This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Representation

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. As a party to this, I'd like to request that Arbcom not be harsh on either FCYTravis or FeloniousMonk. I've had a lot of conversations with both of them about this and other issues and am entirely satisfied that both acted in good faith and with the best interests of the project at heart. I learned a lot from this, and I'm guessing they might have done as well. I can see some developing consensus in the decision, and I'd just like to say my $0.02 worth before it goes too far. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

num)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Min Zhu still subject to edit warring

1) The parties continue to argue over Min Zhu and other articles. In the interest of a stable article version, the articles are to be left without mention of the so-called "Zhu/Zeleny controversy" (only as the most conservative option--the arbitration committee does not endorse this version). Demi T/C 16:36, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Edit warring? Min Zhu - History says otherwise. In fact, the only two parties to this RFAr who have been active on the article since December have been from Demi's camp, FloNight and Just zis Guy, you know?/JzG. I haven't edited the article since 26 December, and Larvatus since 24 December. There's no ongoing edit war. I think Demi meant that there continues an exchange of viewpoints at Talk:Min_Zhu where we've been close several times to reaching consensus. A lively discussion is a very different thing than an "edit war." Again, there is no edit war. FeloniousMonk 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Actually, you're correct, there's nothing that currently needs to be stopped by arbitration committee injunction. I saw the contentious talk page, the bad state of the article, and a few edits out of the context of the history and jumped to a conclusion. Demi T/C 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Verifiability

1) The principles of verifiability, how to write biographies of living persons, neutrality and no original research are the controlling guides in writing biographical articles or information on Wikipedia. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I agree with this, that's what these policies were designed for. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of information

2) The existence and nature of a "controversy" must be established by third-party artifacts of the controversy, such as publication in reliable, reputable sources (reliable sources, reputable sources). Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties
  1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions states "Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court." The documents supporting the contested content are all public record, freely available through the California Superior Courts, Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties to any interested parties. FeloniousMonk 08:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This point is in particular about the existence of a controversy. If I go to a planning meeting (where comments are recorded in that most magical of realms, "The Public Record") and say that I think the coffee house next to me isn't doing enough to prevent people from parking in my driveway, that doesn't inherently make it "Demi's Driveway vs. Coffee House Controversy of 2006." Demi T/C 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In my view they are not really published by the court as such, I haven't seen any record of the court's determination in these cases and the Affeld documents were not presented by Erin Zhu, they were lodged by Zeleny as part of a separate case, having come into his possession by whatever means - they may not even be admissible in that context as they are not sworn depositions, are contradicted by subsequent sworn testimony, and possibly violate privilege, never having been presented in court by or on behalf of Erin Zhu. Zeleny has consistently taken the line of repeating these claims as Gospel despite having in his possession sworn testimony to the fact that some, at least, is a lie. That casts significant doubt on the reliability of these specific documents as a source. Which leaves a nebuluous and unqualified claim of some degree of molestation, explicitly not including the specific and often-repeated allegation of rape. This is one key reason I find it hard to accept Zeleny/Larvatus' word on anything to do with this matter. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 08:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Repeating allegations

3) The mere fact of an accusation's existence in "the public record", or "as part of a court case" does not inherently make it repeatable in Wikipedia. Factors such as whether a court ever considered the truth of the accusation or whether an attempt at balanced reporting has been made by a third party could lead to the reasonable consensus conclusion that such a source is not credible. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. The reasoning given here only works as to truth of the allegations, not that the allegations were made, which was the only relevant issue per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. The article's original content did not comment in any way on the veracity of the allegation that Min Zhu molested his daughter. It only stated that his daughter claimed he did, which is supported by court documents freely available to the public: [1] (pg 24), [2] (pg 36). FeloniousMonk 09:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The above holds good if (and only if) we also say that she later admitted in sworn testimony that much of what she had told Zeleny was false, but that he chose to continue stating it anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. I agree, though this should only apply to accusations made, actual judgements and such should be considered verifiable if they can be backed up in the court's final decisions. Though I think a hard fast rule of this would be a bad idea due to the fact that it may or may not be universally applicable. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NPOV requires us to record notable, verifiable opinions and allegations. We can't restrict ourselves to only matters which have been ruled on in court. If we were to apply this we would have to remove all the allegations from the Michael Jackson trial. It would make a rather odd read if we could not say why MJ was on trial (since, of course, these are just allegations which the jury considered unproven). Guettarda 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal involvement

