Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/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 aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye 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 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 enacted.

On this case, 1 arbitrator is recused and 2 are inactive/away, so 5 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)

[edit] Ban on editing sex-related articles

1) Enacted For the duration of this arbitration proceeding, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision) or adding or altering such material in other articles. Admins can treat any edit by the above person to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

Aye:
  1. mav 23:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (check out this guy's recent contribs - its full of different edit wars. The mere existence of this case has obviously not moderated his behavior in any significant way.)
  2. sannse (talk) 23:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (timing as Grunt says) (with seven ayes no need for the wait)
  3. Ambi 23:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 00:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. To be enacted 23:20 31 Jan 2005, I assume. Grunt -- 00:09, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 00:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 00:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 06:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:46, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Once again - this is true but not relevant to this case - this is disruption to achieve an aim, not to prove a point in the way used by this policy.

[edit] No personal attacks

2) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  00:46, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point-of-view

3) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Aye:
  1. As worded from Chuck F. -- Grunt   ҈  00:46, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Advocacy and propaganda

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  02:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Citing sources

5)It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Do not remove references from articles

6) Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) (In most cases, and should be done especially cautiously in controversial cases. I wouldn't want to say that it's never appropriate though, as sometimes supposed references turn out to merely be some guy's geocities page.)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) - I agree with Delerium. Speaking in absolutes is dangerous, so I have added the word 'generally' above.
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] References to advocates of a point of view

7) Wikipedia etiquette and NPOV requires references to advocates of a point of view in terms which they accept and would use to characterize themselves.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) It requires acknowledging this, such as "most people call the group [blah], but they prefer [blah2]". However, we generally use the most common terminology, not necessarily the one a particular group prefers. For example, some "Holocaust deniers" do not approve of that terminology, but we use it anyway.
  2. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) - holocaust deniers, not historical revionists; terrorists, not freedom fighers; →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I think you both have a point. -- Grunt   ҈  00:35, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) It would generally be worth noting, however, IMO. But that's getting close to a content issue, I suspect.
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of relevant information

8) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Etiquette

9) Wikipedia users are expected to conduct themselves in a courteous manner in their dealing with other editors.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 11:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits

10) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 13:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  19:16, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) - Very, very strong emphasis on the word necessarily
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] One contention of Robert the Bruce

1) It is the contention of Robert the Bruce that "there is a well orchestrated attempt by anti-circumcision activists to force their POV in related articles on Wikipedia" [1]. This does not endorse or reject that view, but rather simply acknowledges that this perspective is held.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  02:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Added extra sentence.
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] List of "anti-circumcision activists"

2) Robert the Bruce maintains a list on his user page of editors who he feels are anti-circumcision activists including User:Walabio, see [2]; User_talk:DanBlackham, see contributions; User:Michael_Glass; User:DanP (some evidence regarding activities of Robert the Bruce is collected there); User talk:Truthbomber, see contributions, user page has been deleted); User talk:Robert Blair, user page deleted as a sock of Willy on Wheels, see contributions; User_talk:Revasser, no user page, see contributions; User:Ashley Y; User talk:Mrfunkygenius; User_talk:Asbestos#Medical_analysis_of_circumcision; User_talk:Exploding_Boy; User_talk:Thickslab; User talk:Njyoder; and User talk:Ralesk, see contributions.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  02:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Websites and mailing list

3) There are a number of "genital integrity" movement websites devoted to information and advocacy regarding circumcision and related issues: infocirc.org, circumstitions.com and others. There is a mailing list: Intact-l at cirp.org majordomo@cirp.org. ("subscribe intact-l" in the body of the message) (archive). See intactivist resources

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  02:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Intactivist activities

4) There are a group of intactivist activists, including "Walabio," who edits Wikipedia, see posts on the mailing list Intact-l: [3], [4], [5] and [6]. These mailing list theads may be followed forward and backward.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  14:16, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of references by Robert the Bruce

5) Robert the Bruce has removed references from articles which relate to circumcision, see [7] and [8].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Derogatory labeling of points of view

6) Robert the Bruce has repeatedly labeled those who hold the intactivist position as "anti-circumcision activists" and has changed references to intactivists or genital integrity supporters in articles to references to "anti-circumcision activists" (see [9] and [10]).

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) He's made the change, but I disagree that this is necessarily "derogatory labeling". A term like "anti-circumcision activist" or "opponent of circumcision" is in much more general use than a neologism like "intactivist". In almost no cases would the latter be appropriate to use, except in a construction like "opponents of circumcision, who call themselves 'intactivists', ...".
  2. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agreed with Delirium
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Delirium. -- Grunt   ҈  01:50, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Not swayed either way.

[edit] Removal of blocks of information

7) Robert the Bruce has removed blocks of referenced information from articles, see [11].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  02:38, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 15:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

8) Robert the Bruce has engaged in a large number of personal attacks, not only against those descibed as "anti-circumcision activists" [12], but also against the Arbitration Committee [13].

