Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & Seddon (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Wizardman (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 8 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 5
1–2 4
3–4 3

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[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Casting aspersions[edit]

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Copyedited (changed "another" to "others" and added reference to trying to resolve issues first with the affected users). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If at all indeed. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Vested contributors[edit]

2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While I detest this usage of the term "vested contributors", I support the principle described above, and feel it is very applicable in this case. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't care for the term "vested contributors," nor do I think it is directly relevant to the principle, so I suggest changing the section name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Without reservation with the current name, but not attached to it. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fair criticism[edit]

3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would add that constructive criticism is best, and usually involves suggesting ways to improve matters. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Recidivism[edit]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Or in other words, listen to what is being said, especially as things proceed towards the final steps in dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editorial process[edit]

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. No one owns an article.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This principle applies to many people who participated in these disputes and failed to calm them, and instead helped to escalate them. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

6) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting that not all these points apply here, but some do. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

User conduct[edit]

7) Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A little repetitive of earlier points, but another sound principle. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gaming the system[edit]

8) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example of gaming the system and should be avoided. Users who do so should consider their subsequent approach carefully if they find they are the only ones arguing when the community clearly has reached a different view, and should balance their own wishes and views with the reality of any widespread disagreement.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In other words, listen to the community and remember that no individual is right all the time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is central to this case. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. "Untoward" is too obtuse a word to use in this context (especially in a principle directed towards people picky with their definitions). This could also be integrated with other principles about the process of policy development. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

9) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. This include issues relating to Wikipedia's content guideline concerning fringe theories.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting that this does not preclude the Committee from sanctioning users for repeatedly violating our core policies, engaging in soapboxing, or similar misconduct. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Insofar as we do not generally rule on the content itself; we may nonetheless interpret content policies when applicable. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. True statement, but I don't believe it is relevant to this case. No one has asked us to make a content ruling here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Newyorkbrad. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Copyedited to explain what the link is. Abstaining until I have looked again at how relevant fringe material is to this case. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will return to this. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Risker (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

10) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though, dispiritingly, by the time things reach us, it seems all parties think that an ongoing dispute gives them license to battle against each other and make a dispute personal. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Academic sourcing[edit]

11) WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE are important policies that must be adhered to. The primary purpose of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different categories of sources (primary, secondary etc) and different types of sources within a category (academic sources, news sources etc), in order to prevent the inclusion of sources that do not meet a minimum standard. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (eg different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. Unilateral demands for an overly narrow personal definition are not supported by Wikipedia's policies.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see where an article is named? I expect it has since been edited out. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Support majority of the principle. Uncomfortable with the explicit naming of an article in a principle, even as an example. Articles should be named as the locus of a dispute, not as examples in a principle. Weak oppose, will switch to support if changed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Partly agree with the basic principle, but disagree with the characterization of the reliable sources guideline and differentiation. The reliable sources guideline is certainly more than establishing a minimum standard. Individual sources may be evaluated on a case by case basis of consensus formation. However, the tiering of sources is part of the reliable sources guideline. This principle also neglects to mention relevant portions of the verifiability policy, which provides some guidance on these issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Vassyana, the reliable sources guideline (not a policy) doesn't set out a minimum standard, it is a collection of standards that must inevitably be applied on a case-by-case basis, with regard to the purpose for and context in which the source is to be used. Talking about "Unilateral demands for an overly narrow personal definition" fails to acknowledge this and thus is only partially accurate. The fringe theories guideline is again not a policy, it's really an essay on the particular applicability of the neutral point of view to particular subject matter. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changing to oppose per Carcharoth below. We can fine-tune this wording in another case, or leave it to be addressed on policy pages, as the case may be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
The principle is generally true, but the opposers have some valid points, and since it isn't necessary to resolve the case, I'm not sure whether it's more sensible to work with the wording or just to drop it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is actually your abstain that ensures this passes, Brad. I would suggest either proposing new wording, or opposing. If that is not too presumptuous of me. My oppose still stands because I agree with Vassyana's points. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, changed to oppose; see my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Ottava Rima's content[edit]

1) Ottava Rima is a productive and skilled editor. Since September 2007 he has been a primary or significant contributor to 210 "did you know" entries (DYKs), approximately 42 good articles (GAs), and 9 featured articles (FAs).

