Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed on 10 January 2005

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 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

[edit] Temporary ban

1) Alberuni is banned from editing articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pending resolution of this matter. (Based on POV editing, edit warring, violations of the 3 revert rule, and personal attacks.)

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt   ҈  03:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 15:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Three-revert rule

1) Users must follow the three-revert rule; Articles may not be reverted more than three times in a 24 hours period except for simple vandalism.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  03:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be courteous to other users. The prinicples of wikietiquette should followed.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  03:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

3) Users are expected to avoid using personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  03:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 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] Violations of the 3 revert rule

1) Alberuni has violated the 3 revert rule on several occasions. 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Black September reverted five times in 24 hours: rv Zioprop rv anon vandal rv anon parade rv anon rv anon mute. Viriditas gives two other examples. When requested to follow the rule he responded rudely [1]


Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  03:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discourtesy

2) Alberuni has been discourteous to other users, for example when requested that he comply with the 3 revert rule he responded with "get a life", when requested to review the no personal attacks policy, he responded with [2]

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:22, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  03:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

3) Alberuni has made personal attacks on other users [3].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  03:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Sock puppets

4) Just after this case was brought to arbitration, Alberuni created at least twelve sock puppets [4], some with names that were designed to provoke Jewish editors (NeverAgain, Wiesenthaler) or that were themselves personal attacks (Jewjg). These sock puppets were deliberately used to further the edit wars and make personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 04:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt   ҈  16:28, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) - the wording is now acceptable
  6. Fred Bauder 13:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Ambi 00:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I think this goes a little bit easy on Alberuni. They were used in a deliberate attempt to evade the three revert rule and the personal attacks policy.
    I've added "deliberately" - David Gerard 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) further edits wars and make personal attacks - yes, but I can't find the evidence of avoiding the three revert rule - can someone point me in the right direction? happy with wording now

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] 3RR violations

1) For numerous violations of the 3RR, Alberuni is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. I'd like longer - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. →Raul654 16:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) - this is quite a bit longer than previously applied.
  2. Fred Bauder 13:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) For numerous violations of the 3RR, Alberuni is banned for one month.

Aye:
  1. This may be too short. -- Grunt   ҈  04:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) - this seems in line with our previous bans for numerous violations.
  3. Fred Bauder 13:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Too short, but it seems 1 is going to fall a single vote short, so this is better than nothing. Ambi 04:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ditto ambi... Neutralitytalk 04:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


1.2) For numerous violations of the 3RR, Alberuni is banned for one year.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. This is almost certainly too long. -- Grunt   ҈  04:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Right penalty, wrong reason - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with David. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

2) For numerous personal attacks, Alberuni is banned for a further two weeks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too short - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely too short. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.1) For numerous personal attacks, Alberuni is banned for a further one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too short - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  2. Way, way too short. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.2) For numerous personal attacks, Alberuni is banned for a further two months.

Aye:
  1. I'd like longer - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too long. -- Grunt   ҈  04:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Not long enough. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.3) For numerous personal attacks, Alberuni is banned for a further one year.

Aye:
  1. Read the edit history of some of those socks. He was going all out on deliberate personal attacks - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. I really believe this is the only acceptable option. Alberuni has made a very great number of personal attacks, and taken this to lengths that frankly, remind me of hard-banned user Reithy. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 16:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 21:03, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too long. -- Grunt   ҈  05:23, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack parole

3) Alberuni is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including two months after any bans that are imposed. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week, and the parole shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. At the very least David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 16:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. He should be placed on indefinite personal attack parole, and banned for longer than two months. Whoever said the Arbitration Committee was toothless? Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Ambi. I see no reason why a personal attack parole should be this short. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.1) Alberuni is placed on standard personal attack parole indefinitely for one year after all bans that are imposed. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  17:20, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:06, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 20:59, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 21:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Yep.
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion

4) Alberuni is required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. I'd like to see that - David Gerard 04:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Good behaviour

5) If Alberuni can demonstrate good skill in discussion and behaviour relatively free of personal attacks, he may apply to the Arbcom to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. On the proviso that the one-year ban passes. If not, then very much oppose. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 16:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) - Everyone should be given the opportunity to have their standing order revisited.
  6. He's tried to work the system already; this would be an invitation to more OK, Raul is right - David Gerard 18:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 15:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Reversion violations

1) Should Alberuni revert an article without discussion, an administrator may block him for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 04:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 16:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 21:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

We now have enough votes everywhere to pass at least one subsection of each of the remedies above. With the votes tallied thus, Alberuni would be banned for a year and three months, with personal attack parole applied for what I assume is the two months immediately thereafter. -- Grunt   ҈  16:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
You sure? We have no recusals, that means we need six votes - David Gerard 18:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We've got six votes in 1) and 2.3). That renders the other 1.x and 2.x sections irrelevant for the purpose of vote tallying. -- Grunt   ҈  20:42, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
We only have five in 2.3 that I can see. This isn't done yet - I oppose closing. No need to rush. Ambi 23:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see six names under 2.3; this construes six votes. -- Grunt   ҈  02:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
We need six votes in support, though, and unless you're changing your vote, we only have five. Ambi 04:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Point taken; withdrawing motion. -- Grunt   ҈  04:37, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  1. Now that we have a majority on everything, I re-move to close. -- Grunt   ҈  02:04, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. I would very much like my concern on finding of fact 4 looked at first -- sannse (talk) 13:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree to close now -- sannse (talk) 00:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 00:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)