4) Editors should not edit subjects in which they have too strong a bias to write neutrally. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. We already have a policy called NPOV. We are not called upon to write neutrally, just to present the various arguments made, without giving issues undue weight. If you want to ban users from topics based that they are too close to, we'd have to ban all editors from articles about their own country's politics, wars, enemies, etc. Taken to its logical conclusion, this proposal would end up as "only edit topics you couldn't care less about". Guettarda 05:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

5) Editors should not make personal attacks. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. A simple rule but one that many editors seem to forget. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator privileges

6) Administrators should not use their special privileges to further their position in a conflict dispute, even by implication (e.g. threat of blocking). Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. This should be reworded, it is said in quite a few places that admins do not have special privileges over regular editors. They just have a few extra tools such as rollback and blocking. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm used to using the word "privilege" in a technical sense. I mean it in the sense I think you mean, maybe "Administrators should not use administrator tools such rollback and blocking..." Demi T/C 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Warning people that their actions can get them blocked is actually a good thing. Failing to issue such warnings is unfair to people who are at risk of being blocked. As for rollback, see below. Rulings like this unnecessarily hamstring admins in dealing with problem users. Common sense should not be replaced with ossified legislation. Guettarda 05:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when the warner is involved in a dispute -- especially a heated one (i.e. accusations of vandalism and bad faith editing being bandied about) -- with the warnee (is that a word?). If the warnee's actions have been so terrible as to possibly warrant a block, there are almost 800+ other admins who can warn him. Johnleemk | Talk 11:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No - if someone is about to break the 3rr, the polite thing is to warn them. The impolite (and rather childish) thing to do is to wait until the break it and then say Gotcha! and report it. The same principle applies to other situations - dialogue is always the first step. If we could get uninvolved admins to police every article, then we could move towards a system like the one you outlined, but that is not our reality now. More importantly, that isn't the way that Wikipedia operates at this point in time (or at the point in time when this dispute was active) so we can't consider this to be one of the principles underlying this case. Guettarda 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing a user making a good-faith removal of disputed and potentially libelous content of committing "vandalism" and threatening them with a block is clearly a bad thing, considering that none of my edits even remotely resembled vandalism. In fact, Wikipedia's vandalism policy specifically states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." One can argue whether the edit war over the information was misguided or ill-considered, but I don't think any reasonable, unbiased person would construe it as a bad-faith vandalism spree. FCYTravis 19:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

7) Editors should assume good faith. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. As per the allegation that "Larvatus ascribes motives to other editors and their edits," by FloNight. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it just a tad harsh to admonish FloNight for making these assumptions about Larvatus? Guettarda 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Principles don't admonish editors, and I thought my comment implied that this principle would be applied to Larvatus (unless evidence is presented that FloNight also violated AGF). If it didn't, I apologise. Johnleemk | Talk 10:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As worded, your statement is an admonition of FloNight, since s/he is the one acting in that example. Guettarda 19:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback should not be used in content disputes

