Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

all proposed

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.
  • 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 they so choose. 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.

For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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]

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a policy, requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiable information from reliable sources[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject shall be limited to verifiable information from reliable third party sources.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is no blanket prohibition on self-published material. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is too limiting. The current policy seems to work well for most articles. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Though that isn't what Policy currently says, I would have no problem with such wording.[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable information from reliable sources[edit]

2.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article; likewise, material published on a partisan forum is not acceptable as a source, see Wikipedia:Notability (web).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The two parts here are unrelated; the second part is only true in the general case; and, in any case, the notability guidelines have nothing to do with sourcing. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Per Kirill.[reply]
  4. Apples and oranges. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

3.1) Wikipedia:Attribution, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Restriction of disruptive editors[edit]

4) The editing of users who disrupt editing by edit warring, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks or incivility, or aggressive sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: I made a minor change to the grammar that does not affect meaning)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

5) Users who are involved in an activity which is the subject of an article may be banned from the article if their editing is disruptive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul August ☎ 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I agree with UC. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) I believe that this summary is misleading. As noted in principle 4, disruptive editors may be banned without regard to any conflict of interest. Our conflict of interest policy is not so broad as to include any users who are "involved in an activity which is the subject of an article." No conflict of interest would exist merely because someone who plays football writes about football. Conversely, we recognize that a conflict of interest may exist due to financial or business pressures in situations where an editor is not "involved in an activity," as might be the case with a PR firm writing about a subject in which they are not themselves involved.[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Per UC.[reply]
Abstain:

Sockpuppets[edit]

6) Users whose behavior is the same as that of a restricted users may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too broad. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Problematic to widen the scope. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC) per Kirill, prefer 6.2[reply]
Abstain:

Sockpuppets[edit]

6.1) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered to be the restricted user and subject to the same restrictions.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Third choice.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 6.2[reply]
Abstain:

Proxy users[edit]

6.2) New users whose behavior matches that of a restricted user may be considered subject to the same restrictions regardless of whether they are actually the same person or another individual acting as a proxy for them.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Advocacy and propaganda[edit]

7) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a policy, forbids use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Articles in dispute[edit]

1) The articles in dispute include Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), related articles, and other articles which relate to political figures and issues in the United States.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Notable web sites[edit]

2) Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are notable internet forums concerned with contemporary American politics.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Content. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Content ruling, aye.[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Content.[reply]
  6. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This proposal appears moribund so I haven't investigated it.[reply]

Participants in the dispute[edit]

3) Major participants in the dispute include BenBurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others, many of whom are also involved in editing the forums Free Republic and Democratic Underground.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) However, in the future and as a matter of style and readability, it would be my preference for housekeeping items such as this and item 1 to be merged together into an uncontroversial summary of the case.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I don't understand what the purpose of this is.[reply]
Abstain:

Fairness And Accuracy For All has engaged in discourtesy, personal attacks, and gross misbehavior[edit]

4) Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edited before October 29, 2006 as NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has engaged in gross misbehavior [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Note I changed "behavior" to "misbehavior".[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry by BryanFromPalatine[edit]

5) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets including the account DeanHinnen (see evidence [19] [20] [21] [22] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [23].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not convinced that DeanHinnen is a sockpuppet, or that it's necessary to rule one way or the other on it. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) After having been surprised many times over the years, I think it is important to word such conclusions in a way that recognizes that identification of a specific relationship between two accounts is at best 95% reliable. The emphasis should be on common behavior and the presence of at least some evidence tying the accounts together. As worded here, the finding reads as an airtight conclusion that the accounts are operated by the same person.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry by BryanFromPalatine[edit]

5.1) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [24] [25] [26] [27] and checkuser results.) Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [28].

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DeanHinnen[edit]

6) DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 6.1[reply]
Abstain:

DeanHinnen[edit]

6.1) DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his first edit has engaged in disruptive behavior which matches BryanFromPalatine's.

