all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
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 enacted.
On this case, 0 arbitrators is/are recused and 1 are inactive/away, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
Place those on the discussion page.
Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.
2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.
3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.
4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see [1], [2], [3], [4] and "liar"
2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).
3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and [5].
4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated [14] "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"
6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.
7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".
8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum, [15], [16] and [17]
9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense", "get a life" and [18]
10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article, [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]
11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added [24] and [25]
12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted [26], reverted, he archived it again.
13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot." [27]
14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful [28]
1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.
2) Xtra is admonished not to respond in kind even to severely provocative personal attacks.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.
all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
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 enacted.
On this case, 0 arbitrators is/are recused and 1 are inactive/away, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
Place those on the discussion page.
Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.
2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.
3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.
4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see [1], [2], [3], [4] and "liar"
2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).
3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and [5].
4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated [14] "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"
6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.
7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".
8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum, [15], [16] and [17]
9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense", "get a life" and [18]
10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article, [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]
11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added [24] and [25]
12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted [26], reverted, he archived it again.
13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot." [27]
14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful [28]
1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.
2) Xtra is admonished not to respond in kind even to severely provocative personal attacks.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.