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my standing practice of opposing these sorts of findings. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima's history[edit]

2) Ottava Rima's editorship has been punctuated by repeated disputes and blocks [1], with a lengthy gap in the latter between July 2008 and September 2009.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting in particular the lengthy gap, and with no presumption that the blocks were correct or incorrect, but noting the history. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The gap between blocks appears to be only partially relevant, as there were multiple significant disputes that occurred during that interval. Risker (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A finding of this nature should refer to discussions (on noticeboards, talk pages or otherwise) relating to disputes, instead of asserting the existence of disputes and resorting to the block log, which is too crude to use to characterise an editor's editing history in this way. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Nature of dispute[edit]

3) The disputes and blocks have mostly related to content matters and content policies and guidelines, where Ottava Rima's interpretation has at times led to heated dispute and accusations, a spiral of accusations of bad faith, incivility, bullying, wikistalking and, at times, personal attacks, often requiring administrator attention. The catalyst to this case was in September 2009, when a question over the reliability of a source for Oscar Wilde at the Reliable Sources noticeboard led to a heated dispute. The dispute ultimately led to a civility restriction [2] imposed on Ottava Rima by Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator. Ottava Rima appealed the restriction to this Committee.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This covers at least one strand of the disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Minor copy edits done per talk page and my own observations, may be reverted. Risker (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Made further copyedits, revertible if desired as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Implies that a restriction was validly applied. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima misapplies policies and guidelines[edit]

4) The Committee finds that in the present dispute, Ottava Rima attempted to misapply the guideline on reliable sources - in this case an excessively strict interpretation. For example, he effectively asserts that unless a point is evidenced as being a major theme, of a major work, by a major expert, it could be considered "fringe". Furthermore, he has accused others of personal attacks while personally attacking them.[3][4]

Support:
Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to abstain[reply]
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Support parts (the wikiquette thread comments), but still pondering the reliable sources comment. The reference to WP:FRINGE is clearly off-beam, but the points about mainstream literary criticism is valid when considering WP:UNDUE in an article, so the underlying point is valid. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This wording is hotly disputed (see e.g. Durova's comments on the talkpage), and we need not address the merits of this specific dispute to resolve the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Wizardman, Carcharoth, and Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Even if this were correct, the Committee should not be making pronouncements on such questions of content policy, at least not ones this granular. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per talk page; not worded well enough to work. Support the NPA issues but oppose the RS issue. Wizardman 05:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do believe the finding is correct on its face, but since it is not necessary for the case, there is no need to work to tweak its wording. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima and BLP[edit]

5) Ottava Rima has violated the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy by attacking a professor, misinterpreting the BLP policy, and saying his comments did not count under BLP because they were not directly included into the subject's article.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unabashed rhetoric. The same point could easily have been made using temperate language. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copy edited to improve grammar and flow, and per talk page. Risker (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although by itself a single misunderstanding of policy would not warrant a sanction. (If repeated with full knowledge of the policy, especially that would be very different.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Unfortunately, it is hardly uncommon for people to fail to recognize that BLP applies across all namespaces. That is only an observation. My vote rationale is that in the absence of a pattern, this does not rise to the level of an arbitration finding. Also, I would implore my fellow arbitrators to remove the citation of the BLP-offending diff. There is a great irony in criticizing a BLP violation by directly linking to, and thus highlighting, it. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs can certainly be omitted from the decision as published. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we are close to publication, I have removed the diff in question. It is in the page history if needed. Second diff removed because it also includes the passage in question. Again, it is in the page history if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As presented, does not rise to the level of an arbitration finding. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Allegations of meatpuppetry[edit]

