Revision as of 22:39, 5 January 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Harassment

1) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Support:

1. Essentially the first paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Harassment. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hounding

2) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Support:

1. Proposed. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dealing with harassed editors

3) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Misplaced Pages or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Support:

1. Standard, though added the clause between the dashes. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflicts of interest

4) An editor may have a conflict of interest if their interests in editing Misplaced Pages, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with their obligations to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, particularly the neutral point of view policy.

Editors are generally discouraged from editing, creating, or participating in deletion discussions about articles in relation to which they have a conflict of interest, although they are not forbidden from doing so. Instead, they are encouraged to suggest changes on article talk pages and utilise community review processes such as requests for comment.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Handling conflicts of interest

5) An editor dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest should politely engage that user in discussion about that conflict, with reference to the conflict of interest guidelines, or where appropriate, engage in other forms of dispute resolution. Suspected conflicts of interest may be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith and remain civil in such discussions.

Editors handling a conflict of interest situation must always remember the primacy of Misplaced Pages's content policies. A conflict of interest may explain why an editor is producing problematic content, but the existence of a conflict, properly handled, is not problematic in its own right. Editors dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest must always consider the actual quality of their contributions with respect to content policies.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fait accompli

6) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, or performing large numbers of similar tasks, and are apprised that those edits or tasks are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion best practices

7) While the reasons for which an editor may validly nominate an article for deletion are not exhaustive, Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and practices generally prefer that nominations express at least one generally accepted reason for deletion, and that alternative courses of action (such as merging, redirection, or curing problems through editing) are generally preferable to deletion.

Support:

1. Together with the previous proposal, this relates to the concerns raised here and elsewhere about not just the scale, but the quality of deletion nominations made by some of the parties. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

8) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Casting aspersions

9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:

1. Also standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Miami33139

Deletion nominations

1) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of computing-related articles for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good faith concerns about the volume of Miami33139's deletion nominations, and whether Miami33139 has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion nominations and harassment

2) In September 2009, Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made several allegations that his contributions were being followed by Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that Miami33139 was searching for articles that Tothwolf had worked on to nominate for deletion.

While many of the articles Miami33139 has proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion had indeed been edited by Tothwolf beforehand, Tothwolf's edits were often minor (examples: - ; - ) and had often occurred many months before Miami33139's edits (examples: & - ; & - ; - ; - ).

It is more likely that Miami33139 has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example: , five consecutive deletion nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat bouncers, gateways and proxies).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

JBsupreme

Deletion nominations

3) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of articles (including computing-related articles) for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good faith concerns about the volume of JBsupreme's deletion nominations, and whether JBsupreme has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion nominations and harassment

4) Between 29 September 2009 and 1 October 2009, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion nine articles which Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had recently edited or applied WikiProject tags to (see and ).

However in the midst of this sequence, JBsupreme nominated an unrelated article for deletion, and participated in a number of unconnected deletion debates. JBsupreme has subsequently nominated for deletion other related articles which have been edited by Tothwolf, but not for many months (examples: - ; Special:Undelete/JIRCii - ; Special:Undelete/JmIrc - ).

It is more likely that JBsupreme has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example, of the sequence of nine nominations referred to above, the last eight were all nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat clients).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

5) JBsupreme has occasionally been uncivil (, , , , ).

Support:

1. Although it should be noted these are somewhat old examples, and many of the other examples given in evidence were of understandable - though not justifiable - outbursts directed at offensive vandalism, rather than statements directed at other editors. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tothwolf

Allegations against other editors

6) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them, and without pursuing relevant dispute resolution in cases where substantiating the allegations could not be done publicly (, ).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

7) Tothwolf has from time to time engaged in uncivil or otherwise undecorous behaviour:

• Tothwolf has made uncivil comments (, , );
• Tothwolf has assumed bad faith on the part of editors with whom he has interacted (, , , , );
• After Theserialcomma argued in favour of deleting an article that Tothwolf had argued in favour of keeping, Tothwolf argued in favour of deleting an article that Theserialcomma had argued in favour of keeping, only a short time after Theserialcomma's original edit, copying exactly Theserialcomma's wording.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

Tothwolf restricted

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

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

JBsupreme warned

2) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Miami33139 and JBsupreme reminded

3) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors reminded

4) The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Vote

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

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comment