8) The administrative rollback function should only be used to revert bad faith edits, and not valid edits. (See Wikipedia:Revert.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I agree with Wikipedia:Revert#Admins that "rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint." There has been no hard and fast rule enforced on wikipedia that rollback should only be used to revert bad faith edits. There is an established, well known and yet to be proscribed convention within the community that allows for administrator discretion in when to use rollback. Additionally, there is no consensus within the community on the use of rollback on edits other than simple vandalism. The community is evenly split between those who support a narrow implementation of rollback, and those who support a more broad implementation, as is seen at the Admin accountability poll. Insisting on the narrow implementation here goes against a convention followed by large portion of the admin community and ignores the viewpoint of 50% of those who spoke on the issue at the accountability poll. From a practical standpoint, to implement the narrow view on rollback there is a large gray area between an emerging content dispute and responding to vandalism that fits within the narrow implementation of rollback. What constitutes "bad faith edits" vs. "valid edits" will always be a subjective judgment, and the distinction has to this day not been defined objectively in how it applies to rollback. Left to rely on their own yardstick, everyone has a different threshold value. Reviewing my comments at User talk:FCYTravis during the dispute in December over the WebEx content, clearly it's obvious I felt that I was responding to vandalism at that time [3]. FeloniousMonk 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that vandalism != bad faith edits. Bad faith edits can include intentional addition of content that consensus has agreed to exclude from the article, or redirecting an article despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary. And while, as in most admin-related matters, there must be leeway for admins to interprete things subjectively, I'm sure we can all agree there have to be boundaries to how we can interprete things. Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that equation. I have seen vandals insist that they have a right to do what they are doing, and insist with such a sense of being wronged that I can only interpret their actions as believing that they are right. If they believe they are right, then they are not acting in bad faith (despite being vandals). Guettarda 20:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One can believe one is right without acting in good faith. If, for instance, I replace all instances of the word "foo" on Wikipedia with "fuck" because I happen to believe that doing so will ultimately benefit us, while at the same time being cognisant of the fact that this change would be totally unnecessary and opposed by everyone else, I am acting in bad faith despite believing I am in the right. Nobody doubts Everyking has done what he felt was right in the age-old Ashlee Simpson debacle, but that does not mean he acted in good faith (as a quick glance over his edit summaries from the period will show). Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Another simple one that I support. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not all vandalism is done in bad faith. On the other hand, content disputes can be done in bad faith (POV-pushing is, after all, bad faith editing). Since the community cannot come to a consensus as to what limits should be placed on the use of rollback, the arbcomm should not overrule the community. Since we cannot determine with certainty what constitutes bad faith editing without stepping inside the minds of the person, putting the good faith/bad faith provision only invites more complaints at AN/I and other such fora; a vandal who claims to be acting in god faith would be right, and the admin using rollback on the vandal would automatically be wrong, if such a provision were to be put into place. Guettarda 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This "good faith" rule is already in the policy, and in addition, interpreting it relies on a modicum of common sense (as uncommon as it may be), just like other rules, such as IAR. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR is not a rule; it is neither policy nor guideline. FeloniousMonk 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "This page is very important to Wikipedia." Let's stop the WikiLawyering please. :) Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that administrative rollback should only be used in clear cases of vandalism or bad faith edits, reverting as part of an edit war is not vandalism and rollback should not be used as part of a content dispute. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors whose edits are rolled back should be notified

9) When rolling back edits, especially non-vandalism ones, admins should notify the editors whose edits were reverted. (See Wikipedia:Revert.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I think this would be courteous. Kind of wonder how it fits into this matter. Fred Bauder 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. What does "notify" mean? If this has been discussed on the talk page, or has been explained in prior edit summaries, does that meet the burden of "notification"? There is an underlying assumption that the use of rollback implies that the reason for the reversion is (or should be) obvious. Guettarda 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason may be obvious, but it is always best to clarify in case a misunderstanding occurred -- if there's an error in the admin's reasoning, for instance, it can be pointed out by bystanders. Anyhow, this is academic, as the arbcom ruling only deals with the present case at hand, and not necessarily the whole 'pedia, and does not set precedent. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy.) It is also clear that in at least one case ([4]), FeloniousMonk did not notify FloNight of the revert, either on FloNight's talk, or on the article talk. The only edit FeloniousMonk made to discuss the issue was a notice on FloNight's talk two days after the revert regarding a dispute on Erin Zhu, and not Min Zhu. FeloniousMonk only explained his rationale a whopping three days later on Talk:Min Zhu, without any reference to the revert at all. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mistaken - the page you link to says "Several landmark decisions have been made in previous cases that may have an impact on current cases; see /Precedents". Establishing notification as a principle in this case would certainly establish a new precident. Since this is an altogether new interpretation of policy, its acceptance would have deep implications and it should definitely be carefully circumscribed. Guettarda 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience." "May have an impact" is a far cry from precedent. Furthermore, this is not a new requirement - it's in Wikipedia:Revert. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a new "requirement" - it was inserted into that page in late November [5]. While I see the insertion as a suggestion rather than a requirement, you can't judge actions based on language which did not exist at the time (in a page which isn't even policy). It seems a bit much to assume underlying principles which did exist during most of the period in question. Guettarda 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This "not policy so it's not applicable" argument sounds like WikiLawyering. In addition, FeloniousMonk made at least one rollback ([6]) after the addition of the statement to "be sure" that the reason for rolling back is explained where he did not explain his actions. (No message on FloNight's talk that I can find, and certainly nothing on the talk page of Min Zhu.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't need to notify Flo because my reasons for restoring the categories Flo deleted [7] were already prominently stated on the Min Zhu talk page [8] for any reasonable editor to see had they looked, being the only section of comments on the page at that time. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I disagree with this because vandalism should get one of the standard test notices or whatnot and non vandalism edit should not be rolled back. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wait a minute - if I revert vandalism - say, blanking of the article Wikipedia - I'm supposed to notify the vandal? Perhaps a warning? This statement is quite ambigious and could do with some tightening up. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems like instruction creep to me. But it would be good to have an edit summary option with rollback. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourtesy and personal attacks

