Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Consensus

1) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Aye:
  1. As worded from AFi. -- Grunt   ҈  03:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 18:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 18:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (note that consensus only works among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject)
  6. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) With the Wiki method, consensus is, practically speaking, the only way we'll get to an encyclopedia of NPOV articles.
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

2) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Plain'n'simple. -- Grunt   ҈  03:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 18:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 18:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

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

3) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 18:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt   ҈  20:15, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) true of course, but I'm not convinced that this relevant to this case - I'm not sure the disruption was to prove a point (except in a couple of minor points on both sides, scattered though the evidence)
The main antagonist is trying to prove the point that the 3RR entitles him to 3 reverts a day. --mav

[edit] 3RR is not an entitlement

4) The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 19:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Vfp15's working against consensus

1) Vfp15 has worked against consensus by repeatedly adding trivia to Charles Darwin despite apparent consensus not to have the trivia in the article.

Aye:
Grunt   ҈  03:30, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Prefer 1.1. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) with Ambi
  3. sannse (talk) 18:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Prefer 1.1. -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1.1
Abstain:

1.1) Vfp15 has failed to work cooperatively with other editors. He has made insufficient attempts to seek consensus on issues related to the inclusion of trivia in the Charles Darwin article. This lack of cooperation with other editors has caused significant disruption to the article in question.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (not quite sure if the wording is spot on - feel free to change)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Adraeus's personal attacks

2) Adraeus has engaged in personal attacks during the course of this debate. See [1], [2], [3] (also see this for background. ).

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  03:30, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 06:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 18:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (fairly mild, but a lot of 'em)
  6. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Even a goddamn werewolf is entitled to counsel" (Dr Gonzo, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Vfp15's view of the 3RR

3) Vfp15 has stated that he regards the 3RR as an entitlement to revert. [4] [5]

Aye:
  1. --mav 20:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  20:45, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 21:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Vfp15 prohibited from editing Charles Darwin

1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editting Charles Darwin for a period of three months.

Aye:
  1. First choice. -- Grunt   ҈  03:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. I see no benefit in Vfp15 editing this article ever again. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editing Charles Darwin for a period of one month.

Aye:
  1. Second choice. Grunt   ҈  03:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I see no benefit in Vfp15 editing this article ever again. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am highly reluctant to enshrine consensus to this degree; even though it's essential, it's very difficult to legislate unambiguously. As such, this ruling might be in danger of being abused by idiots in other conflicts.

1.2) For significant disruption relating to the articles Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, Vfp15 is banned from both articles or their talk pages for one year.

Aye:
  1. I see no benefit in Vfp15 editing this article ever again. Note: I expanded the remedy to specifically include Abraham Lincoln, after someone noted that the issue applies there too. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (100% agree)
  3. With some hesitation. -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) I can go for that. He was a pain in the backside in a manner and to a degree quite incompatible with writing an encyclopedia.
  5. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) although I think we need to consider "related article" - I'm not sure this is clear enough
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) whoa! Where did Antifinnugor come from?
Obviously she meant Vfp15. I fixed it. --mav

[edit] Adraeus banned for personal attacks

2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. First choice. -- Grunt   ҈  03:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Far, far too strong. Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Whoa! Way too strong. --mav 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too strong IMO
  4. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.1) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one month.

Aye:
  1. Second choice (may be too short?). -- Grunt   ҈  03:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (attacks on AMA advocates can not be tolerated)
  4. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Changed vote - I think you folks have a point. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Ambi 05:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

2.2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one week.

Aye:
  1. Was going to suggest one day, but his attack on Vfp15's AMA advocate convinces me otherwise. Ambi 12:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. That attack on the AMA adovacate convinced me a longer ban is in order. --mav 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. For making threats against an AMA advocate who himself has done nothing wrong? This is not long enough. -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too short
  5. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Vfp15 banned for being uncooperative

3) Vfp15 is banned for two months for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.

Aye:
  1. mav 19:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (long overdue slap on the wrist if you ask me; the amount of time devoted to fighting this guy could have been used to create many articles - yet all we have are hundreds of KB of discussion and evidence.)
  2. Would prefer 3.1. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. "Slap on the wrist" does not describe a two month ban. -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) See above.
  3. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.1) Vfp15 is banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.

Aye:
  1. This is a little bit closer, and would be the longest length acceptable to me. -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. mav 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (second choice)
  3. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) For apparently having no interest in such, specifically.
  4. Second choice. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

3.2) Vfp15 is banned for two weeks for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.

Aye:
  1. This is an adequate "slap on the wrist". -- Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) If 3.1 doesn't pass.
Nay:
  1. Way, way too short. --mav 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too short. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Thanks to User:Imaglang

4) The arbitration committee thanks User:Imaglang for his assistance in acting as advocate for User:Vfp15 in this matter

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  20:24, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 21:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) (with the caveat that we don't thank AMAs all the time; that we are just thanking Imaglang as a proxy to give the AMA whatever legitimacy we can give.)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] 3 month revert injunction for Vfp15

5) For as period of three months, to be served after successfully serving any bans that pass, Vfp15 is limited to 0 reverts per day (obvious vandalism excluded: See Wikipedia:Vandalism definition). Admins can regard any non-vandalism revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. 'Gaming' this by making trivial changes before reverting, is also covered under this injunction unless those changes are a good faith attempt at compromise.


Aye:
  1. --mav 20:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (reverting is not a right; Vfp15 hase abused this privilege)
  2. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  23:21, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack parole for Adraeus

6) Adraeus is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year: if Adraeus makes an edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for up to a week by that administrator and the parole timer shall be reset.

Aye:
If we're going to ban him for a month for personal attacks, I think this would also be appropriate. Ambi 00:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Grunt   ҈  00:14, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

:# Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  1. ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think, in this case, the point made by the month's ban should be sufficient.
  2. I tend to agree. --mav 18:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mav has convinced me otherwise. Ambi 23:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi and Mav have convinced me otherwise. -- Grunt   ҈  00:31, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 00:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 01:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

[edit] Vfp15's attempts to edit Charles Darwin

1) If Vfp15 attempts to edit Charles Darwin, he may be reverted immediately and blocked for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. Iff 1) or one of its variants passes. -- Grunt   ҈  03:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 18:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

Most ArbCom cases revolve around someone doing something stupid, but this one is a particularly stupid case - David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. I think we're done here. My proposal of a personal attack parole doesn't seem to have aroused much interest, and everything else has passed. Ambi 12:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Second the motion ➥the Epopt 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. The personal attack parole doesn't seem likely to pass now. Vote not valid until 12:30 4 Feb 2005. -- Grunt   ҈  00:33, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Vote not valid until 12:30 4 Feb 2005
  1. Oppose for a while - there are two issues I'd like to discuss more -- sannse (talk) 15:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Also oppose - the personal attack parole still has a good chance of passing. -- Grunt   ҈  16:12, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - for the reasons above. --mav 18:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Closed by sannse (talk) 14:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)