Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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] Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Deskana (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Always.
  8. bainer (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] External conduct

2) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Deskana (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) But see also #4.
  8. bainer (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Casting aspersions

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums, if at all.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. If this case was not so clear-cut, it would have been appropriate to give guidance on the types of misbehaviour which it is reasonable to bring up. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Deskana (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. Wording could be improved, but in this case it's important to state strongly this specific point rather than the more general case.
  8. bainer (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] External matters

4) In no circumstances does an external personal matter justify egregious on-wiki disruption.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I think add this. Could probably merge with #2 but they cover two distinct and separate (connected) points: external hostilities and other personal matters should not be brough onboard a neutral encyclopedia project, full stop (#5). However if they are brought into the project, and they do intrude, then we can consider them here for Wikipedia purposes (#2). (At present the former, which is also important, is missing.)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Zeraeph

1) Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a history of personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith. In particular, she has repeatedly and unapologetically accused a fellow editor of harassment, stalking, and other egregiously inappropriate behavior; and has made such accusations not only on Wikipedia itself, but also in external forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Evidence of harassment

2) There is no evidence to suggest that the editor accused by Zeraeph has ever engaged in any sort of harassment against a fellow editor.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. bainer (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I understand Flo's point where tangential matters are involved, but I believe that this finding speaks to the essence of the case.
Oppose:
  1. Per Flo. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 2.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment:
  1. True, but as a general rule I dislike making statements of this type that "clear" an user. Doing it is every case without missing someone that "deserves" to be cleared is a problem so I prefer to skip them all. As individuals we can contact her to give her support. FloNight (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Would not like to say "no evidence.. ever" since this degree of emphasis requires great scrutiny and knowledge. But in principle, I can agree this was not evidenced during the case nor suggested by any evidence presented.

[edit] SandyGeorgia's conduct

2.1) SandyGeorgia's conduct in relation to Zeraeph was appropriate and never amounted to harassment.

Support:
  1. Revised to try to take account of FloNight's views and also to identify SandyGeorgia, given that Zeraeph accused another editor of harassment (which is not really part of this case). Since accusations against SandyGeorgia have been made as part of this case it seems reasonable to make a finding about them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. Kirill 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.
Oppose:
  1. Sorry but I still can not support this wording. I prefer to quickly close the case instead of hash out the a wording that we can agree on. FloNight (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. bainer (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) {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] Zeraeph banned

1) Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. A reminder that this applies to the person not the user account so all editing is banned. FloNight (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. I held back on this one to see if a lesser sanction could work. In view of the confidential evidence I have seen, it will not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

  • While noting that Zeraeph feels she was being stalked by A Kiwi since 1999, the egregious part of Zeraeph's behaviour is that despite knowing on 1 September 2006 that SandyGeorgia and A Kiwi were provably not the same, Zeraeph continued to harass SandyGeorgia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Two areas of observations from the /Evidence page:
  1. Gross incivility by administrator LessHeard vanU which evidence suggests was not an isolated incident. Also misuse/misunderstanding of the term "vandalism". I'm concerned by these basics. However valuable a forthright manner may be, civility is expected of all users, especially administrators. Hopefully LessHeard vanU can take note of this necessity as it's meant, a reminder.
  2. SlimVirgin's unblock, although discussed and endorsed by the blocking admin, may perhaps not have been wise, in retrospect. However it was a complex situation with much history; it's easy to ask with hindsight about whether further checking might have suggested this, or whether it was a well-reasoned judgement. Certainly it was within discretion. Worth noting for her own thinking on the case, but not blaming, so to speak.
Lessons for future, perhaps. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Passing at closing:
    • Proposed principles 1, 2, 3;
    • Proposed finding 1; and
    • Proposed remedy 1. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[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. Move to waive 24-hour rule. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close per jpgordon. All the necessary pieces are in place. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close per jpgordon. Kirill 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close immediately per Jpgordon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close, noting consensus on waiver. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Close immediately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Close now and re-name the case. FloNight (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)