Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Cool Hand Luke (Talk)


Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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 encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Standard,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The basic boilerpate on what Wiki is or isn't. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though we do rely on people to be honest about their personal motivations for editing a topic. Being civil doesn't mean you are being honest, and benig incivil doesn't mean you aren't being honest, and vice-versa. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keeping in mind that disputes are not unilateral, and that discussion must focus on actual content, not the philosophical beliefs being discussed in the content. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sums up what WP is not. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view and verifiability[edit]

2) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and without bias, and must not contain advocacy for any organisation, cause, or belief. To comply with the verifiability policy, assertions of fact, particularly controversial ones, should be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. In appropriate instances, clean-up tags may be placed on an article to draw attention to content without citations within the article text. If a citation is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor may remove tagged content. In the case of biographies of living people, such content may be removed immediately.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although one can always quibble with aspects of the wording of a principle such as this, the basics are sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ok... Agreed.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OK in principle but difficult in practice. The sticking point is usually working out what is and isn't advocacy. Sometimes advocacy can be obvious. Other times it can be very subtle. Best way to assess this is to step back, look at the whole article, and pick out the best sources and see how much those sources align with the article text as written. This can work better than an approach that looks in detail at small sections of text and the citations needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with Carcharoth to a large extent. More particularly, any editor may remove tagged material after a reasonable time. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Just because it is difficult in practice doesn't mean that editors shouldn't work towards realizing this principle. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest[edit]

3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

Support:
  1. From the Scientology and International Churches of Christ cases.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would go further and say that anyone holding strong view on a subject (whether for or against, or some other stance) needs to be working with others while editing the article, to provide some degree of checks and balances. And any article where there are ideological flashpoints needs people able to work with both "sides" and bring them together. Without any such moderating influence, such articles are doomed to conflict. Self-restraint and self-discipline is a nice ideal, but I've never seen it work in practice on such articles. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth. Moderating influences in articles where there are significant differences of opinion in what should be included are necessary to develop the best and least biased article. Unfortunately, editors best suited to such neutrality are often repelled by the free-fire zone that often develops, particularly when editors at both extremes believe themselves to be neutral. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight[edit]

4) The neutrality policy requires that articles (i) accurately reflect all significant claims or viewpoints published in reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source. The verifiability policy requires the use of the best and most reputable sources available, with the claim or viewpoint's prevalence in these sources determining the proper weight to be placed upon it. Apparently significant claims or viewpoints which have not received proportionally significant attention in the topic's literature should be treated with caution and reported only to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. In deciding the appropriate weight to place upon a claim or viewpoint, it is its prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. General support, but see my comment on principle 6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same as Brad... SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though I would draw a distinction between explication of a viewpoint and reporting, or stating facts about, a viewpoint. The former is presenting the viewpoint and paraphrasing it. The latter is documenting that a viewpoint exists and what its history is. These are two distinct modes that can and should be present in articles that touch on varying viewpoints. It is the explication part (the 'how' and 'why') that should be proportionately expressed, rather than the dry facts about who, what, where and when, concerning a viewpoint. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and sources[edit]

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Relying on synthesised claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:
  1. From the Scientology case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With my usual caveat that "presenting a plurality of viewpoints" is often a step along the road to NPOV, and that such text should often be rewritten, rather than removed, as complete removal can itself bias an article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although presenting a plurality of viewpoints may be a necessary point in the evolution of a quality article, it is important to ensure that balance is maintained whenever possible. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yep. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of primary and secondary sources[edit]

6) Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse or misinterpret them. Typically, they offer an insider's viewpoint, with little distance from the subject; and lack independent analysis or evaluation. Accordingly, articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Support:
  1. From WP:NOR,  Roger Davies talk 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I think I might prefer a slightly more complete excerpting of the policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could use tweaking but okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure when the "insider" wording appeared on WP:NOR, but I'm uncomfortable with that. Primary sources can be completely different from an "insider's" viewpoint (e.g. a birth certificate) and secondary sources can also provide an insider's viewpoint. The question is not one of primary and secondary sources, but of independence from the topic being covered. Agree with last sentence of the principle. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "insider" does appear in policy. When you think about it, incidentally, even birth certificates represent an insider's view and are not particularly independent. Effectively, they are merely notarised assertions about the date of birth, and the child's paternity and maternity, and don't contain any balancing comments (for instance, "Frankly, baby looks nothing like him" after, say, the alleged father's details). Therefore a birth certificate is "proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded".  Roger Davies talk 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, the problem here seems to be evaluating a source's independence rather than use of primary documents. Sources without ties to the subject should be used when evaluating the subject. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of sourcing[edit]

7) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Support:
  1. From the Franco-Mongol alliance case,  Roger Davies talk 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Academic inquiry, article claims and appropriate weight[edit]

8) Academic studies sometimes explore claims for which academic consensus does not exist. In deciding whether to report such studies, the issue is not whether the subject of the study is fringe or controversial but whether the study itself fulfills Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. In deciding what weight to place upon a claim, it is the claim's prevalence within reliable published sources that is important, not the prominence given to it by Wikipedians or the general public.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An important part of NPOV is learning how to assign weight to various viewpoints and of course, sticking to reliable sources. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think it is helpful to generalise here. Should be treated on a source-by-source and article-by-article level by editors. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a content issue not within our purview. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks more like a content issue to me. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
  1. Undecided here. Echoing some of the discussion on the workshop, I am not sure that this is the best framework for analyzing this particular dispute. As a starting point, it is not even clear whether the relevant literature for analyzing claims relating to the efficacy of transcendental mediation is the scientific (physical or psychological) literature, the practitioners' literature, or relevant cultural literature and news coverage. Similarly, in evaluating the weight to be given to the claims of a movement such as TM, there is a difference between reporting such a claim as a tenet of a movement versus reporting it as a fact, and the nature of the sourcing that would be required is very different for each. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This strays into content, not conduct. Maybe a sourcing group drawn from both sides on this issue would help smooth things here? SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SirFozzie, this seems to delve too deeply into the content matter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum and assumptions of good faith[edit]

9) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. From the Scientology case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Standard. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material[edit]

10) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:BRD only goes so far. When editors have been editing a topic together for some time, they should try and find a balance between editing and discussion that works best for all concerned. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reverting shouldn't be the first tool you pull out of your box. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus building[edit]

11) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Support:
  1. From the Gibraltar case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Feuds and quarrels[edit]

12) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:
  1. Standard, from the Scientology case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This applies also to editors who specialise in 'correcting' difficult topics. They should mix up that editing with editing in quieter areas. It applies also to groups of editors who encounter each other again and again at different topics and articles. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single purpose accounts[edit]

13) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Support:
  1. Standard, from the Scientology case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fairly standard, yes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With my usual caveats about diversity of editing and the pejorative nature of the SPA terminology. It is the editing that should be examined to determine fault (if any) not the nature of being an SPA, but diversity of editing helps people bring more skills to resolving editorial disputes than the dispute-resolution skills and experience possessed by an SPA (usually little to none). Essentially, by editing other areas you learn how to work with people. Failure to do this can suggest an inflexibility that is often reflected in the topic area being edited. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bearing in mind that almost all editors have started their Wikipedia contributions in a narrow topic area. Rather than labeling a new editor in an area a SPA, there is value in encouraging the editor to expand his or her interests and to help in the development of the project as a whole. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Standard. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As Risker says, many editors started out focusing on one area and should be encouraged to expand their participation. Editors who solely focus on a topic for lengthy periods often lose perspective on both article content and interpersonal behavior. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety[edit]

14) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:
  1. Standard, from the Scientology case,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. But I may need to be reminded how this applies in this case (I may be missing something obvious). Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Recidivism[edit]

15) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. Standard.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although on reflection I think I would prefer a different section title, as in the Gibraltar case; this one has an overtone of accusation that we can do without. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Something like repeated behavior? SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Presumably applying to those here who have been sanctioned previously. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'd prefer a different title as well, perhaps "Recurrent behavioural concerns". Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Off-wiki communication[edit]

16) While discussion of Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia itself is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external communication for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is improper.

