Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Proposed decision

Arbitrators
Arbitrators active as of the opening of this case:


 * Blnguyen
 * Charles Matthews
 * Flcelloguy
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Morven
 * Paul August
 * Raul654
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

There are 13 active arbitrators and none are recused, so the majority is 7.

Proposed remedy
"Party A shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Party B, on any page in Wikipedia. Should Party A do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week."

I have not seen this kind of remedy proposed before. I like it very much. I think it strikes at the heart of most interpersonal disputes. Was this your idea, Kirill? --Ideogram 09:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's adapted from the Everyking 3 case, actually, which had a similar remedy. Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have one question about implementation. What happens if they try to edit the same articles? Does the first one to an article "own" it? --Ideogram 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had that concern too. Thatcher131 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming that it's not one of the articles covered by remedy 3, yes; only one of them should really be editing a particular article (although non-substantial edits would probably pass unnoticed). Frankly, I don't think it's a problem; there are thousands of other editors around, so neither of the two needs to get involved with the other. Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I am well satisfied by the outcome and decisions of the case, thanks to the arbitration committee. WLU 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for helping to clear up what some of you have called both silly and ludicrous. Something I've been attesting to for some time now. I feel exonerated and well pleased that we have been shown the case was "the pot calling the kettle black". We have indeed been given proof that I have not stooped to the level of losing my cool and more importantly, have not lowered myself to using ugly Ad-hominem attacks as was done to me on many occasions. While I accept I have erred in some judgment, It is clear by the comments of the arbitrators that not only were 90+% of the accusations baseless, that the accuser was also indeed found to be at fault in violating incivility, bad faith, Wikistalking and more.

Citing Jimbo Wales "libeling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" as it is used to inflame and incite negative actions. It is also of particular import that I cite WP:BOLD, as not everyone sees things through the same rose-colored glasses, as others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. Like all of us, I want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be by bring out proper information nessary for a good article. I have shown that some page ownership has occurred and perhaps from this event others will from now on, take into consideration that others views are just as valid, that they carry just as much weight and especially that no one user is anymore important that another. Having the false idea the just because a persons edit count is higher, is meaningless and that person is held to the same standard as every other editor on Wikipedia. In closing I still have a few questions if I may, please direct me to where I may ask them in confidence and receive an answer. Again thank you for your time and helping to clear up this untidy lil event.

Respectfully Mystar 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Condifidential questions may be addressed to any arbitrator by email. --Ideogram 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)