Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | EffK

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 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, one Arbitrator is recused and one is 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.

Motions and requests by the parties

edit

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

edit

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

edit

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

edit

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inapprpriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

edit

2) Neutral Point of View is one of the pillar principles of Wikipedia. This means that points of view (POVs) should be presented as points of view. The fact that a particular point of view has been stated by a reputable scholarly source does not justify presenting it as fact or NPOV.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Obsessive point of view

edit

3) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Changed "problematic" to "disruptive"[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No personal attacks

edit

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith

edit

5) Wikipedia editors, as a part of Wikipedia:Civility, are expected to assume good faith - simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of talk pages

edit

6) Article talk pages are intended for discussion that is relevant to the proposed content of articles. They should not be used as soapboxes for arguments that are irrelevant to or tangential to article content.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Focus on Catholic Church

edit

1) EffK has edited with an obsessive focus on the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in Germany.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Misuse of article talk pages

edit

2) EffK has established a pattern of using article talk pages as a soapbox for presenting a controversial view about the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party, even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. His voluminous and difficult to comprehend posts have disrupted discussion of article content.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and accusations by EffK

edit

3) EffK has made personal attacks and accusations against several other users, including accusing others of being agents of the Vatican. [1], [2], [3]

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by EffK

edit

4) EffK has repeatedly posted material which draws conclusions not supported by sources he has been asked to cite, much of which appears to be conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

EffK's writing style

edit

5) EffK's postings on talk pages are generally long and largely incomprehensible, making it difficult for him to communicate effectively with other editors.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not sure this is really an issue. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This ground is covered by Finding #2. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, this is already covered. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Covered by Finding 2. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo suggests EffK leave the project

edit

6) In response to a post on his talk page, Jimbo Wales has suggested EffK leave the project with his "head held high, dignity intact". [4]

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I think this is irrelevant to the rest of the case. That Jimbo suggested a user could preserve some dignity by leaving Wikipedia may be a good suggestion. However, it doesn't really have any bearing with relation to this arbitration.[reply]
  2. Agree with Sam that this has no provenance. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Sam. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. It is, IMO, yes, irrelevent. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per The Epopt. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

edit

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.

EffK banned from Catholicism articles

edit

1) EffK is banned from all articles relating to the Catholic Church. This restriction shall be interpreted broadly.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

EffK banned

edit

2) EffK is banned for 1 year for personal attacks, POV-pushing, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

EffK to be banned from articles that he disrupts

edit

3) Should EffK cause disruption on any article (including its talk page), he may, at the decision of any administrator, be banned from editing that article (and, if applicable, its talk page) for a period of no more than three months. Bans are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK#Bans.

Support:
  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though there's not much point in waiting around for votes on this when the general ban has enough votes already. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no time limit on this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Enforcement of bans

edit

1) Should EffK violate any ban imposed under Remedies 1 and 3, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

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. Might as well close now; remedy #3 is superceded by the general ban. Close now. Dmcdevit·t 10:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I oppose until remedy 3 is decided upon; it really isn't superceded by either of the other remedies, as noted. James F. (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my mistake, we can hold off on closing. Dmcdevit·t 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support; remedy #3 seems to have passed, unless I've counted incorrectly. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. By my counting too: close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Neutralitytalk 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734270"