Support:
  1. From the Eastern European mailing list case,  Roger Davies talk 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note that our remarking on something as a principle indicates that we believe the principle is relevant to discussion in the case, and should guide the parties in their future behavior, but does not necessarily represent a finding that parties have violated (or have been proved to have violated) the principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This appears to be a cautionary principle, rather than an active one that directly applies here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Off-wiki conduct[edit]

17) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Support:
  1. From the Eastern European mailing list case,  Roger Davies talk 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

18) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

19) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

20) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

21) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute broadly concerns the articles within the Transcendental Meditation movement category and its sub-categories. In particular, the focus has been on the following articles: Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, TM-Sidhi program and Transcendental Meditation.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Minor copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Noting the particular flashpoints would be helpful as well, but this is a good summary. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Background[edit]

2) The dispute is essentially low-key but persistent and, although it has been frequently compared to the Scientology arbitration cases, it is obvious from close examination of the evidence that any such comparison is superficial. In essence, this dispute is a protracted squabble about conflicting view points. One side broadly comprises admirers and adherents of Transcendental Meditation; the other side consists of editors who eschew Transcendental Meditation and/or are sceptical about its claimed benefits. The principal common characteristic is a tendency to assume bad faith of the other side and to cast doubt on the integrity of others' motives, which has in turn given rise to wide-ranging related complaints. Although the misconduct so far has rarely been sanctionable, as time has gone on the atmosphere has become increasingly soured and, without intervention, it will likely escalate to wholly unacceptable levels.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Equal first with (2.1), below.  Roger Davies talk 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, prefer 2.1 for reasons given there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice, prefer 2.1. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Brad; we shouldn't introduce a case by stating what it is not. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In preference to 2.1. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comparing to the Scientology case can be done in informal discussion, but is not helpful in formal wording. Also, per Kirill and prefer 2.1 as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 2.1 Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 2.1 - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Background[edit]

2.1) The articles on Transcendental Meditation related topics have been the subject of persistent disputes, often stemming from conflicting viewpoints about transcendental meditation itself. One side broadly comprises admirers and adherents of Transcendental Meditation; the other side consists of editors who eschew Transcendental Meditation and/or are sceptical about its claimed benefits. The principal common characteristic is a tendency to assume bad faith of the other side and to cast doubt on the integrity of others' motives, which has in turn given rise to wide-ranging related complaints. Although the misconduct so far has rarely risen to the level of warranting Arbitration Committee sanction, as time has gone on the atmosphere on these articles has become increasingly soured and, without intervention, is likely to continue to interfere with high-quality editing of these articles.

Support:
  1. First choice. I prefer this over 2 for two reasons. First, as I mentioned on the workshop, I would prefer not to introduce this case in our decision by referring directly to another case. We must bear in mind that the arbitration decision may be read by editors and others who are interested in this dispute and this group of articles, and have less interest in or familiarity with any other dispute that may have existed in the past. Thus, although I agree with the comment that the disputes in this case do not by any means reflect user conduct as poor as we saw in the Scientology case, and although I agree that that can be a useful starting point in a discussion of the case by arbitrators and others familiar with the arbitration process, I don't think it's the best departure point within the four corners of the decision itself. Second (and I apologize for overlooking this point on the workshop), in the last sentence, although I agree that the situation on the TM articles warrants the imposition of a discretionary sanctions regime as provided for in the remedies, I would prefer to base the finding and therefore the remedy on existing problems rather than a prediction that user conduct will further deteriorate in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal first. This case has been much hyped as another Scientology case, which it ain't, hence the reference.  Roger Davies talk 15:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. As Brad says above, we may reference the Scientology case in our deliberations, but when we come back and people are looking at THIS case, we don't want to send them having to check yet another ArbCase, not to mention one so dense and packed as Scientology. I would agree that we need to be fixing problems now, rather then provide a self-fufilling Cassandra prediction of future issues. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal to 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fladrif[edit]

3) Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behaviour – including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith – even after being counselled against this by other editors and even during this arbitration case ([1], [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19] (with [many more examples here]).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Voluminous evidence provided here.. not much doubt about this one. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KnightLago (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Quoting Joseph Welch (not George Walsh) was interesting. This isn't the worst conduct I've ever seen, and Fladrif is clearly very capable of reasoned and thorough argument, so he needs to decide whether he is capable of toning things down or not, and listening to others while still making his point in a forceful way without crossing the line. Noting here that I disagree with a few of the diffs presented here, but overall I support the finding, mainly due to the failure to listen to others telling him he was going too far. Also noting that this finding alone being present doesn't exclude further findings about other editors (including how their editing stacks up against Wikipedia policies), no matter how civil those other editors have been. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and collusion[edit]

