Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motion by Raphael1

 * 1) User:Raphael1/Consequences_of_enforcing_results_of_polls_in_February should be restored. This page is not attacking anyone. It merely shows the consequences of enforcing the results of the cartoon polls by factually listing blocks. Removing that page is just as well a violation of WP:NOT censored as the removal of the cartoons would be.
 * 2) Even if Cyde only intends to enforce the results of the cartoon polls in February, he should not block editors who remove the cartoons, because of his engagement in this content dispute. See: WP:BP
 * 3) WP:OURS should be restored and considered on its own merits. Why should a proposal be removed before there has even been a discussion about it? Who knows what that proposal would evolve into? There's an analogy to WP:NPA: Remove/Reject proposals based on content, not on the contributor. Furthermore there is no copyright issue. See: Rgulerdems recent mail Raphael1 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No binding decisions, but we still make decisions. Fred Bauder 12:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Motions 1 and 3 are content disputes and the arbitrators will almost certainly not accept them. Take it to Deletion review. (WP:OURS is already there, in fact.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OURS is a copyright violation, as Raphael1 copied the text written by the original author, who is now blocked from editing. To allow it to be recreated would violate GFDL.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought of that. To clarify, the content was initially posted to the mailing list? Are posts to the mailing lists copyright to their authors rather than GFDL? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, mailing list posts are covered by vanilla copyright, which means that in most jurisdictions, all rights are reserved. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was originally posted as the Wikiethics proposal. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The link supplied by Raphael1 as some form of proof of release by the original author is not an acceptable copyright release, as I'm sure he is fully aware. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems entirely clear and obvious to a reasonable person acting in good faith that Rgulerdem is more than happy for Raphael1 to use his material. Anyone with even a passing interest in this shining example of wikipedia's most critical failings would recognise that. If you can't provide at least a skerrick of evidence to support your absurd contention that Rgulerdem might wish to exert his copyright over this material to prevent Raphael1's use of it, I invite you to withdraw to help preserve your credibility for posterity. &#0151; JEREMY 10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Proposal by Netscott
1) In view of User:Raphael1's continued editing relative to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article corresponding to his singular view on it regarding the display of the cartoons it is very doubtful that even with mentorship his obsession will change. Additionally in view of his actually forming a list that set admins up for attacking and his spamming a select list of Muslim editors seemingly toward such ends not once but twice and in view of the fact that Raphael1 has contributed so little to actually benefit the project and in view of his acting as a proxy for a banned user he should just be outright banned. Relative to his latest edit, despite the fact that he does mention other reasons for delisting the article from GA status, let's be honest about this... there's really no other reason for him to delist it than the simple fact that the article displays the cartoons against his wishes. Netscott 09:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that these comments are misplaced... I intended these comments to be what my recommendation for the result of this arbitration would be. Not summary execution of this motion. In light of that, where should I in fact place these comments? Netscott 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Comments moved to the appropriate section, I invite others to adjust their commentary accordingly. Netscott 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If User:Raphael1 is to be banned from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article then he should equally be banned from articles/project pages that are directly related to it. Please see his repeated involvement in having the article delisted from Good articles despite the article having an overwhelming consensus to be listed there. Netscott 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * You are asking us to do what some of our critics accuse us of doing: not giving dissenting editors a fair hearing, simply running them off because they disagree. You also have the advantage of having followed the details of the controversy; which I have not, although I have seem the spam on Wiki-en. We have to all look at the case and consider it before we take action. Fred Bauder 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * To relate all my edits (even on different articles) to the cartoon display issue seems to be User:JzGs and User:Netscotts obsession. They are obviously very passionate in their engagement to keep that stereotyped hostility prominently placed. Even if I strongly believe, that the current display characteristics is hindering the project to become a culturally unbiased encyclopedia, I still have other ideas I'm trying to present. Unfortunately my dissent in the cartoon display issue is used to arrange my "FULL departure" as it has been used before. Raphael1 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If I'm reading this correctly, you're asking for a summary decision from the arbcom to close this case and ban Raphael? I don't think that's a good idea - summary dismissals have never been done before, and while this may be a worthwhile exception, there have been far more disruptive editors who we handled just fine without a summary dismissal. Preferably, you should be requesting a temporary injunction against him until the end of this case, which would accomplish the same goals. Johnleemk | Talk 08:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

I would like to suggest that while his actions on the cartoon controversy pages were unwelcome, disruptive, and worthy of censure, the list that he was creating, in my opinion, should not be considered to be abuse per se. Persecution is a very subjective term, and saying "I feel persecuted by something XXX did" is very different than "XXX is an asshole". As much as this user has acted problematically with regards to this issue, I would hope that the committee not consider the list he maintained on his page to be problematic. I argue that the user who deleted it made a bad judgement call, but the call was understandable and no shame should come of it (although I would hope not to see similar such calls made in the future). All that being said, I do think that the user has gone fairly far out of their way to make problems on the cartoons article itself, and have no recommendation for handling that issue in arbitration. --Improv 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Restored this from the RfArb page.. --Improv 18:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you see nothing wrong with having a page called User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims which listed the restorations made by admins (and others) when the images, which are on the article by consensus, are removed?) User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that such actions constitute persecution of Muslims, but I think it would be unfortunate to prevent that discussion (or even accusation) from happening, provided it's done in a careful manner. --Improv 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A list entitled 'Persecution of Muslims' clearly implies that the administrators on the list are acting out of a hatred of Muslims rather than for the good of the encyclopaedia. I can think of few things more offensive. I would much prefer to be called an arsehole, frankly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between disagreement on a fact (e.g. motivation) and tossing an insult (e.g. calling someone an arsehole). I understand that both can be just as offensive, but the second has no claim to be anything beyond an expression of anger, while the first has actual content. As a mental experiment, would your judgement on the first be much different if it were phrased politely? e.g. "Users who I think are allowing their cultural and religious biases to colour their judgement on the good of the encyclopedia"? --Improv 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't appreciate that one, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be be unable to comment on other editors actions then? What lines would you draw? --Improv 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I say he shouldn't be able to comment on other editors' actions? What I did say was that he didn't need to create a separate page and label it with titles designed to be offensive.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February" is an offensive title? I really don't understand, why you keep discussing the "Persecution of Muslims" title. That page has been removed, I've been blocked a week for it and I consented to refrain from using it again. I see no reason to discuss that title unless anyone pleads for its usage. I created the page User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February after I eliminated both concerns with the previous page. I replaced the offensive title and I blacked the names of the perpetrators of the blocks listed. Can anyone tell me, why it is so incriminating, that the names of the blocking administrators can still be discovered in the block logs? My page doesn't reveal any secret, since I merely processed information, which can be found in the articles history and editor block logs. If all those blocks have been correctly applied, why is there such a strong resistance against its publication? Raphael1 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)