus that these particular ones are as disruptive as the Catholic one, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Violation of bans imposed under the terms of this decision may be enforced by blocks appropriate to the offense involved. All blocks and the basis therefore to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

The proposals I have made do not address as individuals all the problem users who edit in this area. However the probation remedy is intended to apply to any user who regularly edits articles in the area in a disruptive way. Fred Bauder 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • The majority in this case is 6.
  • Principles:
    • 1 passes 8-0
    • 2 to 8, 11, 13 to 15 and 17 pass 7-0.
    • 9, 10, 12 and 16 fail.
  • Findings:
    • 1 to 5 and 9 pass 7-0.
    • 10 passes 6-1.
    • 6 to 8 fail.
  • Remedies:
    • 1, 2, 3.1 and 4 pass 7-0.
    • 2.5 and 3.2 pass 6-1.
    • 3, 5 and 6 fail.
  • Enforcement:
    • Passes 7-0.

[edit] Vote

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. Close. Neutralitytalk 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. - SimonP 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, Proposed remedy 2.5 has not been settled. Fred Bauder 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    I had missed the newer proposal, it passes now. Dmcdevit·t 17:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_His_excellency_Proposed_decision_1efc.html"