Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/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 5 are inactive, so 5 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] Edit warring

1) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

2) Editors are expected to behave reasonably calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This language "Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits." is unacceptable, Wikipedia policy is NPOV not consensus reality. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Respect consensus as to what the application of NPOV means in this context, not whether or not it shouls be suspended. But I suppose I see what you mean. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

4) Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not vehicles for political advocacy or propaganda. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assuming good faith

5) Users are asked to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are grounds to believe otherwise.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

7) Disruptive behavior may lead to discretionary blocks by administrators, and further restrictions by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Controversial issues

8) Users who are unable to function adequately while editing articles concerning controversial subjects may be banned from editing in those areas, permanently in extreme cases.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Lou franklin edit wars

1) Lou franklin frequently edit wars ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], etc.) . He has been blocked seven times for violation of the three-revert rule [7].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

2) The locus of the dispute is Lou franklin's editing on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related discussion pages.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Lou franklin is uncivil

3) Lou franklin has often been uncivil and demeaning to other editors. This includes assuming bad faith in the form of accusations against other editors of "propaganda" and editing with an "agenda" [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] as well as mischaracterizing others' edits as vandalism [14] [15] [16].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I think the true state of affairs is that Lou franklin is ineffective as an editor in the Wikipedia context. This has resulted in expression of frustration. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Lou franklin is disruptive

4) Lou franklin has engaged in disruptive edits to the article space above and beyond simple point of view or content disputes. Examples include repeatedly adding the phrase "Many people feel that some homosexuals lack a moral foundation and would engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children." to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality in response to having previous edits reverted [17] [18].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

5) The editing of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality has resulted in an article which, while quite sophisticated and detailed, does not fairly represent negative points of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Though I worry that this is really a content decision. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Content decision. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't feel comfortable (or qualified) in deciding this. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Lou franklin is an ineffective editor

6) Lou franklin has failed to function effectively while editing a controversial article. Examples of ineffectiveness include citing of propagandistic and marginal sources, edit warring, inappropriate nomination for deletion, expression of feelings of being ganged up on when confronted by more sophisticated editors who take an opposing point of view, and this grossly ineffective request for arbitration.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 22 April 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] Article ban

1) Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He may be temporarily banned from Wikipedia for a short time of up to a week for any violations of this ban. After three such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I support a shorter ban based on his current lack of editing skills and insight. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Article ban

1.1) Lou franklin is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to homosexuality. He may be temporarily banned from Wikipedia for a short time for violations of this ban, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. second choice ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, yes. James F. (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This is drawn up very broadly. Charles Matthews 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack parole

2) Lou franklin is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't think he actually made any personal attacks; he expressed his frustration. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends a bit on how you interpret blanket accusations of conspiracy. Charles Matthews 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Revert parole

3) Lou franklin shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The one year ban from articles which relate to homosexuality should be sufficient. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Probation

4) Lou franklin is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Lou franklin must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing. He may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to a week for any violations of bans imposed under Probation. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not justified, his problems have been limited to only one issue. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    They haven't, however. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Proposed decision#In re: Requests for Adminship. Dmcdevit·t 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per Fred. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Parole violations and bans under this decision may be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Added "parole violations" for clarity. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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.

Everything passes except for FoF #5 and Remedies 1.1 and 4. Dmcdevit·t 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Holding off closing until we get word on proposed enforcement 1. Johnleemk | Talk 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You can safely close it at any time, that's standard enforcement that's not really worth waiting for the inevitable votes to pass. Dmcdevit·t 19:18, 2 May 2006 (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.

  1. All done. Dmcdevit·t 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 14:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Close ➥the Epopt 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)