Revision as of 16:54, 24 August 2006

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, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. 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

Revert parole for Ed Poor

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think I should be placed on a 40-day, 1RR parole:

• I have indeed engaged in edit-warring, which is beneath the standards I have set for myself and publicly announced. It also has hurt Misplaced Pages.
• From now on, I will follow the standard dispute resolution proces, instead of simply "reverting unexplained reversions"

If I can do this on my own (as a measure of self-imposed discipline), all the better; otherwise, the ArbCom should take stronger action. --Uncle Ed 13:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom may find it interesting that even as Ed proposes the above, he continues to edit war and make disrupting the article to make points. JoshuaZ 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Also note similar behavior on macroevolution. JoshuaZ 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is "evidence" please put it in the proper place. By the way, none of these edits was part of an edit war (on my part). Each was a separate idea, and each was immediately reverted. I would say that the reverters were edit warring - not me.

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring

1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Uncle Ed: I agree with this and I profoundly regret my edit warring on the Evolution and Global Warming series of articles. Henceforth, I will limit myself to 1RR/day on these articles, and will use the standard dispute resolution process. (I am embarassed to note that I am credited with establishing the Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club but that I myself have not edited harmoniously enough in these two areas. Shame on me, and I hereby promise to turn over a new leaf. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Added by Stifle (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor 6 weeks ago "Okay, I lost my temper. I admit it. But I have cooled off now. Let's see if I can turn over a new leaf, eh?" •Jim62sch• 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note in May, "I used to think I carried some sort of "authority" to settle edit wars. My new perspective is different. Being right a lot of the time is no excuse for being overzealous. I no longer feel compelled to straighten everything out. From now on, I merely plant seeds" •Jim62sch• 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

2) Misplaced Pages's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. Misplaced Pages articles are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am completely innocent of the charge of using Misplaced Pages articles as a platform of advocacy for any point of view. I have merely described some points of view which oppose the mainstream. I never have worded these descriptions in such a way as to make the article endorse these POVs.

If in my 30,000 edits I have accidentally inserted wording that describes a POV as "true" (rather than as "advocated by X"), I have always either fixed this myself or prominently thanked my fellow editors for fixing it!

If I'm advocating something, what is it? And where have I done it? My accusers refuse to say, simply assuming as a given that "I have a habit of it" and "they've already explained this to me"; well if they have, why don't they quote (or at least 'diff') these explanations in the RFArb? --Uncle Ed 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One should not forget the problem of undue weight which Ed seems to ignore (or as in his initial RfAr statement seems to express contempt for). JoshuaZ 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility

3) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

4) As put forward in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ed Poor has been incivil

1) In his interactions with other users, including reporting them for infringements of rules that clearly did not exist, Ed Poor has been incivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's not uncivil to report incivility. Nor is it uncivil to be a bit unclear about how nasty someone can be without quite crossing the line of "making a personal attack". --Uncle Ed 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is incivil to report a 3RR violation with only three reverts. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor has pushed a POV

2) While attempting to bring articles in line with WP:NPOV, Ed Poor has, inadvertently or otherwise, ended up pushing a POV of his own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd like to know what POV this is supposed to be, and to see several examples of "pushing" it in articles. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Limited familiarity with material

3) Ed Poor has admitted that his knowledge of relevant source material and documents is limited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That was not an admission of "limited knowledge" but thanking someone for source that documents knowledge I already have. --Uncle Ed 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, see and . JoshuaZ 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Don't know if it needs an FOF, but submitting for consideration anyway. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed poor has a history of disruption and problems before the Arb Com

4) Ed poor has a history of disruption and problems before the Arb Com as a result of whihch he has lost his developer and bureaucrat and sysop access. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration and

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me. JoshuaZ 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ed Poor's history

4.1) Ed Poor has a history of disruption and problems, leading him to separately lose his developer access, resign his bureaucratship, and lose his adminship in various ArbCom hearings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Slightly modified. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Ed Poor placed on probation

1) Ed Poor is placed on probation for six months. During that time, any administrator may ban him for up to one month at a time from any article he disrupts. All such bans must be accompanied by a notice on Ed Poor's talk page and at Log of blocks and bans below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor placed on general probation

2) Ed Poor is placed on general probation. For six months, any three administrators may place arbitrary restrictions on Ed Poor's editing privileges, up to and including a general ban from the site for the remainder of the six month period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted for consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) If anyone violates any bans imposed, that editor may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in case of repeat infringements. After a fifth block, the maximum block period shall increase to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: