Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they so choose. 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.

Eight arbitrators participated in this case, so 5 votes are a majority. See implementation notes.

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.

none

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed case summary

The Derek Smart article has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the Arbitration Committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

  • apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
  • the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
  • concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
  • questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Wikipedia that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Transparency in editing

2) Wikipedia:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

  • violate WP:3RR or other policy,
  • evade a block, or
  • avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, this Committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. The important word is "undue". For a dictator or serial killer undue would still allow almost the entire article to be critical. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) But prefer my generic form.
Oppose:
  1. The second final sentence is not quite right, I think. We need to go where the verifiable material takes us. For example, most serial killers are going to have articles that are overall critical of the subject. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    (Third sentence, by the way.) Isn't that weight on the critical material for a serial killer due weight though? A typical head of state, for example should not have as much critical material as a serial killer because of the undue weight clause. It is undue weight only when it fails to reflect the state of scholarship. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    I still do not think this wording is clear (but the arbs additional comments do clarify it.) and agree with Blnguyen, also. FloNight 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. The final sentence may give the false impression that undue weight applies to critical material but not positive or hagiographic material. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view and sources (... generic)

3.1) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that material, whether it be hagiographic, critical, or otherwise, should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) The obvious solution to the concerns, and a better ruling, IMO.
  2. SimonP 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Like this one. FloNight 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of primary sources

4) The appropriateness of using primary source material, such as an article subject's past posts to UseNET, is at present an evolving and unsettled area of Wikipedia policy. The Arbitration Committee, in its role as an interpreter rather than legislator of policy, offers no opinion on the suitability of such material for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. WP:RS is guideline, not policy; and many people think it is due for revision. 'Appropriateness' is per area. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    But Wikipedia:Verifiability [1] and WP:BLP [2] speak to sources. The above principle does not mention WP:RS by name. FloNight 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. There is a current policy. The ArbCom should validate it. Saying we have no policy on this important issue does not seem right to me. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does have a clearly worded policy with regards to Usenet. This policy has been in place for a considerable period of time, and there does not seem to be any ongoing debate on that page. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. With respect to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons there is a well established policy requiring a reliable source for any controversial information. Fred Bauder 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Biographies of living persons

5) Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Biased or malicious content in biographical material

5.1) Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details), see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Biased or malicious content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Support:
  1. Proposed Fred Bauder 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

6) Wikipedia:No personal attacks forbids personal attacks and harassment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk · contribs), WarHawk (talk · contribs), WarHawkSP (talk · contribs), and Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I question if we should be judging its quality and neutrality. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. So do I. And I wonder, absent the great fuss, whether its supposed deficiencies would detain us long. Charles Matthews 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Content ruling, I'm afraid.

[edit] No evidence of legal threats

3) In spite of concerns raised in statements on the original request for Arbitration, the Committee finds no legal threats have been made by any of the parties.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This edit on Jan 8 2007 appears to be crossing the line. [3] FloNight 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Iffy. I see no reason for an exhonerating finding, under the circumstances. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Unnecessary.
Abstain:

[edit] Supreme Cmdr has engaged in personal attacks

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a series of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bill Huffman

5) Bill Huffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently Bill Huffman, compiler of werewolves.org, a site devoted to criticism of Derek Smart [4]. He has not edited Derek Smart, but has been active on its talk page and in this Arbitration case. The conflict between Bill Huffman and Derek Smart is longstanding [5] [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks and harassment by Bill Huffman

5.1) Bill Huffman has repeatedly harassed Derek Smart both on and off Wikipedia. He has maintained a website devoted to criticism and ridicule of him and has used Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his abuse. See this post where he alludes to Smart's "abrasive behavior" and alleged "personality formation" "incapable of empathy or objective thinking". Offwiki pages: [7] [8].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Too strong regarding onwiki behavior.
  2. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) A bit too strong, yes.
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comments

6) The doings here have been a source of comment on Gamers forums. From Quartertothree.com from the thread "Wikipedia": "check out the Derek Smart page", "Smart's finest hour", "one of the reasons he got the boot", [9], "stalker supreme", [10]. From another thread "Derek was actually pretty well-behaved around here until the stalkerati showed up and started prodding him."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Derek Smart

7) Derek Smart is the successful developer of a family of PC games. In his on-line activities he is easily provoked interview in Computer Gaming World. On the forums on his gaming website he goes by the handle "Supreme Cmdr". "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar". "Slight negative bias". He is dismissive with respect to the Wikipedia article on him (Registration and login is necessary to view forum links).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Surrogates of Derek Smart

7.1) It is not ascertainable whether Derek Smart himself has edited the article, however there are a number of users such as Supreme Cmdr who have functioned as his surrogates, actively removing negative information and edit warring.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
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] Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The Committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. This includes WarHawk. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Wikipedia editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not our place to be prioritizing cleanup requests. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) It is the community's place to prioritise, not ours, aye.

