Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/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 they 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 3 are inactive, so 6 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] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground prohibits importation of personal disputes. It is grossly inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a venue for pursuit of a personal political battle.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Biographies of living persons

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be adequately sourced and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Keeping our eye on the ball

3) In an instance where one user has engaged in outrageous behavior which has resulted in others also engaging in minor violations, the focus of an arbitration case will be on the one who caused the trouble; on the presumption that the other users can carry on in a more or less satisfactory way if the main problem is dealt with.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reasonable description of one approach, and usually more applicable than the other idea, cracking down hard. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Acceptable. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editing your own article

4) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, offers advice to persons who are the subject of an article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sock and meat puppets

5) A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. I endorse Charles's addition ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning Warren Kinsella and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Socks of Arthur Ellis

2) There is substantial evidence that Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who previously edited as Mark_Bourrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has also edited as Marie_Tessier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Isotelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and numerous sockpuppets Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing by Arthur Ellis

3) Arthur Ellis and his numerous socks have engaged in sustained tendentious editing and other disruption Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Pete_Peters Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#Second_Assertion:_sock.2Fmeat-puppets_used_to_circumvent_3RR and thereafter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Other offenders

4) It is noted that Arthur Ellis is probably not the only offender.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. But why "probably"? I'm willing to say it outright. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 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] Arthur Ellis

1) Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Arthur Ellis to use one account

2) Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Other offenders

3) No remedy is imposed on offenders other than Arthur Ellis. If disruption continues, additional findings of fact may be made and remedies imposed on other offenders.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. There are others, at the very least meatpuppets. This is dropping the ball, nor keeping our eye n it, when given the responsibility. We need to take living biographies more seriously. See new proposal below. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Article probation

4) Warren Kinsella and related pages are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from editing the article, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. We've done this before. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Blegh. Articles don't edit war, editors do. We have enough different special statuses for articles, all requiring different special handling; we don't need another one. ➥the Epopt 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    Of course articles don't edit war. This is nothing more than a Probation on all the parties editing the article. I'm not sure how that's a special status for the article any more than an article ban, or probation for someone who edits one small set of articles is. Dmcdevit·t 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. I prefer putting restrictions on specific editors based on actual evidence of policy violations; the Kinsella articles are not inherently more problematic than many other articles. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm not too keen on this, though I see the point of it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Arthur Ellis editing under any name or ip violate the article ban imposed by this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by ban

2) Should Arthur Ellis edit under any other username or use anonymous ips on a regular basis he may be banned from Wikipedia for an appropriate period. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 11:33, 16 September 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.

  • The majority for this case is 6.
  • Principles: all pass 7-0.
  • Findings: all pass 7-0.
  • Remedies: 1 and 2 pass 7-0. All others fail.
  • Enforcement: all pass 7-0.

[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 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. ➥the Epopt 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)