Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority, except items with a vote from previous arbitrator James F., on which 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed temporary orders

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
  1. .
Nay:
  1. .
Abstain:
  1. .


Proposed principles

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Discourtesy and personal attacks

[edit]

1) Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 07:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:


Edit warring and the three revert rule

[edit]

2) Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three revert rule consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 07:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:


Caching servers

[edit]

3) In our decisions we should avoid requiring permanently blocking Proxy/caching servers that belong to an ISP if possible. (See User:202.72.131.230.)

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 13:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:


Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Vandalism of userpage, trading of personal attacks

[edit]

1) On September 9, 2004 a user with the IP address 168.209.97.34 repeatedly vandalized User OneGuy's user page, blanking it and inserting language insulting to OneGuy and to Islam, see [1], [2], [3]. User OneGuy responded with this edit [4], terming 168.209.97.34 an "anti-Islamic bigot".

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:08, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 07:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Edit warring and violation of the 3 revert rule

[edit]

2) On November 17, 2004 User OneGuy and a user with the IP address 168.209.97.34 engaged in an edit war at article, Aisha each party reverting the article about 10 times, see edit history.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:08, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 07:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:

168.209.97.34 as a caching server

[edit]

3) The IP address 168.209.97.34 belongs to an ISP's caching server in South Africa; as such, many users can be considered to be editing as that IP address.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 13:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:


168.209.97.34's identity

[edit]

4) Given comments on the original case page, the user from 168.209.97.34 identified above in 1) and 2) can reasonably be assumed to be User:-lothario-.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 13:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:

Personal attacks

[edit]

5) OneGuy and -lothario- have engaged in personal attacks on one another with very little attempt to discuss the issues at hand.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) whoops!
Nay:
  1. Unrepresentative, and overly harsh on OneGuy. Personal attacks don't seem to play a large role in this dispute, and this is the only example from either of them that I can find that is worthy of sanction.
  2. No equivalency between actions. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Not equivalent - OneGuy was sorely provoked - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 07:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (echo David and Neutrality)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Some specific examples would be helpful Fred Bauder 13:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inserting anti-Muslim POV

[edit]

6) -lothario-, editing as 168.209.97.34, has engaged in a pattern of inserting POV into articles that appears to disparage Muslims and their beliefs in ways that violate the Neutral Point of View policy. [5], [6], [7], [8] (note ref to number of times 'kill' is in the Quran) Another example: On 9 Nov 2004, he added out of context verses to Jihad page. One example, "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies." 4. Surah 8:60 .. The verse with context reads, "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Surah 8:60-61 For more see evidence page.

Aye:
  1. mav 08:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 11:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:56, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 15:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. While the edits cited are not of the highest quality, for example, the killer of Margaret Hassan hardly needs to be identified as a Muslim, they do not violate Neutral Point of View. Fred Bauder 14:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fred - just look at the evidence page. We only cite examples here. But I added another example with very clearly is a violation (out of context statement with an obvious bent). --mav
Abstain:

Proposed decision

[edit]

Remedies

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Both on personal attack parole

[edit]

1) OneGuy and -lothario- are placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including 2 months. If one of them makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then that person shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:02, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Unrepresentative. I've barely seen any personal attacks from OneGuy. I considered objecting to it for lothario as well, but this sways me into supporting it in his case. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. No equivalency between actions. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Reconsidering - not equivalent - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 07:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (too harsh on OneGuy)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. There is no finding of fact which supports this remedy Fred Bauder 14:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

-lothario on short personal attack parole

[edit]

1.1) -lothario- is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including 2 months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
Ambi 05:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd also consider supporting some sort of reprimand for incivility on OneGuy's part, but I can't think of a suitable remedy at present.
Only if 1.2 doesn't pass; otherwise nay. Grunt 🇪🇺 05:59, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Tho' I'd prefer a year
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (though "up to and including" is a strange way to word it)
Nay:
  1. mav 07:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. There is no finding of fact which supports this remedy Fred Bauder 14:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. POV parole essentially supercedes this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:41, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

-lothario on long personal attack parole

[edit]

1.2) -lothario- is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
Ambi 03:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (UTC) On second thoughts, a two-month personal attack parole is too short in a case like this. I'd also consider supporting some sort of reprimand for incivility on OneGuy's part, but I can't think of a suitable remedy at present.
An admonition not to respond in kind even to severe provocation? - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. Ambi 01:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Grunt 🇪🇺 16:09, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 16:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only if 1.1 doesn't pass, otherwise Nay)
  2. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (though "up to and including" is a strange way to word it)
Nay:
  1. There is no finding of fact which supports this remedy Fred Bauder 14:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    FoF 1: "..a user with the IP address 168.209.97.34 repeatedly vandalized User OneGuy's user page...inserting language insulting to OneGuy and Islam..." -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:49, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'd like to see some evidence that this is an issue. --mav 18:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. POV parole essentially supercedes this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:40, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

-lothario banned for vandalizing user page

[edit]

2) -lothario- is banned for three days for repeatedly vandalizing OneGuy's userpage with personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 05:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 05:59, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) added "with personal attacks" 00:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 07:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Way too short, I would support a year Fred Bauder 14:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

-lothario on POV parole

[edit]

3) -lothario- is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
  1. mav 08:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 15:03, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 15:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) I've added the words 'in a 24-hour poll' - strike if you disagree
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. An abomination, an invitation to bans based on bias and misunderstanding of the NPOV policy Fred Bauder 14:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Note the use of the word re-inserts. --mav
Abstain:

Oneguy admonished

[edit]

4) Oneguy is admonished not to respond in kind even to severely provocative personal attack.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 11:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) "Don't let the unpleasant users grind you down."
  2. This addresses my concerns about OneGuy's responses. Grunt 🇪🇺 15:03, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 15:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 18:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Further vandalism to userpages

[edit]

1.1) Further vandalism to userpages by -lothario- may result in temporary blocks of up to a week by any administrator at the administrator's discretion. The blocking administrator has the authority to determine what constitutes "vandalism."

Aye:
Grunt 🇪🇺 02:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd prefer the broader one
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (unless 1.2 doesn't pass, then Aye)
  2. mav 18:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (the next one is better)
  3. Prefer 1.2 in light of vandalism here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:42, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Abstain:

Further vandalism to any page

[edit]

1.2) Further vandalism by -lothario- may result in temporary blocks of up to a week by any administrator at the administrator's discretion. The blocking administrator has the authority to determine what constitutes "vandalism."

Aye:
  1. I don't see the point in limiting it to user pages, particularly considering the vandalism of arbitration pages. Ambi 03:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree in light of vandalism of this page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:11, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 16:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 07:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (so long as repeatedly adding blatant POV is also considered vandalism)
    Will a 24-hour poll on the talk page, as above, do? - David Gerard 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fred Bauder 14:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:


Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. I think we're done here - everything has passed that is likely to pass. Ambi 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. I agree. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:43, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  3. Let's close. --mav 00:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agreed sannse (talk) 00:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ditto. Neutralitytalk 03:19, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed_decision&oldid=1226822301"