6) Ottava Rima's allegations of a group of meatpuppets who are out to get him, supposedly composed of a number of administrators as well as various regular editors, do not appear to have any basis in fact,[5] though the Articles for Deletion similarities could arouse suspicion to an outside editor.[6]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The section title should be changed. I would also repeat an observation I have made before, which is that the term "cabal" has taken severely negatively connotations on Wikipedia, and outside of humorous contexts, should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm not impressed with the last statement, but it can stand without harm. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A qualifier or limiter would help in that clause. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Need to look at this in more detail. Will return to this one later. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Staying with my abstain here. 02:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Correct in the fundamental fact that accusations do not seem to stand under examination. However, the presentation and tone is severely wanting. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima's insults of other academics[edit]

7) Ottava Rima has insulted other academics and their universities, including those from fields in which Ottava is not an expert.[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though other presumptions are being made here about all editors concerned. Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copy edited for grammar. Risker (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But please check the links; not all are to statements by Ottava Rima. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The framing makes this sound like more like he was disparaging to subjects and sources, than an editor tiff. (Not that the insults are any more appropriate in such light, but context is important.) The overwhelming majority of diffs provided are not OR, but people disagreeing with his expressed view, giving this the feel of a content finding/punishment for the wrong view. While the conduct here is problematic, it is hardly the worst of the lot and therefore I am unsure why this is being highlighted for an arbitration finding. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana, while much of this is less than ideally worded, it is still a genuine content dispute. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima's dealings with criticism[edit]

8) When Ottava Rima's work is criticized, he has often been unable to deal with the criticism in a civil and reasonable fashion.[13] Instead of bettering himself as an editor if problems are found with his editing,[14] (unlike his collaborators[15][16]), he has accused others of provocative attacks[17] and of sockpuppetry.[18]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a core issue here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copy edited for flow and grammar and per talk page. Risker (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Copyedited the first sentence, somewhat substantively (e.g. added "often"), so please check. (I'm trying to avoid making full-fledged alternate proposals where I can address issues simply by copyediting, but obviously that only works if the drafter and other supporters agree with the edits). Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not in love with the wording and framing, but sufficiently accurate. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A bit clunky, but on the money about substance. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The portion beginning "Instead of...", ahead of the portion beginning "he has accused..." should be dropped. As with some of the other proposals above, it's predicated on a particular assessment of Ottava Rima's position in a dispute over content questions: here the implicit presumption is that the linked criticisms of Ottava Rima's writing were accurate ones. The issue is simply the way in which Ottava Rima handles content disputes, and these proposals should focus squarely on that, instead of straying into the substance of the disputes. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Moreschi[edit]

9) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exacerbated the dispute with Ottava Rima by bringing Ottava Rima's real life work into the dispute, including a violation of the posting of personal information section of the harassment policy.[19]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cleaned up jargon. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copy edited for grammar, per talk. It should be noted that there is an additional now-suppressed edit related to this finding of fact, which has been distributed to the arbitrators, but is not included in this decision. Risker (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although there is an argument to be made that this issue could have been addressed through a strongly worded caution sent off-wiki, rather than putting it the decision and drawing further attention to the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Newyorkbrad. Also noting that the fact that the information is unrelated to Ottava's on-wiki editing is an exacerbating factor that helps raise this to the level of an arbitration finding. Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ottava Rima banned[edit]

1) Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.