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  23:01, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 06:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 03:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 14:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

9) The arbcom is satisfied that User:Robert the Bruce, User:Friends of Robert, and User:Robert Brookes are all the same user. Despite very similiar editing habits, technical evidence suggests to the satisfaction of the arbitration commmitee that they are not the same as User:Robert Blair.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 00:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  01:50, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 03:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 01:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Editing habits of other users

Several users have on the opposing side of the circumcision argument have also made non-NPOV edits including removal of blocks of information and references. Those where clear evidence of this activity has been presented are User:Walabio [14] [15], User:DanP [16] [17] [18] and User:Robert Blair [19] [20]. Contributors on both sides, notably User:Jakew and User:Robert Blair, have also indulged in edit wars with an unhelpful number of reverts [21] [22] [23] [24]

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 22:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  01:32, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 03:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Ban for deliberately disruptive edits

1) For numerous personal attacks, removal of referenced material and their associated references, failure to act civilly, and other deliberately disruptive editing habits, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any username or IP address) is banned for a period of one year from editing Wikipedia in general.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  23:01, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 03:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 19:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) - I am changing my vote reluctantly. I went through his contributions for the last 6 weeks, and I really don't see any good contribs in there to balance out or mediate the problems he's caused.
  8. sannse (talk) 23:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) with the conditionals, 1.3 is not going to work, so my conditional becomes "Aye"
Nay:
  1. →Raul654 03:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) - I've have given this more thought - Since it looks like the 1 year ban on sex articles is going to pass, I would support a smaller ban of say, a month.
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Unless 1.3 doesn't pass - then Aye
Abstain:


1.1) For numerous personal attacks, removal of referenced material and their associated references, failure to act civilly, and other deliberately disruptive editing habits, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any username or IP address) is banned for a period of one month from editing Wikipedia in general.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 21:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) only if a longer general ban does not pass.
Nay:
  1. I would rather see a longer ban than this. -- Grunt   ҈  03:32, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too short. See below.
  3. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too short.
  4. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. too short ➥the Epopt 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.2) For numerous personal attacks, removal of referenced material and their associated references, failure to act civilly, and other deliberately disruptive editing habits, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any username or IP address) is banned for a period of three months from editing Wikipedia in general.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) (only if 1.3 does not pass)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) only if a longer general ban does not pass.
Nay:
  1. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too short.
  2. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Too short. -- Grunt   ҈  01:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  4. too short ➥the Epopt 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.3) For numerous personal attacks, removal of referenced material and their associated references, failure to act civilly, and other deliberately disruptive editing habits, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any username or IP address) is banned for a period of six months from editing Wikipedia in general.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) The deliberately disruptive behaviour and personal attacks are enough, but the reference-cleansing really carries it for me. I like one year better, though.
  2. Fred Bauder 21:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) only if a longer general ban does not pass.
  3. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. prefer a year ➥the Epopt 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Prefer one year. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, though I suppose I can field a support iff 1) does not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  01:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Continued ban on editing sex-related articles

2) For a period of one year after any other bans imposed, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex or gender (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision) or adding or altering such material in other articles. Admins can treat any edit by the above person to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

Aye:
  1. As per the injunction. Grunt   ҈  23:01, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 02:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 03:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) I'd prefer to limit bans of any sort to 1 year, which is already covered above.
  2. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) as Delirium
Abstain:

2.1) For a period of one year, to run concurrently with any bans imposed, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex or gender (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision) or adding or altering such material in other articles. Admins can treat any edit by the above person to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) (if ban is otherwise less than a year)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. I see absolutely no merit in shortening the length of this ban in the fashion described. -- Grunt   ҈  01:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 13:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 13:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) I got confused.
Abstain:

[edit] Warning to improve editing habits

3) Those contributors named in the findings above: User:Walabio, User:DanP, User:Robert Blair and User:Jakew, are advised to re-read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with particular attention to the idea that NPOV includes all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. The editors in question are expected to improve their editing habits and reminded that any future cases will consider seriously any failure to heed this warning.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) (adding vote at top as I should have done when proposing)
  2. David Gerard 22:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 22:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  01:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

Although it probably won't come up in the present case (the RtB evidence is very clear, the other participants less so), I would hope that other editors in the anti-circumcision debate will note that even holders of a strong POV are expected to observe NPOV when writing on Wikipedia and comport themselves accordingly - David Gerard 19:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

[edit] The ayes

Motioning to close as 1) everything that is currently proposed has either definitely passed or is not likely to pass and 2) I would like to draw attention here to see if the arbitrators believe there is anything else that is critical to this case that needs to be done before its closure. -- Grunt   ҈  02:49, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The nays

  1. Oppose. I've just proposed a new remedy. →Raul654 03:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, we have encouraged presentation of evidence regarding other users and should consider it before closing Fred Bauder 21:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose sannse (talk) 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. I withdraw this motion to close (which worked beautifully at bringing attention to the case). -- Grunt   ҈  00:58, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

  1. Everyone seems to have had a decent chance to look at the new proposals (except Remedy 2.1 which is irrelevant in light of the passing of Remedy 2). Fred's concerns about other users' actions appear to have been addressed. I therefore remotion to close. -- Grunt   ҈  04:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    Again oppose - there are three current Nays for a year ban, and two for six months (although there are also three expressed preferences for a year). A few more votes should help clear this up. -- sannse (talk) 11:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. OK with closing now - vote not valid for 24 hours from timestamp -- sannse (talk) 23:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ready to close Fred Bauder 22:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. All done here IMO - David Gerard 23:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Close ➥the Epopt 04:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Robert_the_Bruce_Proposed_decision_f0e7.html"