Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I request the arbitration committee to state unequivocally whether they [the arbitration committee] find the enforcement of the "No personal attacks" policy to be within the scope of "Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health". If not I will take appropriate action to have the policy enforced. - snoyes 07:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What is this "appropriate action"? What do you mean when you ask whether "No personal attacks" is within the scope of the case? Are you referring to the entire policy? Are you referring to personal attacks made by Theresa and/or Mr. Natural Health? Perhaps you could clarify these points. Martin 14:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Unlike the other rules, which are community conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be implemented in extreme cases as policy, i.e. grounds for banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer vandalism" threshold.". I want to know whether the arbitration committee will investigate whether the personal attacks that Mr. Natural Health has been making were "extreme". I don't know whether Theresa Knott has made any personal attacks, so I won't comment on that matter. Appropriate action should be taken based on the findings of severity. In my opinion, appropriate action for repeatedly and after numerous warnings breaking the no personal attacks policy ranges from requiring an apology through giving an official warning not to continue making personal attacks coupled with the real threat of banning if it does continue, to outright banning. - snoyes 15:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can help.

Our "Rules" in Wikipedia:arbitration policy don't list any individual policy pages, or versions of policy pages, in the Wikipedia: namespace - this includes even the semi-holy wikipedia:neutral point of view. However, we have chosen to judge cases based on "Established Wikipedia customs and common practices", and "no personal attacks" may well be part of those customs. In my opinion, while the exact wording of wikipedia:no personal attacks is out-of-date, referring to bans set by Jimbo Wales, refraining from personal attacks is an established and widely supported practice.

Our "Outcomes" in Wikipedia:arbitration policy provide for Arbitration Decrees, and such a Decree could take the form of an official warning, or a demand for an apology. That section also provides for outright bans of varying lengths. In my opinion, a Decree that demands an apology would in almost all cases be a bad judgement.

Naturally, we will investigate all evidence that appears relevant to the case, subject to the one week time limit on our discussion and vote. In my opinion, evidence of personal attacks is relevant to the case, as Theresa's initial complaint refererred specifically to such behaviour, so I thank you for collecting some. Martin 17:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the remove personal information and usenet posts added to the page by User:Toots. I don't see how information outside Wikipedia is relevant to the case. Angela. 08:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree. People who cause trouble on Wikipedia generally leave plenty of evidence behind here anyway, so when someone is ban-worthy, they're probably ban-worthy regardless of what their history outside Wikipedia is. So, give everyone here a clean slate, and let them do with it what they will. --Delirium 13:14, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Mr-Natural-Health's pattern of behavior is at issue. Evidence of a long standing and widespread pattern of destructive behavior in other internet forums is relevant . See internet trollFred Bauder 13:27, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Public discussions by arbitrators will take place at Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health/arbitrator discussion. All are welcome to view, but only arbitrators may edit. Additionally, there is some private arbitrator discussion."

Would it not be a good idea to protect that page then? I'm assuming the arbitrators are all sysops. (Mr NH has already posted and blanked there, I'm assuming the comment was meant to go somewhere else). If things get heated it'd be nice to know that there could be no trolling or mucking around with the page. I'm very interested to see how well this system works. Good luck with it all.  :) fabiform | talk 10:02, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As it happens, not all arbitrators are sysops. Martin 15:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
May I suggest that the non-sysop arbitrators be nominated for adminship? Irismeister has just posted a rant to Wikipedia:Matter_of_Theresa_knott_and_Mr-Natural-Health/arbitrator_discussion. fabiform | talk 14:53, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's not a heirarchy. By all means nominate the non-sysop arbitrators for adminship, of course, but there's no rule that says all arbitrators must be sysops, and I'd hope to see that remain the case.
Irismeister self-reverted, which would appear to indicate that protection is not necessary. In any case, our protection policy indicates that only a few categories of pages are to be protected, and arbitrator discussion pages are not in that category. I would oppose any move to add them to such a category. Martin 23:20, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do not make personal attacks!

I do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. And, when the matter was first brought to my attention a long time ago, I tried a lot harder to be more straight to the point. When I did that one editor snapped back: "Is everything you do a 'removal of POV.' So, you cannot have it both ways. Either you, yourselves, will follow what you preach or I will continue to follow your examples.

You people are simply being overly sensitive. If you cannot stand having your editing commented upon than stay out of the kitchen.

Ed Poor recently started talking about my viewpoint on Talk:Alternative medicine. I would call that a personal attack. Another one of you people, removed a perfectly valided external link in Medical scientism. Since, External Links are permitted I would call that a personal attack. These personal attacks took place against me within the last couple of days.

Your overt POV editing practices are personal attacks, as far as I am concerned. So, please stop making personal attacks against me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:04, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Time?

This arbitration commenced on February 6. The one week deadline seems to have passed, as it is now February 14, but no decision has been reached. Does this passage of time therefore render the arbitration null and void, or is there some sort of extension permitted? Or has the deadline not passed because Feb 6 is not considered the starting date? -- Emsworth 15:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

A decision was made some days ago, but the verdict not posted here. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Morwen 15:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for follow-up

It is not clear to me where it is expected to make this request. However, I suggest that whatever "arbitration" or "administrative" group is responsible for following-up on this issue take a look at MNH's current statements in Talk:Alternative medicine. Please note that I will not be following up on this issue, as it is against my policy to attempt to teach a pig to sing. [1] --FOo 04:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Natural Health appears to be more the victim of User:RK than the aggressor himself, but of course he should not use attacks against him as an excuse to attack others. Likewise calling him a pig is unlikely to shed a lot o light on the subject. Fred Bauder 12:01, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)