Support:
  1. I wasn't going to propose a ban originally, but after reading through the evidence I noticed one major issue, above all others. Any time Ottava is criticized, constructively or not, he resorts to attacks. Even when collaborating, it's his way or the highway. If you cannot work with others on a wiki, then there is nowhere on the site for you, no matter how good your content work may be. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overdue.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. By far the most miserable task we must perform as arbitrators is to tell a knowledgeable, experienced editor with much to offer the encyclopedia that he or she must leave our project. Unfortunately, the sheer number and nature of the problematic interactions to which Ottava Rima has been a party is unacceptable. Sometimes Ottava Rima has been wrong on the underlying issue, and sometimes right, and sometimes it is a judgment call—but too often strident, unyielding, rhetorically excessive, uncollaborative. And my efforts to assist Ottava Rima in recognizing that he needs to change his on-wiki behavior, and urge him toward working to do so, reflected in my questions to him on the workshop and elsewhere, have been completely unsuccessful. It is clear that Ottava Rima needs, at a minimum, some time away from this environment. Therefore, with regret, I support the proposed ban. ¶ With respect to the length of the ban, I will support the traditional length of one year, but with the comment that Ottava Rima, if he wishes, can submit to the Committee after a few months a request to shorten the ban length. To warrant favorable consideration, I would expect such a request to include specific commitments as to how Ottava Rima would behave differently on-wiki from now on, to be embodied in binding restrictions, so that we would then regain the benefit of his valued content contributions without the negative aspects of his participation. I would also anticipate that such a request would be the subject of an opportunity for community comment before being acted upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In strong accord with Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In the end, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and, regardless of the quality of editing, the ability to collaborate is an unavoidable requirement. Ottava has had numerous opportunities to correct his behavior, and several editors attempting to guide him, to no avail. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessive. Proposing shorter lengths. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no reason not to at least try rehabilitative remedies. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima banned[edit]

1.1) Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 6 months.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference. Wizardman 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Reconsidering, to ensure there is no confusion. Risker (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, prefer 1, but see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Iff 1. does not pass. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Will stick with my first choice above. Risker (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no reason not to at least try rehabilitative remedies. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima banned[edit]

1.2) Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 3 months.

Support:
  1. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Wizardman 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice, prefer 1, but see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Insufficient to give Ottava Rima the motivation to return to Wikipedia with a different outlook and behavioural pattern. Risker (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This will not suffice. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see no reason not to at least try rehabilitative remedies. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Abstaining per Risker's rationale. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi reminded[edit]

2) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to post editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 09:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice - too weak - proposing formal admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal preference. Risker (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. I am prepared to accept Moreschi's assurance that what happened here was an act of heedlessness rather than malice and will not be repeated. See also my comment on the related finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iff 2.1 does not pass. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to #2.1. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The finding of fact should serve sufficiently as a reminder. Isolated incident. Moreschi's statement about the matter is reasonable and acceptable. Very unlikely to be repeated. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Moreschi admonished[edit]

2.1) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.

Support:
  1. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Wizardman 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal preference. Risker (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 2. (Also, is there a reason this is worded in the plural? My understanding is that we are talking about a single incident.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Strongly, per 2. Vassyana (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing[edit]

3) Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Proposed. This will permit planned continuing support and firm direction should Ottava Rima elect to return, but allows flexibility and a review of this specific issue at the time of any request. Risker (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 01:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A way back is always a good thing. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Compare my comment on remedy 1. I might have been willing to entertain a return with a dedication to improved behavior after four or five months rather than six, but at the moment this is a moot point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC) As a matter of form, I suggest that this be redesignated 1A (in addition to 1 or 1.1, not an alternative), to keep the decision reasonably organized by subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Noting here that I failed to see that this was locking out the possibility of an appeal until 6 months had passed. I actually object to that, as my first choice was a 3-month ban, and I think an appeal after three months work elsewhere would be reasonable, but I support the rest of what is said here, so will stay with my support here. We should think very carefully about pre-emptively denying appeals - it doesn't feel right (though incessant appealing does annoy arbitrators, and a limit needs to be set, I'm not sure this is it). Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Since the ban proposals look likely to pass, I will support this. If I though the Committee would support it, I would prefer this or something similar as the sole remedy, but I will not propose such at this late stage. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Community and administrator imposed restrictions[edit]

