Home • Search • Translate
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 10 active Arbitrators, excluding 1 who is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Imperfect policy

2) Much of Wikipedia's written policy is necessarily imperfect and continuously evolving. Users acting according to a reasonable and good-faith understanding of a policy as written should generally not be penalized if the policy is later amended to prohibit their behavior.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    True, but not a factor in this case based on evidence given about the number of accounts used and the rationale for their use. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) switch to oppose. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Not pertinent to this case. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Not relevant. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Not relevant so better to leave it out. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Should be generally forbidden. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Biographies of living people

4) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Privatemusings and sockpuppetry

1) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has operated a number of accounts ( [1]). His actions were arguably permitted under a reasonable interpretation of the policy as it stood at the time; however, their net effect was not beneficial to the project.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. The private and public explanations given to the Committee by Privatemusings do not convince me that he was making a good faith attempt to follow policy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Flo. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Flo. And even if he was, the policy is not as it is writ, but as meant; see P2. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Privatemusings and sockpuppetry

1.1) The evidence shows that Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has operated a total of eight accounts ( [2]), well outside of policy and established norms.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice; the text of the written policy has diverged from established norms at some points. Kirill 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. The private explanations given to the Committee by Privatemusings do not convince me that it was a simple misunderstanding of policy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Privatemusings and BLP

2) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited biographies of living persons inappropriately ( [3]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Privatemusings limited to one account

1) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to using one and only one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Privatemusings restricted

2) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Should he edit such an article, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. A topic ban seems appropriate to me as Privatemusings tries to rehabilitate his reputation and gain the confidence of other users that he can follow our policy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Principled opposition to enduring partial restrictions on editing. reply
Abstain:

Privatemusings banned for 90 days

3) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Several reasons to revoke Privatemusings' editing privileges: 1) To allow the community to take a break from dealing with Privatemusings as he has exhausted the patience of some users with good reason. 2) Give Privatemusings a chance to reflect more on our findings and the remedies giving him a better chance at succeeding as an editor. He needs to realize that this is his last chance and if he does not follow our ruling that he will be indefinitely blocked from editing. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. No need for an outright ban if the sockpuppetry matter is resolved otherwise. Kirill 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Unnecessary. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Privatemusings banned for one year.

3.1) Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year. The revocation affects all accounts.

Support:
  1. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC) First choice. I do not believe in the good faith of this editor, who appears fascinated by any drama and trouble. reply
  2. Agree. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Would be better to leave the indefinite ban in place. Fred Bauder 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I don't think this is needed. Kirill 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Based on parity with other cases, I don't think the findings of fact support this remedy. To FloNight and Morven's point, there may be an additional case to be made that would justify this remedy, but we haven't made it. reply
  3. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Privatemusing has asked the Committee many times by email and on talk pages to let him have another chance. I feel that doing so is best. After the 90 day ban, many people will be observing Privatemusings editing and if problems re-occur then we will address them then. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Adding this remedy after re-reading the emails from Privatemusings and then the on wiki evidence again. Going to sleep on it before I decide. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC) FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Too weak given his main restriction is against editing BLP articles. If he decides to ignore our remedy (hopefully he will not ignore it), I feel this has the potential of allowing him to return to an article over and over and stir up trouble. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1.1) Should Privatemusings edit a BLP article he will receive one warning and a one week block; if he resumes editing a BLP article then he will be indefinitely blocked. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. I do not want to give an user a license to disrupt BLP articles as their last hurray. I'm hoping that this enforcement will not needed in this case but we must think of worst case scenarios, too. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice; hopefully this won't need to be used. Kirill 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Hopefully none of these need to be used; that's the point. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement of one-account limitation

2) After Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) selects a single account for editing, his other accounts, including any newly discovered accounts, are to be blocked (or remain blocked) indefinitely, with care taken to ensure that the block of his real-world-identity-associated account is not performed in a fashion readily traceable to this matter.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 05:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. James F. (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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 following Proposed Principles pass:
    • Decorum
    • Sockpuppetry
    • Biographies of Living Persons
  • The following Proposed Findings of Fact pass:
    • Privatemusings and sockpuppetry (3.2.1.1, second version)
    • Privatemusings and BLP
  • The following Proposed Remedies pass:
    • Privatemusings limited to one account
    • Privatemusings restricted
  • The following Proposed Enforcements pass:
    • Enforcement by block (3.4.1.1, second version)
    • Enforcement of one-account limitation

The interpretation of whether various Propositions pass or fail is on the basis that the majority Arbitrator's count is 6 at the time of closing. Anthøny 12:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

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; we're done here. Kirill 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Close. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Close. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Close. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Close. James F. (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed_decision&oldid=1144564338"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE