Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/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, seven new Arbitrators are assumed recused (Morven, Smoddy, Filiocht, Mackensen, SimonP, Dmcdevit, Charles Matthews), and 8 are active (Fred, Epopt, Jdforrester, Jayjg, Theresa, Neutrality, Mindspillage, Raul654), so 5 votes is 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] Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant point of views regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Extreme points of view

2) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to be less mid-20th-century-biased in political terminology.
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Aggressive point of view editing

3) Users who edit aggressively in a point of view way may be banned from those articles which are affected, and in extreme cases from the entire site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) "Aggressively" is too poorly defined here; I'm much more comfortable with banning for specific policy violations.
Abstain:

[edit] Autobiography

4) Point of view difficulties can arise when a user is engaged in editing articles which relate to themselves or activities which they are or were intensely involved, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Libel

5) Publishing of false information in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presents liability concerns both for the editor making the false statement and the project. Reasonable effort by users is expected to avoid or mitigate publishing of false information.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Libel laws and expectations

6) While fair criticism of public figures, especially those involved in political activity is strongly protected in the United States, other jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, may have more restrictive or burdensome laws. The English Wikipedia, while aware of more restrictive jurisdictions, looks to American law for guidance.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Well, yes.
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

7) In certain instances, especially involving users serviced by large ISPs which connect using dynamic IPs, it is virtually possible to definitively establish which accounts are being used by a single person or small group engaged in an activity. In such cases a judgement can be made based on similarity of editing style and theme.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Wording slightly tweaked.
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) - changed "not possible" to virtually impossible; there are a few unlikely circumstances that make it possible.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Applicability of remedies to sockpuppets

8) In cases where dynamic IPs and sockpuppets have been used, Arbitration remedies may be applied to all anonymous IPs and accounts which are determined to be sockpuppets of the user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Don't bite the newbies

9) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers provides that aggressively reacting to the mistakes of newcomers to Wikipedia is inappropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) "Aggressively" more easily understood in this context.
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is Gregory Lauder-Frost and related articles concerning his activities and family, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Evidence#Evidence presented by Homeontherange.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Issues

2) Depending on point of view, Gregory Lauder-Frost can be described as a "traditional conservative" or a "right-wing extremist". Other issues include mention of a minor criminal conviction which may be improper under British law. The controversy regarding the article is characterized by detailed editing [1] by Robert I which minimizes extremist connotations, showing Gregory Lauder-Frost in a favorable light [2] and reverts [3] [4] and edits by CJCurrie which attempt to incorporate the detailed information added by Robert I [5] and seek compromise language [6], see Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#Ending_the_controversy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

3) A few posts have been received which purport to be from Gregory Lauder-Frost himself [7], [8] and [9]. These originate from IPs which are compatible with those used by Robert I

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Legal threats

4) A post has been received from an anonymous IP compatible with those used by Robert I purportedly from Gregory Lauder-Frost which threatens legal action [10]. A post from Robert I tells of communication with Gregory Lauder-Frost regarding the alleged offense, "I have emailed him with a full copy of it" [11], citing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Denial of malicious intent

5) It may be that malicious intent would be required for a successful legal action under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, see [12] where CJCurrie makes that claim and denies malicious intent. See also [13] discussing possible Scottish legal implications.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't think we should be making guesses about what the law requires. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm dubious of the wisdom of saying anything about the merits of this case as evaluated under Scottish law, though I agree that CJCurrie denies malicious intent (which seems to be the main point) ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) As per the Epopt.
  3. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Use of anonymous ips and sockpuppets by Robert I

6) Based on style of editing and theme as well as use of BT Internet, it can be determined that Robert I (talk • contribs), Isabella84 (talk • contribs) and the anonymous posts in the 213.122... and/or 81.131 range including those purportedly signed Gregory Lauder-Frost are from one user or a closely related set of users sharing an identical point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) It's called "BT Internet" now.
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Robert I a new user

7) Robert I is a relatively new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. Thus he has misunderstood certain Wikipedia policies and possibly inadvertently entered into a legal dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (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] Robert I banned pending resolution of legal issues

1) Based on his posting signed Gregory Lauder-Frost and his admitted posting to Gregory Lauder-Frost of his concern regarding our article Gregory Lauder-Frost, Robert I is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution or formal withdrawal of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment, the ban may be lifted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I've added the option of withdrawal — we don't require that he carry out his threats ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. (and indeed, support withdrawal of legal disputes as a desirable option!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Robert I to use one account

2) Robert I is required to edit only when logged in and to use only one user account,

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Robert I banned for one year from editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost

3) Robert I is banned from editing articles which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Robert I placed on probation

4) Robert I is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I#Documentation of bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Robert I violate any ban, he may be blocked for a short time, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I#Documentation of bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Raul654 00:45, 30 January 2006 (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. Everything has passed. Raul654 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. close ➥the Epopt 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Robert_I_Proposed_decision_b712.html"