10) Users are expected to be courteous to others and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of provocation, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Larvatus's Usenet-style debate is disruptive. --FloNight 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

NPOV

11) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Larvatus started or edited articles with highly inflammatory language, double entendre, and no attempt to show balanced pov. --FloNight 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Libel

12) Publishing of false information in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presents liability concerns both for the editor making the false statement and the project. Reasonable effort by users is expected to avoid or mitigate publishing of false information. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Larvatus applied unverified criminal categories, such as rape and fraud. --FloNight 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Autobiography

13) Point of view difficulties can arise when a user is engaged in editing articles which relate to themselves or activities which they are or were intensely involved, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Eventually, the articles would be written if Larvatus made article stubs and put the information on the talk pages.--FloNight 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Personal legal cases

14) Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving one's personal legal cases, may result in disruption of the article, and in extreme cases, in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. After Larvatus agreed to withdrawal, FM and myself came to consensus quickly. --FloNight 19:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Dignity and sanity

15) Arbitration committee policy and process affirm the dignity and sanity of parties, arbitrators, clerks, and other editors. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Most of the time, mob rule would give the same product. Arbitration aspires for a kinder and gentler process.: ) --FloNight 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Good behavior

16) Past, present, and future good behavior is an important determinant of restrictions placed on users. --FloNight 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Larvatus voluntarily agreed to withdrawal, and FM and myself came to consensus about the wording of a passage in Min Zhu. --FloNight 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This case did not have any 3RR blocks, blocks or bans for personal attacks, or other type of injunction. --FloNight 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'll add to FloNight's comment that no pages were protected as well. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Assumption of bad faith

Larvatus' assumption of bad faith

1) Larvatus tends to ascribe motives to other editors' actions, such as in [9] and [10]. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I think it's almost impossible to establish someone's good faith or not, and even less to establish others' opinions of it. However, Larvatus accusing FCYTravis of being paid to oppose him [11] is probably a convincing example of a failure to assume good faith. Demi T/C 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. As per FloNight's allegations; I am neutral in this dispute (I just have nothing better to do than read through the evidence and add stuff to the workshop that others might find helpful). Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis' assumption of bad faith

2) FCYTravis has ascribed motives to other editors' actions, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. FCYTravis discounted valid votes opinions on AFD on vague allegations about "meatpuppets" [17] [18]. FeloniousMonk 10:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. It is clearly not an assumption of bad faith to point out that an editor who is self-admittedly involved in personal disputes, romantic difficulties and litigation with the subjects of articles may have a personal motive in editing the articles. FCYTravis 15:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The provided links don't indicate to me a particular opinion from FCYTravis about whether others were acting in good faith or bad. For example, "Your mere assurances are not sufficient to support an encyclopedic entry." makes no such accusation. Secondly, the "meatpuppet" links are misleading, because FCYTravis relisted that entry after closing it, documenting several of the ignorable votes/opinions, such as several from anons signing under made-up signatures and users with a trivial number of edits. Demi T/C 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "documenting several of the ignorable votes/opinions, such asseveral from anons signing under made-up signatures and users with a trivial number of edits" None of which is supported by policy or convention. Again, by our participation in the project we are enjoined to assume good faith. Barring any actual evidence of puppetry, we must assume anon comments are made in good faith. FeloniousMonk 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume good faith that you made such a statement simply because you don't know standard practice. Ignoring "votes/opinions" inserted by those who are not members of the Wikipedia community is commonplace and accepted convention - and it is also commonplace and accepted convention that a reasonable way of determining said status is by examining edit histories and usernames. You must not participate in WP:AFD very much. FCYTravis 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discounting anons without actual evidence of actual misdeeds it is not accepted convention. Being commonplace is something else. FeloniousMonk 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Am a bit uncomfortable about the characterisation of AFD as a "vote" -- there's a reason why Votes for Deletion was renamed. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change vote to opinion then. Either way, the net effect is the same, at the end of the AFD all are tallied and apply toward determining the community consensus. Barring compelling evidence to the contrary, all AFD participants have a right to have their opinion count. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback function