[edit] Supreme Cmdr

3) Due to personal attacks, the editing privileges of Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are suspended for 14 days.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Far too conservative. He has already been blocked for two weeks before, with no effect. After 8 blocks for edit warring at this article, I think it's time to recognize that Supreme Comdr is not likely to ever work well on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Because I prefer the 1 year ban. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Cmdr

3.1) For personal attacks and edit warring, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. First choice due to lengthy block log, contempt of policy, etc.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. First choice FloNight 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates should be free to edit Talk:Derek Smart and edit subjects other than Derek Smart. Fred Bauder 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Bill Huffman banned from editing articles which relate to Derek Smart

4) Bill Huffman is banned indefinitely from editing Derek Smart, its talk page and any related article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) See below.
  3. Charles Matthews 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bill Huffman banned for personal attacks

5) Bill Huffman is banned for one year for personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I just don't see it. While we don't condone attempts to psychoanalyze other editors, I believe that Huffman's comments, in the context of the conversation where they are made and the totality of Huffman's other discussion page posts, fall short of personal attacks. While I believe it is an important principle that users, especially admins, are responsible for their off-Wikipedia comments, the converse (existing disputes among people prior to their arrival at Wikipedia) is not actionable.
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Too strong for the on-wiki stuff.
Abstain:

[edit] Bill Huffman placed on attack parole

6) Bill Huffman is placed indefinitely on attack parole with respect to Derek Smart. He may be blocked up to a year for any personal attack made regarding Derek Smart or any surrogate of Derek Smart made anywhere on Wikipedia. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates

7) Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing Derek Smart. They may edit the talk page.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. SimonP 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Derek Smart

8) Any user may fully apply the principles and practices of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Derek Smart. This may include deletion of the article and its history as well as its talk pages and archives and the project pages and talk pages of this Arbitration proceeding.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Umm... whut? This is a statement of fact, not a remedy, excepting the Arbitraton part. See below.
Abstain:

[edit] Use of BLP re. Derek Smart

8.1) The Committee hereby gives its consent for the project- and talk-namespace pages of this Arbitration case to be blanked or deleted as part of the exercise of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons on matters related to Derek Smart, in addition to the article itself and associated talk page and its archives.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Presumably this was the intent.
  2. Fred Bauder 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate duration. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. SimonP 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Note that #3 Article quality and sourcing currently passes with 6 votes; with Blnguyen abstaining, it only needs 5 votes to pass. If the generic version is preferred, at least two arbitrators need to change their vote, otherwise both versions will pass. Thatcher131 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. The generic version fails with only four votes, does it not? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the summary; principles 1, 2, 3, 5.1, and 6; findings of fact 1, 2, and 4; and remedies 1, 2, and 3.1 have passed. Principle 5, though it has nominally passed, is irrelevant since substantially identical text is present in 5.1 therefore I consider it to have been superceded by 5.1. I note that the enforcement section needs one more vote to pass, and I would hope that someone will make that vote, but I do not consider it necessary to the case since it reiterates common sense. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Principle 3.1 (the generic version) now has 5 votes but needs 6. Principle 3 also has 6 votes, although James' is conditional, but passes with 5 due to Blnguyen's abstention. With the generic version gaining momentum, I wanted to point out that unless someone changes their vote on 3, both could pass. Regarding 5 and 5.1, it looks like Fred has proposed them at the same time as a general and specific sub-principle (or something), not as alternates. Since none of the votes are conditional, I would tend to count them both as passed, even though it won't have much practical impact. Thatcher131 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

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.

Support:

  1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. (Unrecuse and) Close. Essjay (Talk) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. I think we can return to Bill Huffman in a motion if there is more on-wiki. Off-wiki is not our remit, really. Charles Matthews 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Unrecuse for closure only. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Bill Huffman has been stalking Derek Smart for years in a variety of venues. The decision as it stands does not deal adequately with Huffman continuing with that activity on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: This case is ready to close and I will close it tomorrow, but would appreciate confirmation whether the number of participating arbitrators should be left at 10 or reduced given that some arbitrators have taken inactive status without having voted ont his case. This will affect whether remedy 8 passes. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, the arbitrators who became inactive without voting are substracted. (Their listing was probably a de facto recognition of the fact that they haven't participated in any cases in some time.) Of course, this a policy I wrote [11] but in 3 months no one has complained. Thatcher131 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I will close the case on this basis tomorrow unless told otherwise by an arbitrator. Moving Raul654 and Morven to inactive (SimonP voted in this case) reduces the number of participating arbitrators to 8, so the majority is 5, with the result that in addition to the proposals noted in the implementation notes above, remedy 8 also passes. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)