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 9 active Arbitrators, excluding one who is recused, so 5 votes are a majority.


Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building 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. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

4) The neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fair but not equal. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

7) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tu quoque

8) Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In case of difficulty, seeking outside help is appropriate, while getting dragged down to the level of others is not. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. True, but I can not support the wording here since I think recognizing the reason for the inappropriate behavior is important. In the past the Committee recognized that goading and/or exasperation from dealing with problem editors will cause stress bring about unfortunate conduct by an user. We forgive this conduct as long as the user gains perspective. I hope that we can continue to do so. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute is a continuation of the general disputes regarding paranormal-related topics first examined by the "Paranormal" case.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Martinphi

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([1]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([2], [3]), threatening disruption of the project ([4]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([5], [6]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ScienceApologist

3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), as well as abusive sockpuppetry ([13]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {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.

Martinphi restricted

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ScienceApologist restricted

2) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ScienceApologist limited to one account

3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to using one and only one account to edit. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScienceApologist agrees to one account and states that ScienceApologist is the choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Restrictions on enforcement

2) No administrator identifying as a member of WikiProject Paranormal or WikiProject Rational Skepticism shall enforce any remedy imposed by this decision.

Support:
  1. Kirill 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though really this is covered by "uninvolved". James F. (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. Kirill 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More