Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit/Proposed decision

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 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

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=

Assume good faith
1) Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reliable sources
2) Information based on reliable published sources in acceptable. Lack of access to published literature by a contestant in an content dispute is not a basis for removal of well-sourced information.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

NPOV
3) Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant viewpoints regarding the subject of an article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Biased editing
4) A user who regularly and aggressively engages in biased editing with respect to an area of editing may be restricted with respect to editing in that area.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Dispute resolution
5) A matter comes before the Arbitration Committee when the procedures of Resolving disputes fail. The results of Arbitration are much less satisfactory then successful mediation would be. Mediation can result in a comprehensive solution crafted by those familiar with the details of the dispute, while the results of Arbitration are often a crude, often somewhat arbitrary suppression of whomever is the cause of the "trouble". Users are advised to avoid Arbitration and its often unsatisfactory results by employing negotiation and mediation effectively.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is a dispute between and  regarding alleged nationalistic editing of articles which relate to conflicts between Ecuador and Peru, see Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. Biased versions of events are part of the popular culture of both Peru and Ecuador, History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Failure of Messhermit to assume good faith
2) Messhermet fails to assume good faith, regarding Andres_C. as an opponent, , , , , , and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Messhermit refuses to accept sources
3) Messhermit, for whatever reason, has internet access but does not seem to have good access to the written sources cited by Andres C., and is not willing to accept them, see Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence and . Andres C.'s citations are not detailed, being only to books rather than to specific passages in specific books, but are generally acceptable, , , , , , , , and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks by Messhermit
4) Messhermit has made personal attacks, , , and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Messhermit and NPOV
5) Messhermit either misunderstands or opposes Neutral point of view, , , , , and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring by Messhermit
6) Messhermit has engaged in sustained edit warring and Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Messhermit and dispute resolution
7) Messhermit has been unable or unwilling to effectively use the earlier steps in Resolving disputes, see Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit/Evidence.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring by Andres C.
8) has engaged in edit warring opposite Messhermit, for example at History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, and has characterized Messhermit's edits as vandalism.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Incivility by Andres C.
9) has made several personal attacks and other insulting remarks toward Messhermit, including making fun of his English and calling him a moron.


 * Support:
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.

Messhermit banned from Peru-Ecuador conflict
1) Messhermit is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador. He may make comments and suggestions on article talk pages.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

... for two years
2) Messhermit is placed on Probation for two years. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Messhermit.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Still prefer one year, that's more than enough time for us to revisit it if need be. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One year should be sufficient. Can be renewed if necessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

... for one year
2.1) Messhermit is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Messhermit.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second choice. James F. (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Andres C. placed on Probation
3) Andres C. is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Messhermit.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Should either Messhermit or Andres C. violate any ban imposed by this decision, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Messhermit.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reworded to include Andres C., hopefully without effecting the meaning. Dmcdevit·t 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

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.''

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.


 * I think this is as much as we will get done here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well. James F. (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)