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 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 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, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest

2) Guidelines on editors with a conflict of interest strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests". This includes subjects of biographical articles editing those articles in order to remove aspects of their history which they wish not to be discussed.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ownership of articles

3) Wikipedia articles do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Support, although perhaps "Wikipedia pages" should be changed to "Wikipedia articles", as there are a limited number of pages in project-space as to which this principle would not be accurate (e.g., this proposed decision page). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    If Kirill's happy then let's make this change. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. And agree with the wording change suggested by Newyorkbrad. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Biographies of living people

4) Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, whether negative, positive, or just questionable, about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles ( [1], [2]), talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Support, although this principle summarizes just one aspect of the WP:LIVING policy. Although the policy calls for the removal of poorly sourced contentious material from BLP articles, it should also be borne in mind that at times, and especially in the case of persons whose notability is merely borderline, certain material should not be included in BLP articles even if it is adequately sourced and undisputedly true. See generally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; compare, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Whether disputed material should be included in an article is generally an editorial decision to be made by editors on the article, and I do not opine on whether any BLP principles are or were violated by any specific version of the article except for the general finding below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I prefer that we tweak the wording to more broadly address spirit of the BLP policy. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Not sure on this; will re-visit. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Subjects of articles

5) Individuals who are the subjects of articles on Wikipedia are encouraged to help improve those articles within established policies. In the event of an editing dispute, existing procedures of dispute resolution should be used in good faith. Confidential corrections may be made through the Open Ticket Request System. An editor who disagrees with the contents of an article about them has no excuse for disruption of Wikipedia. However administrators should be understanding with editors who are the subjects of articles.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Two wrongs do not make a right

6) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, whether on Wikipedia or off, is not excused from normal behavioural standards.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. FloNight ( talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Per Brad. reply
Abstain:
  1. Ultimately true, but provocation can be a significant mitigating factor in such situations, especially where relatively new editors are involved. I would prefer a slightly more sensitive formulation of the principle. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dealing with harassed editors

6.1) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Support:
  1. Revised in line with comments. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. This substantially addresses my concern. Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Kirill 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Although it would be helpful to hold up the dispute resolution mechanism in this principle. reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Bluemarine has edited with a conflict of interest

1) Bluemarine has edited Matt Sanchez in violation of guidelines on conflicts of interest and ownership of articles.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Editing with a COI in itself is not sanctionable, but as in this case it can correllate with editing in violation of core principles such as NPOV, which is sanctionable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Though I also agree with Flo, Brad's comment represents my view here. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This is pretty common conduct for the subject of an article and not usually a reason for a finding of fact. The controlling factor is the style of communication about article not merely that the communication and editing happened. FloNight ( talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Per Flo. reply
Abstain:
  1. Both Newyorkbrad and FloNight got valid points here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Bluemarine has been incivil and made personal attacks

2) Bluemarine has frequently personally attacked other editors with whom he has been in editing disputes, in violation of policy on personal attacks. He has also been incivil in violation of policy on civility.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Isolated breaches of civility or occasional remarks that would be better left unsaid generally will not rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding. However, as demonstrated in evidence, the personal attacks made by this editor were extreme in their frequency and severity, continuing despite an escalating series of warnings and culminating in an indefinite community ban. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. This is the main factor in the case. I agree with Newyorkbrad's comment. FloNight ( talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bluemarine is a victim of harassment

3) Bluemarine has been harassed by single purpose accounts who have edited Matt Sanchez and associated pages in a hostile fashion.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Matt Sanchez has been edited in violation of Biographies of Living People policy

4) The article on Matt Sanchez has frequently been edited in violation of policy on biographies of living people by including unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {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.

Bluemarine banned

1) Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Given the sensitivity of this article to User:Bluemarine, I would urge a substantially less severe sanction if edit-warring or COI editing were the only issue at this stage. However, the frequency and severity of the personal attacks and offensive comments made by this user leave little hope that he will soon learn to edit in accordance with Wikipedia standards. I would be open to considering a lesser sanction, with close monitoring, if the user expressed a clear determination to improve his behavior, but this too unfortunately seems unlikely. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Per recent practice and per Maxim on the talkpage, the words "to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban" might well be added. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight ( talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Article probation

2) The article on Matt Sanchez is placed on article probation.

Support:
  1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. I recommend that specific rules for the article probation be written into the decision here so that it can be read and enforced as a self-contained document. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. per Newyorkbrad suggestion. FloNight ( talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Oppose the return to the use of punitive terms such as "probation." reply
Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

2.1) The article on Matt Sanchez is placed subject to discretionary sanctons. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor of the page if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing the page or related pages; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Support:
  1. Copied substantially from from the Palestine-Israel case, with such revisions as appear appopriate to a single article. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice; but let's not confuse terminology further at this point by redefining "article probation". Kirill 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Per Brad. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Swatting a fly with a hammer reply
  3. Not needed. FloNight ( talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Maybe I'm not the best one to say this, but this seems like overkill for a remedy concerning a single article, as opposed to a broad subject-matter. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

3) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:
  1. To go with 2.1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. If 2.1 passes. Kirill 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Pre Brad. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight ( talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Per my concern re 2.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (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 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 year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Changed vote in line with remedy 2.2. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  1. Kirill 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Wording might be tied more closely to that of the article probation remedy. Also, a 1-week limitation on the first 4 blocks might be inappropriate in the event that SPA's engaging in blatantly harassing or defamatory editing, so we might want to clarify that nothing in the article probation restricts administrators' authority to enforce our basic policies. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Given that I don't suppose R2.1. James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Wording needs to be tweaked to make sure that admins are able to handle the policy violations without concerns being raised that we are limiting them with this remedy. FloNight ( talk) 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. No longer necessary. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Template

2) {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.

Principles: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.1. FOF: 2, 3, 4. Remedies: 1, 2. Arbitrators may wish to note Brad's as-of-yet unimplemented suggestion at #Bluemarine banned. Picaroon (t) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I see that FloNight went ahead and made that change. Thank you to Picaroon for the reminder. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (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. Everything passes that is needed for this case. FloNight ( talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Close. Kirill 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. I'd prefer to see Finding of Fact 1 passed but it's not essential; Bluemarine's community ban is inevitably concurrent to anything imposed here and that's how the decision should be interpreted. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Close. In a perfect world we would reformulate finding 1, but it's not essential, and cases that are resolved in substance should not be kept open unnecessarily. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Proposed_decision&oldid=1140110213"