FeloniousMonk misused the rollback function

1) FeloniousMonk has used the rollback administrative feature to revert in content disputes: [19], [20], [21]. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Please see my previous comment on the issue here. Also, if I felt I was responding to vandalism, which evidence shows at that time I did [22], then by necessity it's not a misuse of the rollback feature. FeloniousMonk 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The page history shows that before FeloniousMonk called "vandalism" a content dispute was in progress [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], with all parties providing at least an explanation of their edits in edit summaries, including the specific admonition to discuss changes on the talk page. This with relevance to a dispute that was brought to FeloniousMonk's attention as a dispute, not an incidence of vandalism, back in October [28]. It doesn't seem reasonable to have ever thought those edits were vandalism, or that FCYTravis and myself were vandals. Demi T/C 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. This cannot be construed as "misuse" if it was not done against policy (which it was not). Guettarda 20:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abuse of rollback? That's harsh. But there was an edit war (in which rollback is a very effective tool). I would have more sympathy if rollback were used to remove disputed content rather than include, since my experience is that removing disputed content pending consenssu on Talk is the normal practice. But I don't think Felonious was being malicious, just impatient. And I strongly suspect that he would not do the same again in similar circumstances. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment from non-administrator, newbie party (at least back when the case started : ), I never felt like I was at an disadvantage not being an administrator. This includes not having access to the use of the rollback, or having the rollback feature used with or without notification. The rollback feature is more effective so I understand why it is used (even if it is technically against the rules, maybe ;- ). Also, the talk pages of these articles made it clear that there was disagreement among editors about the categories and external links, so notification wasn't necessary. I think misuse is an overstatement. --FloNight 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis misused the rollback function

2) FCYTravis has used the rollback administrative feature to revert in content disputes: [29] [30] [31] [32] Larvatus 10:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I am willing to call it a mistake, as it only exacerbated tensions in what was already a very heated issue. FCYTravis 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. As per above. You can't call something misuse if it is not disallowed. Guettarda 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same as above comments re:FM, misuse is an overstatement. --FloNight 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larvatus has been discourteous and made personal attacks

3) Larvatus has frequently been discourteous and has made personal attacks. This behavior has diminished over the past month. --FloNight 02:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions regarding sourcing and point of view editing

4) Legitimate questions have been raised regarding Larvatus's point of view editing and reliance on personal knowledge in his editing. --FloNight 02:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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. 13:16, 12 January 2006

Template

num) {proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Larvatus banned from WebEx

1) Larvatus is banned for a period of one year from editing articles relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. This is not supported by any of the findings of fact, so I can't see how anyone would come up with this remedy. Guettarda 05:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the arbitration committee can make findings of fact. I made no proposed findings of fact because it would duplicate what I'm saying on the evidence page; surely it's implicit that I think those should be the findings. Demi T/C 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make sense - if you feel that proposing a finding of fact would be intruding on the role of the arbcomm, then proposing rememdies is even more of an intrusion. The workshop page exists to analyse the evidence - findings of fact distill out the evidence, take into account the positions presented by all sides, and come to conclusions. Proposing remedies without establishing findings of fact is definitely putting the cart before the horse and makes no sense to me. Guettarda 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larvatus placed on probation

2) Larvatus is placed on probation for a period of one year, and may be banned by any administrator not directly involved in a content dispute from any page he disrupts, in any namespace. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Since the only finding of fact regarding Larvatus is that he failed to assume good faith, I don't see what grounds there is for probation (maybe we can assign a little fairy to sit on his shoulder and scold him every time he thinks bad thoughts? Do arbitrator superpowers enable things like that?) Guettarda 05:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk warned regarding administrative privileges

3) FeloniousMonk is admonished for misuse of administrative privileges. Demi T/C 13:16, 12 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. The only related finding of fact relates to use of rollback. While it wouldn't hurt for all of us to be reminded from time to time that we should be nice, if FM has done nothing which violates policy, this is a remedy in search of a problem. Guettarda 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3b) FeloniousMonk is reminded that it is improper to use administrator privileges or the threat thereof to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and/or intimidate other users.