4) The evidence presented has been carefully examined; investigating arbitrators have been unable to independently detect or confirm – other than in one isolated instance – sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or collusion within the topic.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The isolated instance being the one identified below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although this could, of course, merely point to particularly subtle collusion. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. This owes more to "not proven" than to exoneration.  Roger Davies talk 09:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KnightLago (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. It needs to be emphasised that people need to be open and honest about what contacts or associations they have with other editors of this topic, and to keep pertinent discussion of the article content and article edits in open view on the talk page of the articles and other Wikipedia discussion venues. Having said that, there also needs to be an element of trust and good faith here as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The reviews (at least on my part) included both technical and editing comparisons. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tuckerj1976[edit]

5) Tuckerj1976 (talk · contribs) has, during the currency of this case, been detected and indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of The7thdr (talk · contribs).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KnightLago (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I could use a little more background here (either on-wiki, or off-wiki if appropriate). I see that The7thdr was indeffed for socking last summer. Is the essence of the finding here simply that this account is the reincarnation of a blocked/banned user and therefore ineligible to edit, or there an actual finding that multiple accounts were misused during the period that Tuckerj1976 was editing? I also note that on his talkpage, Tuckerj1976 has denied the allegation, although without background on the investigation I don't know how much weight, if any, to give the denial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded on arb-l for obvious reasons. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

All parties instructed[edit]

1) All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although it might be best to put "if necessary" before "modify". Not every party to the case is guilty of misbehavior.Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Tweaked.  Roger Davies talk 09:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the record, one or more of the principles outlined applies to every editor who has participated in this case. Nobody should walk away feeling completely vindicated. Risker (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In practice, this applies to all editors of the topic who were made aware of and/or participated in the arbitration case. This may not be the same as the actual list of parties, which is quite long, and some editors of the topic may have participated in the case without being listed as a party. Future editors of this topic should also be made aware (in a neutral manner) of this arbitration case if their editing proves to be problematic. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Everyone here has been making mistakes that have led to difficulties in the topic area. This is the time to review expectations and modify behavior as appropriate. Editors returning to problematic behavior will find repeat trips here less forgiving. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Vague and of a "go-forth and sin no more" nature, which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this... Cannot support, but it doesn't tip over into oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded[edit]

2) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute, writing from a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilising reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.

In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Fixed a typo.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with SirFozzie that this is vague, but in my view degrees of change are needed from several editors here. We've chosen to only name one of them (Fladrif), but anyone who has gotten into an argument over this topic needs to not assume they were right, but to look at the principles espoused here and see whether they think they need to alter their approach, and be able to show that they have adapted their editing to the principles laid out here, and/or taken a break as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Again, this applies to everyone - especially the bit about walking away and taking a break when things become heated. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Again, vague, of uncertain nature, and probably would be better served as a principle. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

3) Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support this, but wonder if we would best be served by this and this alone. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Standard - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guidance for uninvolved administrators[edit]

4) Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Periodic review by ArbCom[edit]

5) From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I guess this is needed, although ArbCom always has the right to modify their sanctions and findings per amendments. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not sure why this is needed; would think ArbCom could update via motion/amendment when problems are brought to their attention. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This is true enough, but I'm reluctant to suggest that we are more likely to act by summary follow-up motion in this case than in any other. I'd suggest substituting the "continuing jurisdiction" language I've proposed in various past cases, which attempts to address this concern, but that has proved controversial with some of my colleagues as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Brad. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Shell. Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif strongly admonished and restricted[edit]

6) Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is:

(i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and
(ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks.
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was thinking of something stronger.. the amount of times that the line has been crossed here worries me, but I hope this will be enough and the behavior will NOT continue. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't think any more than this is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Standard Boilerplate. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Standard. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm concerned about at least an apparent contradiction between this and remedy 7, as noted on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

Proposals which pass
Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Findings 1, 2.1, 3, 4, 5
Remedies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Enforcement provisions 1
Proposals which do not pass
Principles 6, 8,
Findings 2,
Remedies n/a
Enforcement provisions n/a

---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. time to move on — Rlevse • Talk • 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shell babelfish 17:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With the Cassandra-ish prediction we'll be doing this again soon. Let's not folks. SirFozzie (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision

Leave a Reply