Support:
  1. First choice, to go with Principle 6.2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing by other users[edit]

7) Most other editors, including BenBurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have generally edited in a responsible, if point of view, manner.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Eschoir[edit]

8) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor who was involved in serious conflict with Free Republic.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The name isn't really the key issue here, per se. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 8.1[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir[edit]

8.1) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing of disputed articles[edit]

9) The articles in dispute, Free Republic and Democratic Underground, have been subject to edit warring and point of view editing by the contestants. Often disputes have focused around anecdotal incidents garnered from unreliable sources, often personal research by Wikipedia editors or participants on the forums. Little information in either article is based on reliable third party sources.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine endorsed[edit]

1) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban applies to DeanHinnen and all other sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in FoF 5. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine endorsed[edit]

1.1) The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine.

Support:
  1. To go with Principle 6.2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fairness And Accuracy For All banned[edit]

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
Fred Bauder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He's probably learned his lesson Fred Bauder 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Fairness And Accuracy For All placed on probation[edit]

2.1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Merely crocodile tears; he has no intention of staying out of trouble. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration states that "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process." It is for this reason that I am generally opposed to remedies involving probation. Probation remedies do two negative things: a) they add another step to the process, in that additional egregious policy violations by the disputant being sanctioned must now occur before meaningful remedies apply; b) they create a group of second-class citizens (i.e. those users on probation) in a community where egalitarianism is a core value. Users whose ongoing misconduct is severe enough to get them a series of talk page warnings, possible mediation, an RFC, and ultimately arbitration with unfavorable findings of facts are rarely if ever going to become useful contributors. A review of the editing history of individuals placed on probation in previous cases before this committee reveals that about half leave Wikipedia and about half end up being banned either in another proceeding here or as a result of direct action by the community. Prodego has gone to the trouble to bring this case, we have 26 pages of evidence and 130 pages of proposals on the workshop page. I believe it would be grossly unfair to those who have contributed to the case for the Committee to fail to pass a clearly justified remedy merely because of a last-minute appeal. While I am inclined to believe that Fairness And Accuracy For All is sincere, I question his ability to live up to the promises he makes. There is life after Wikipedia so we need not distract ourselves with exaggerated metaphors of punitive excess. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See some of his recent edits, March 15–16: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Paul August ☎ 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Eschoir[edit]

3) Eschoir, editing under that name, is banned from all articles which relate to American politics. This includes talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. What would be different if he changed his name to "John Doe"? Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) No evidence yet of disruptive editing.[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Absent a finding that the account name itself is a problem, I don't see why we would do this.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir[edit]

3.1) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to American politics, including talk pages.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No basis for this, there is no finding that he edits inappropriately. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) No evidence yet of disruptive editing.[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Eschoir[edit]

3.2) Eschoir is banned from all articles which relate to Free Republic, including talk pages.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No basis for this, there is no finding that he edits inappropriately. Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) No evidence yet of disruptive editing.[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Eschoir[edit]

3.3) Eschoir is strenuously warned that any disruptive editing will not be tolerated.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice. Kirill Lokshin 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Even though it's merely a warning, we should have a findings of facts that support this.[reply]
Abstain:

Free Republic placed on article probation[edit]

4) Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Opposed to "article probation" in general.[reply]
Abstain:

Democratic Underground placed on article probation[edit]

5) Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Opposed to "article probation" in general.[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate length. All blocks are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Although I think this has become widespread enough practice that we no longer need to include it in every decision.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

  • The following have been adopted by a majority:
    • Principles 1, 2.1, 3.1, 4, 5, 6.2, 7;
    • Findings of fact 1, 3, 4, 5.1, 6.1, 7, 8.1, 9;
    • Remedies 1.1, 2, 4, 5;
    • Enforcement 1. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose pending consideration of probation remedy for Fairness And Accuracy For All Fred Bauder 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Close Fred Bauder 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision

Leave a Reply