Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may 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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Legal threats

4) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. See Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Legal threats. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a non-threatening fashion.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. My love of the law and lawyers does not extend to this venue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Perceived legal threats

5) Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if an editor asserts that a second editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", the second editor will often interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, less charged wording, such as "you have misstated my position in this dispute" or "you have made a statement about me that is not true and I hope you will retract it for the following reasons" is far preferable to an allegation of defamation.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. I would like to see some version of this written into WP:NLT to assist administrators and editors in reacting to these situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Second Newyorkbrad's suggestion. The reason for WP:NLT is to stop editors intimidating others by bringing to mind the possibility of them pursuing a legal remedy. It is quite clear that an assertion by one editor that the conduct of another could be the subject of legal remedy does that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. With the proviso that where the perceived legal threat is not so clear-cut as a reference to a particular cause of action as in the example given here, that will influence the proper response that should be made by other editors (since the response would properly be directed to eliminating the basis for the perceived threat rather than a forcible removal of the legal dispute off-wiki in the case of an actual legal threat or actual discussion of legal action). --bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The conflict in this case revolves primarily around a series of heated content disputes among the parties on a number of articles, including but not limited to the Gender of God article.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Alastair Haines

2) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([13], [14]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ilkali

3) Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([15]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([16]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

LisaLiel

4) LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([23], [24]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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.

Alastair Haines restricted

1) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

• Alastair is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

4. I wish I were persuaded that an admonition or lesser sanctions would address the problems noted in the evidence; unfortunately, ongoing problems have continued even while the case was pending. It should go without saying that the types of incivility or disruption that would trigger sanctions would not include matters of a trivial nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. With the proviso that if the civility restrictions are abused by others I will make a motion to remove them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Morven. I also especially concur with the second part of what Brad has said. I would further add that administrators enforcing these remedies should particularly consider the findings of fact that have led to the remedy when deciding how to apply it. --bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Won't support "any administrator" civility restrictions. Disruption restrictions are not quite as bad, but civility "paroles" have proven too open to abuse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

Ilkali restricted

2) Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

• Ilkali is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• Should Ilkali make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

LisaLiel restricted

3) LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

• LisaLiel is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• Should LisaLiel make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, she may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on her talk page by the administrator. Should she violate this ban, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Per comments on remedy 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
7. As per NYB. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

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.

Since the number of active arbitrators was updated, all items now pass 6-0 except remedy 1 which fails 5.1. — Coren ^(talk) 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All items have a majority of votes now, and hence pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (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.

1. Move to close. We're done here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Close. --bainer (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)