4) The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

Support:
  1. Concern about such matters was a significant part of what lead to this case. Upon review, there appears to be two major issues: 1) Disagreement over, and poor documentation, of proper community ban and restriction discussion procedures. 2) Disagreement over, and poor documentation, of the line (if any) between broad discretionary sanction powers and the more standard and accepted imposition of conditions for unblocking (or the suspension/withholding of a block). Though this is essentially a documentation issue, there also appears to be some level of disagreement about particulars. Disagreement to what degree and on what specific details is unclear in the absence of broader community discussion. It is my opinion that it would venture too far into policy creation and/or interference for the Committee to make a determination in this case. It is a matter for the community to resolve on a broader basis, preferably through the documentation of accepted good practice and discussion to resolve any ambiguities or at least to outline any grey or case-by-case areas. Vassyana (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Noting that there have already been some useful discussions following our prior recommendation in the Abd-William M. Connolley case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 18:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, clarifying such things would be good. — Coren (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I am slightly hesitant to make this request of the community, given the lack of response to some previous similar requests, and also because only a negligible amount of the evidence in this case relates to this subject, I think this is worthy of support. It concerns me that we are seeing indefinite ban discussions taking less than 24 hours before blocking, that we are seeing discussions and imposition of sanctions on users blocked and prevented from participating, and that the fear of being branded a wheel-warrior has nearly immobilized administrators from correcting even the most obviously incorrect actions of their peers. I do hope that the community gives this some very serious thought and takes the opportunity to learn from previous attempts to deal with some of these issues so that there is an effective but fair system that remains responsive to specific situations. Risker (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It would not be venturing too far for the Committee to say that administrators do not have any special authority beyond that given to them by the relevant policies. It would not be venturing too far to say that administrators may not invent and apply sanctions to editors, purportedly on the basis of community discussion, when noone in the community has suggested or supported those sanctions. The community does need to get its act together on this topic, and should follow this advice, but to say this and nothing more is buck passing. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

Currently proposals which pass
  • Passing principles: 1-8, 10
  • Passing findings: 1-3, 5-9
  • Passing remedies: 1, 2.1(first choice), 3, 4
  • Passing enforcement provisions: none
Proposals which do not pass
  • Failing principles: 9, 11
  • Failing findings: 4,
  • Failing remedies: 1.1 + 1.2(1 has more first choices), 2(2nd choice)
  • Failing enforcement provisions: none

Updated: 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Implementation discussion[edit]

The above implementation notes were created by Wizardman, 21:58, 14 December 2009. By my reading remedy 2.1 now supersedes remedy 2, since 2.1 is preferred by three arbs (Wizardman, Carcharoth and Coren), while 2 is preferred by only two arbs (Roger Davies and Newyorkbrad). Paul August ☎ 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also now passing is remedy 3. Paul August ☎ 03:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verified and updated. Will recheck these tomorrow. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personally feeling is that as remedy 1.1 is not opposed (currently 5-0) compared to 1 (6-1), would 1.1 be the passing remedy? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my support to 1.1 is explicitly conditional to 1 not passing — which it does so it should not be counted. As a rule, opposition should normally not be counted to break ties when to remedies pass that are alternatives to each other; if it isn't clear from the votes which has preference, we (the arbs) should sit down and clarify this rather than leave the burden on the clerks to pick one. — Coren (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when I wrote the piece above, Risker had not moved from support to oppose on 1.1. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 12:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct way to determine which of two or more passing alternatives is the preferred one, is to assign to the voting arbs their preferences as indicated their votes and comments. For the alternative remedies 1 and 1.1, by my reading, five arbs prefer 1: Roger Davies, Risker (note this was clear even before the vote change from the comment "Second choice" on the previous support vote for 1.1), Newyorkbrad, Vassyana, and Coren, while only one arb prefers 1.1: Carcharoth (with one arb, Wizardman expressing equal preference). So remedy 1 is overwhelming preferred, 5-1. Paul August ☎ 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Remedy 4 is a new non-passing proposal. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Remedy 4 is now passing. Paul August ☎ 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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
  1. Close, we're done here. Wizardman 15:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed a few of my votes and a bit of other editing. Case clerk will need to update implementation notes, as I think one principle that was passing is now not passing. Other than that, looks good to close. Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment
  1. Move to close. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337254"