Revision as of 03:30, 10 January 2007

all proposed

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.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, there are 9 active arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

none

Proposed final decision

Proposed case summary

The Derek Smart article has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the arbitration committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

• apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
• the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
• concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
• questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Misplaced Pages that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

• comment on the article's discussion page, or
• contact a volunteer via email for assistance.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Transparency in editing

2) Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

1. violate WP:3RR or other policy,
2. evade a block, or
3. avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, this committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. The important word is "undue". For a dictator or serial killer undue would still allow almost the entire article to be critical. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The second sentence is not quite right, I think. We need to go where the verifiable material takes us. For example, most serial killers are going to have articles that are overall critical of the subject. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   (Third sentence, by the way.) Isn't that weight on the critical material for a serial killer due weight though? A typical head of state, for example should not have as much critical material as a serial killer because of the undue weight clause. It is undue weight only when it fails to reflect the state of scholarship. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Use of primary sources

4) The appropriateness of using primary source material, such as an article subject's past posts to UseNET, is at present an evolving and unsettled area of Misplaced Pages policy. The arbitration committee, in its role as an interpreter rather than legislator of policy, offers no opinion on the suitability of such material for inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There is a current policy. The ArbCom should validate it. Saying we have no policy on this important issue does not seem right to me. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources does have a clearly worded policy with regards to Usenet. This policy has been in place for a considerable period of time, and there does not seem to be any ongoing debate on that page. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk · contribs), WarHawk (talk · contribs), WarHawkSP (talk · contribs), and Supreme_Cmdr (talk · contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I question if we should be judging its quality and neutrality. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of legal threats

3) In spite of concerns raised in statements on the original request for arbitration, the committee finds no legal threats have been made by any of the parties.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This edit on Jan 8 2007 appears to be crossing the line. FloNight 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Iffy. I see no reason for an exhonerating finding, under the circumstances. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Supreme Cmdr has engaged in personal attacks

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a series of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {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.

Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.

Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
5. This includes WarHawk. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Misplaced Pages editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not our place to be prioritizing cleanup requests. - SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr

3) Due to personal attacks, the editing privileges of Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are suspended for 14 days.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. SimonP 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Far too conservative. He has already been blocked for two weeks before, with no effect. After 8 blocks for edit warring at this article, I think it's time to recognize that Supreme Comdr is not likely to ever work well on Misplaced Pages. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Supreme Cmdr

3.1) For personal attacks and edit warring, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {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.

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.