Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Proposed decision

all proposed

NOTE: From Theodore7: moved to ../Evidence


 * User:Theodore7 has announced his departure from Wikipedia 

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 one is inactive, so 8 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:

Theodore7 banned from editing
1) Enacted on 16:47, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutralitytalk 06:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Civility/personal attacks
1) (a) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonable calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Assume good faith, Wikiquette, Civility, and Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks. (b) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Fine except for the last sentence. I personally thin RPA is reasonable, but it is much more complex, and gray, than that, and not terribly important here. See below. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.1 Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight? That's awfully controversial, and I personally don't agree. Support if we can agree to alter that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a bloody good idea most of the time. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1.1) (a) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonable calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Assume good faith, Wikiquette, Civility, and Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks. (b) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 01:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial. Neutralitytalk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit-warring
2) Edit and revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," in which an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule, are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ownership of articles
3) (a) Wikipedia pages 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. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Ownership of articles and Be bold in updating pages


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 06:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reversions/reasonableness/consensus/edit summary
1) has demonstrated a propensity to improperly revert pages and carry out edit wars, especially on the articles on astronomy, astrology, Nostradamus, astrology and astronomy, algorithm,  judicial astrology, science, and Isaac Newton, and has on multiple occasions violated the three-revert rule and been warned and blocked for it. Moreover, Theodore7 has consistently failed to make good-faith attempts to garner community consensus or even to properly justify his edits in the edit summary.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks on other editors
2) has demonstrated a propensity to make personal attacks on other editors in violation of No personal attacks. Especially concerning is Theodore7's comments that demean and belittle other users' age, education, qualifications for editing, experience and apparently unfounded charges of anti-Semitism and racism on the part of other editors. Because these charges are false and defamatory, the Arbitration Committee takes them even more seriously.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies/enforcement
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.

Six-month ban from editing content on astrology, astronomy, and related subjects
1) (a) is banned from editing or otherwise modifying articles regarding astrology, astronomy, and all related subjects for the period of six months. "All related subjects" shall be interpreted as broadly as possible and shall include all subcategories and immediate parent categories of Category:Astrology and Category:Astronomy, as well as the categories themselves. This includes adding or reorganizing astrological content in topics not generally perceived as astrological or astronomical, such as the algorithm article. Further, Theodore7 is banned from editing, modifying, or creating any new content regarding the above subjects, including templates and portals. Talk pages are not included in this ban. (b) Should  violate the terms of the remedy, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one weeks (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations). (c) may appeal the provision in two months. If this appeal is denied, he may appeal every two months thereafter until the one-year ban period has elapsed.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorely needed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

One-year personal attack parole
2) is placed on a personal attack parole for the period of one year. Should Theodore7 make a comment that could reasonably be interperted as a violation of No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one week (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations).


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Required edit summaries
3) is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of six months. Should Theodore7 make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one week (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations).


 * Support:
 * #Neutralitytalk 07:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Clumsy wording, and excessive penalties. Prefer 3.1 Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1 Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

3.1) is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of six months. Should Theodore7 fail to make an edit summary or make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a maximum period of one week for the first five violations, increasing to a year thereafter.


 * Support
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First choice. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
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.


 * move to close ➥the Epopt 20:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. - SimonP 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)