Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Infinity0

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 she/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, no arbitrators are recused and 6 are inactive, so 5 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

Neutral point of view

edit

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly covered.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Insignificant points of view

edit

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not require that insignificant points of view be included in an article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

edit

3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring considered harmful

edit

4) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 22:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility

edit

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 22:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Locus of dispute

edit

1) Infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have quarreled and edit warred regarding articles of mutual interest such as Wage labour and An Anarchist FAQ, Infinity0 from an anarchist point of view, RJII from an anarcho-capitalist point of view. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop#Infinity0_creates_wage_labour and subsequent proposals.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism insignificant points of view

edit

2) Neither anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are significant points of view for the purposes of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. They're significant in certain areas, as with all things; not certain where this is going. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. strongly disagree ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Significant points of view on what (surely they're important to, say, anarchism)? For someone with no background in the field, how am I supposed to judge this? Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist FAQ

edit

3) An Anarchist FAQ is a borderline source regarding the views of Anarchists. It has been widely published on the internet, although not in book form. The number of people actively involved in determining content is probably quite small, but a mechanism exists for incorporation of feedback into the FAQ giving a measure of peer review.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevant to the conduct conserns, so far as I can see. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity0 edit wars

edit

4) Infinity0 has engaged in edit warring, leading to 3 separate 3RR blocks, and one violation which did not lead to a block [1].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

RJII prior Arbitrations

edit

5) RJII has been the subject of two previous Arbitrations. The last one resulted in his being placed on personal attack parole, article probation and general probation for tendentious editing and incivility. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

RJII fails to conform to prior restrictions

edit

6) RJII has continued to violate the terms of his previous arbitration remedies, and has been blocked a total of 6 times since the last case's conclusion for edit warring and incivility. One of the blocks was for two weeks imposed under general probation. [2]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

edit

1) Edits by Infinity0, other than those to Anarchism and closely related subjects such as prominent anarchists, which set forth the views of the contemporary anarchist movement or which link to sites such as An Anarchist FAQ may be removed by any user on the basis that they do not constitute a significant view point for the purposes of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Restoration of such edits by Infinity0 shall be grounds for a brief block. Repeated insertion of such edits shall be grounds for extended blocks. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer conduct-related measures. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As with Dom. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per Dmcdevit. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

2) Edits by RJII, other than those to Anarcho-capitalism and closely related subjects such as Laissez-faire, which set forth the views of anarcho-capitalist thought may be removed by any user on the basis that they do not constitute a significant view point for the purposes of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Restoration of such edits by RJII shall be grounds for a brief block. Repeated insertion of such edits shall be grounds for extended blocks. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too restrictive, as with Dom. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per Dmcdevit (above). Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

An Anarchist FAQ

edit

3) Caution is urged regarding use of An Anarchist FAQ especially in the editing of articles which do not directly concern the history of anarchism or the contemporary anarchist movement.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see no evidence it qualifies as a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Given evidence I maight go for this... Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As with Dom. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity0 placed on revert parole

edit

4) Infinity0 is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He may not perform more than one content revert per page per day and every content revert must be accompanied by discussion on the relevant talk page.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

RJII banned

edit

5) For continued violation of his previous ruling, by incivility and edit warring, RJII is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Enforcement by block Infinity0

edit

1) Should Infinity0 violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by block RJII

edit

2) Should RJII violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarcho-capitalism related material he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

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.

  • Principles: all pass 6-0
  • Findings: 1, 4, 5 and 6 pass 6-0. 2 and 3 fail.
  • Remedies: 4 and 5 pass 6-0. 1, 2 and 3 fail.
  • Enforcement: both motions pass.

Vote

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. Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734096"