Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/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 1 is inactive, so 13 out of 14 arbitrators are available and 7 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.

Temporary ban from Shiloh Shepherd Dog
1) Until the resolution of this case, and  are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.


 * Support:
 * As the revert war continues, and we ought to unprotect this article. Dmcdevit·t 06:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seemingly, yes. James F. (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Enacted on instructions of Mindspillage. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Civility
1) 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.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

No personal attacks
2) Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

No original research
3) As stated in the policy No Original Research, Wikipedia is not a forum for original research.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Article ownership
4) As stated in the policy No Article Ownership, Wikipedia articles are developed by the Wikipedia community at large. No editor may claim ownership of any article, or seek to prevent other editors from good-faith editing.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
5) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring
6) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Intrusion of an event into Wikipedia
7) Participants in an event with is the subject of an article may be excluded from editing an article which describes the external event if their participation is disruptive.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Extension of autobiography stuff; perhaps better to restate it as such?
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Meatpuppets
8) The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Focus of dispute
1) The focus of this Wikipedia dispute is the article on the Shiloh shepherd dog, a breed of dog that is still in the process of being defined. There are controversies between breeders and breed registries concerning the Shiloh shepherd dog breed. These controversies are reflected in the dispute over this article with a number of actual participants in the dispute editing the article.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal involvement of Tina M. Barber and others
2) Tina M. Barber is acknowledged to have been the principal original breeder of the Shiloh shepherd dog breed. There is conflict between her and other breeders and registries of the dog. Many of the other participants in the conflict, including meatpuppets, are also involved in the external controversy.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks by involved users
3) Tina M. Barber has been discourteous and engaged engaged in personal attacks against other editors.     ShenandoahShiloh   and Shiloh lover   have also been uncivil.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Claims of ownership
4) Tina M. Barber and the many other involved users have attempted to maintain ownership of the Wikipedia article Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Tina M. Barber and many of the other involved editors have only edited Shiloh Shepherd Dog and its related articles and talk pages.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Meatpuppets
5) There have been an enormous number of meatpuppets, both anonymous IPs and new users, involved in giving a feigned sense of support to parties to this dispute.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tina M. Barber reveals personal information
6) Tina M. Barber has revealed the personal information of other anonymous editors in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a dispute. On January 26, she was blocked for revealing personal information.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 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.

Tina M. Barber banned
1) For a pattern of disruptive behavior and personal attacks, revealing personal information, and attempted ownership of Shiloh Shepherd Dog, Tina M. Barber is banned for one year.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Article-related Probation
2) The editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog and its related articles and talk pages are placed under probation. Any administrator may ban any editor from any of Shiloh Shepherd Dog's related pages for any amount of time for disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, edit wars or personal attacks. Should any banned editor violate any ban imposed under Probation he or she 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. The Committee reserves the right to appoint mentors to monitor the article and ensure enforcement.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Meatpuppets banned
3) Any administrator may block indefinitely any suspected meatpuppet for good cause. This includes disruptive behavior like edit warring and personal attacks, but also skewing consensus or neutrality by flooding the discussion.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editors warned
4) The editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog are warned to remain civil at all times during discussion on Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * 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.''

My understanding of this (thus far) is that Tina M. Barber is banned for a year. All editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog are placed on probation from pages related to said article. Administrators may ban suspected meatpuppets who might be disrupting the article or discussions on it, including attempting to vote-stack. The editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog are reminded to be civil at all times on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * None of these proposals has passed yet. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know -- I was looking at the motions most likely to pass. As I expected, they all did. Getting the work out of the way a week or two ahead is nice. :) Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. James F. (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)