Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding one inactive and one recused), so 7 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[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]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) 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 encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda, philosophical, ideological, or political dispute, or the promotion of original research—is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and advocacy[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have studied the matter. The contents of all source materials must be presented accurately and fairly, without advocacy. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures.

Support:
  1. Although this is mostly drawn from the wording of several of our prior decisions, I have added the third sentence to address a comment on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conduct and decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive and tendentious editing[edit]

5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is editing of Bates method, an article concerning a method of seeking to improve eyesight, and related articles.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Seeyou[edit]

2) For more than three years, Seeyou (talk · contribs) has edited Bates method and related articles in a disruptive fashion reflective of advocacy. His conduct has included continuous partisan advocacy, tendentious editing, incivility, unsupported or exaggerated allegations of wrongdoing by fellow editors, and misuse of dispute-resolution methods. (See diffs cited here and here.)

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Prior dispute-resolution attempts[edit]

3) Numerous attempts at mediation and discussions in connection with prior requests for arbitration (see list) have not resolved the disputes created by Seeyou's conduct or led to any improvement in his editing.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Seeyou banned[edit]

1) Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. With regret, I conclude that no lesser sanction will be effective in addressing the issues here. I have considered the possibility of a topic-ban as an alternative to a complete siteban, but the difference seems moot as Seeyou has never edited or expressed interest in editing on any other topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Would also support a topic ban. Would prefer it, actually. By Brad's supposition it would be equivalent, but it would be a better demonstration of user's unfitness for Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See discussion on the Workshop. After a reasonable time, if Seeyou wants to request a narrowing of his ban, he can e-mail the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to discuss it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A topic ban might have worked, though I agree that the probabilities that it would not simply have been equivalent are low. I would certainly entertain a request to modify this remedy some months from now to a topic ban if Seeyou shows interest towards diversifying his editing. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Straightforward implementation; all proposals pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 23 June 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. Everything's passing. Good case, NYB. Cool Hand Luke 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close.  Roger Davies talk 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There is nothing to add. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337199"