Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 she/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, no Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 8 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] What Wikipedia is not

1) Wikipedia is not a venue for the promotion of a user's unique take on things, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is a venue for promotion of the user's outside activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing

2) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by engaging in aggressive point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, and in extreme cases from the entire site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

3) In instances where use of sockpuppets has created a confusing situation, remedies may be applied to users exhibiting the same pattern of editing as the principal user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another even when disputes arise, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is articles such as bigfoot which User:Beckjord would edit in a more liberal way than is customary under Wikipedia policies. Beckjord is the user name of Erik Beckjord who has a long history of promoting such theories.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of sockpuppets by Beckjord

2) Beckjord has used a variety of sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence#Using sockpuppet accounts for dubious reasons and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence#Sockpuppetry.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility by Beckjord

3) Beckjord has repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence#Violations of No personal attacks, Civility, Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence#Violation of no personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing by Beckjord

4) Eric Beckjord has used Wikipedia to advance ideas that he supports and a website which he runs, that promotes those ideas ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), in one edit referring to the website's "cutting edge research findings" ([7]), in another referring to its "many researchers" ([8]), adding sources that support his favored point of view and removing sources that present alternative points of view ([9]) and occasional page blanking ([10], [11]), though some earlier edits are undoubtedly due to inexperience with wiki editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 18:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 10:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 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] Beckjord banned from editing in the paranormal

1) Beckjord is banned from editing articles which are concerned with paranormal phenomena such as UFOs, crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. Other than these obvious instances, this remedy may be applied to any article which relates to the paranormal after a warning to Beckjord. Bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Beckjord#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC), though since this is pretty much the only subject area he ever edits in, this is tantamount to a complete ban.
  3. I would prefer a complete ban, which would be much easier to enforce ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Will propose the ban as well. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. prefer a complete ban. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Though I would prefer a complete ban. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

2) Beckjord is to use one account. Edits by other accounts reasonably believed to be Beckjord shall be considered Beckjord for the purposes of this decision.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Beckjord placed on personal attack parole

3) Beckjord is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly banned should he engage in personal attacks, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 bans the maximum block shall increase to one year. Bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Beckjord#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Beckjord banned

4) Beckjord is banned for one year from editing Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Since I see little prospect of anything else proving fruitful. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No basis for this. It is based on consideration of trouble he might cause, not on something he has done. Fred Bauder 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    "Consideration of trouble he might cause" is the sole reason for which we ban people, Fred. We do not meet out restorative justice. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beckjord placed on general probation

5) Beckjord is placed on general probation. If he disrupts Wikipedia complaining and agitating regarding this decision without engaging in any useful editing, he may be banned by any three administrators.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 09:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. For when he returns (if the general ban passes). James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (as James F., if general ban passes this is for when that ban ends and he returns).
  10. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Beckjord violate any ban he may be blocked briefly, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 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. Close. Dmcdevit·t 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 23:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [assumed close]
    Fred Bauder 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) [assumed close]
  4. Close. James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. close ➥the Epopt 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Not yet. Let's try to either get a majority on the full ban or a few more against it so we are sure about the way we want to go on this one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    We now have this (7 8 votes in favour with one abstention). James F. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not yet. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)