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. A somewhat lighter version of the above. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As above - this is a remedy in search of a problem. Guettarda 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis warned regarding WP:AGF

4) FCYTravis is reminded that Wikipedia enjoins all users to assume good faith. FCYTravis is reminded to not discount AFD votes opinions without substantial proof of misdeed. FeloniousMonk 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. As per above, I'm uncomfortable about the implication that AFD is a vote. AFD is a discussion, and while generally the side with 2/3rds of the "vote" "wins", this is not always the case -- as FeloniousMonk himself has stated, many admin actions are subject to matters of interpretation. Discounting "votes" on AfD should not occur because there are no "votes" to discount -- only rationales to keep/delete that are less sound than other rationales to delete/keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll change vote to opinion then. Either way, the net effect is the same. Whether it is called a vote or an opinion, at the end of the AFD all are tallied and apply toward determining the community consensus. All AFD participants have a right to voice their opinion and have it matter and not be discounted merely because one individual or faction suspects they are meatpuppets. Evidence needs to be presented, something more substantial than an allegation. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Usage of the word "tallied" again implies a basic misunderstanding of AfD -- it's at heart a discussion/debate, not a vote. It may incorporate elements of both, but in the end, there is no inherent right to have your opinion "win" just because it's in the majority or plurality. Quoting from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Some opinions can override all others." While I agree mere suspicion of meatpuppeting should not be good enough as a standalone reason to totally ignore a recommendation, there are many cases when some "opinions can override all others." (If you want to continue this apparently off-topic discussion, maybe we should bring it to the talk.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tallied vs. count toward consensus. Don't let my less-than-complete grasp of the language and over reliance on familar terms lead you to believe that I'm poorly versed on AFD policy, guidelines and convention. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larvatus voluntarily abstains

5) Larvatus voluntarily abstains from posting to WebEx, Min Zhu, and other related articles for 60 days. --FloNight 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
  1. There's nothing that "voluntary" about starting to behave when you think the arbitration committee might impose restrictions. Constructive behavior without the committee's banstick hanging over one's head is at issue. Demi T/C 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

num) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Larvatus banned from WebEx

1) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects the ban time shall be reset and he may be banned for a short period up to 1 week increasing to a maximum time of 1 month after the 5th violation. Jtkiefer 17:40, 24 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
  1. This is both excessive and unnecessary. Larvatus on his own said in December he would not edit the articles and indeed, he has not. And when I asked Larvatus to step back from the article's talk pages, he complied and has since not participated in discussion there. Larvatus has been more than reasonable and responsible in acceding to the community's wishes and best interests on this. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think it is reasonable that he should not edit the articles themselves. Having proven beyond doubt that he is prepared to repeat an allegation, and assert its truth from personal knowledge despite having documentary evidence in his possession that the specific allegation he rpeeats is refuted, and that Erin Zhu states outright that she lied to him, that shows a lack of self-criticism which is incompatible with editing a Wikipedia article. I think direct edits by Zeleny/Larvatus are a very bad idea indeed. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:42, 31 January 2006
Comment by others:
  1. No findings of fact presented except "fails to assume good faith" - how can you propose enforcement without proposing findings of fact? Guettarda 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1b) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects the ban time shall be reset and he may be banned for a short period up to 1 week increasing to a maximum time of 1 year after the 5th violation. Jtkiefer 17:40, 24 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
  1. See above; overly harsh for failing to assume good faith. Guettarda 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again, this is both excessive and unnecessary. Larvatus has already voluntarily stepped back on his own from editing the articles, and their talk pages when asked. See my comment at 1 above. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1c) Should Larvatus edit an article relating to WebEx, Min Zhu, Erin Zhu, Subrah Iyar or related subjects he may be banned at an administrator's discretion. Jtkiefer 17:40, 24 January 2006

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. See above; overly harsh for failing to assume good faith. Guettarda 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And again, this is both excessive and unnecessary. Larvatus has already voluntarily stepped back on his own from editing the articles, and their talk pages when asked. See my comment at 1 above. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


More