Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/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, 1 arbitrator is 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] Ban by the community

1) A user who grossly and repeatedly violates Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines may be banned indefinitely if there is a general community consensus that that there is little hope that they will ever edit productively Wikipedia:Ban#Decision to ban. The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing

2) A user who engages in sustained aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the entire site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

3) It is unacceptable to direct personal attacks at other users. This includes links to an external site devoted to personal attacks on Wikipedia users, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples of personal attacks

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Saladin1970's Wikipedia career

1) Saladin1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) edited briefly on Wikipedia in a highly tendentious manner. He was blocked indefinitely by two Wikipedia administrators, Jayjg (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) but was unblocked by Ryan Delaney (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks by Saladin1970

2) Saladin1970 engaged in personal attacks on SlimVirgin, repeatedly posting links to an attack site [1], [2], and [3] .

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing by Saladin1970

3) Many of the contributions made by Saladin1970 consisted of aggressive biased edits directed at either Jews or Zionists [4]. These edits are consistent with a well-developed persona on external websites (One example) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence#Evidence presented by SlimVirgin.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Clearly problematic, but I am uncertain whether a few dozen edits over a five day period constitutes the sustained tendentiousness described in principle 2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. As with Simon, I have concerns, but ones insufficient to dissuade my support. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 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] Saladin1970 banned for personal attacks

1) Based on his personal attacks on a trusted administrator, Saladin1970 is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. But note, this could have just as easily and more comfortably been left at "Based on his personal attacks, Saladin1970 is banned," as it currently smacks of favoritism. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree with Dmcdevit; no need to mention 'trusted administrator' here, such attacks would be unacceptable in all cases. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Saladin1970 banned for tendentious editing

[edit] ... indefinitely

2) Based on his editing on Wikipedia and his external activities Saladin1970 is banned indefinitely.

Support:
  1. First choice Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. - SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Banned indefinitely? I appreciate there my be a time and place to test that out and move from our standard one year limit, but the editor who was here for a handful of days and made a few dozen edits is not it. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... for one year

2.1) Saladin1970 is banned for one year from Wikipedia due to aggressive biased editing.

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. First choice. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Torn. I don't like the idea of banning someone for biased editing: that sounds much like a content decision. I still like to cling to the ideal that everyone has a POV, but that there is no unresolvable content issue without a conduct problem. This editor was so new, who's to say that without the personal attacks and edit warring the bias wouldn't have worked itself out? I refer to stick to the personal attack ban. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on Probation

3) Saladin1970 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or area of interest which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans may include talk pages. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on general probation

4) Saladin1970 is placed on general probation. He may be banned by any three administrators for good cause from Wikipedia should he engage in disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on personal attack parole

5) Saladin1970 is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If he engages in personal attacks he may be banned by any administrator for a period consistent with the nature of the personal attacks. Links to an external site devoted to personal attacks on Wikipedia editors may result in a ban of a year or more.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bans to run concurrently

6) Bans to run concurrently.

Support:
  1. SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't think that this would be appropriate. Note that this is a departure from our previous decisions. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Submitted for consideration Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't see a need to ban for 2 years, but don't see a need to take a departure per James F. from our previous practise; I'm thus undecided, but don't care enough to take an active position for/against each choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bans to run consecutively

7) Bans to run consecutively.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. - SimonP 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Second choice: There is no particular reason that I see for a two year ban, and as I pointed out, as bans go, this editor's presence was rather too fleeting to rack up such a treatment. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As per 6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Saladin1970 violate any ban imposed under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Though I imagine this contingency won't ever be activated. James F. (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:09, 31 July 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.

[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. Close. Dmcdevit·t 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder 02:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close Raul654 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close ➥the Epopt 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)