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, 2 arbitrators are recused and 1 is away/inactive, so 5 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}
1.5) It is not a defense to a charge of personal attacks that they are true or in good faith believed to be true.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
3) It is fundamentally unfair to attack User:Jimbo Wales on the basis of global generalizations such as his interest in the Objectivist philosophy or his status as founder and financial supporter of Wikipedia. As a collaborative project whatever failings Wikipedia has are not properly attributed to him personally. He is subject to reasonable criticism regarding decisions he may make from time to time which may be expressed on User talk:Jimbo Wales or other Wikipedia forums and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to ordinary editing.
4) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.
5) Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)
6) Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
7) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) It is the assertion of User:Xed that User:Jimbo Wales, founder and chief financial supporter of Wikipedia, due to his allegiance to the principles of objectivism as exemplified by by writings of Ayn Rand is opposed to solicitations of voluntary contributions of funds to be applied to relief of the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. In support of his assertion he cites [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] an article posted on [www.freerepublic.com/home.htm the conservative website FreeRepublic.com] (which was originally posted by the Ayn Rand Institute) and the change of a box soliciting donations from its position as a banner at the top of the Main page (Template:Helpout) to the In the news section of the Main page, see Xed's post to Jimbo's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
2) After debate Template:Helpout was restored. Jimmy Wales' response, made later, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F favored discussion of the matter. Although no longer linked from the In the news section of the Main page the article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which is linked to from a number of Wikipedia pages has been developed by Wikipedia editors.
3) The article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] which Xed describes as "a deranged tract which calls charity 'extortion' and rants about 'billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians'" addresses the use of government funds, not voluntary contributions and is thus irrelevant to solicitation through links from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia as compared to donations to tsunami victims asserting that less prominant placement of a link to donations was "a decision which probably led to a great deal of suffering" see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
5) Earlier there had been an exchange of posts concerning User:Secretlondon between User:Jimmy Wales and User:Xed on User talk:Xed: [1], [2], [3], then User:Pakaran weighed in [4] [5]. At this point the question of the donation box on the Main page comes up [6] [7]. More continues [8] ( noting a clarification by the Ayn Rand Institute)
6) Following the edit [9] User:Slrubenstein posted the following personal attack, "You have such a small, petty mind." See this edit: [10] for the state of the article at that point.
7) In the meantime a dispute developed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism involving User:Xed with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront, and attacking User:Jayjg, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/VfD. This resulted in a serious of hostile posts on User talk:Xed with an exchange of personal attacks and insults by User:Mel Etitis and User:Slrubenstein. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/Exchange.
8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein on User_talk:Slrubenstein "So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit"
9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief (which Xed had been discussing on other pages) [11] [12] surprised Slrubenstein [13] who explained his meaning, "You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo." Slrubenstein elaborated further "You moron, etc" [14] comment: "maybe he really is a moron?"
10) Xed sent an insulting email to Slrubenstein but as there is sufficient evidence on Wikipedia itself of personal attacks that it is not necessary to decide the question of whether it should also be considered. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#15_February_2
11) Xed was responsible for starting and maintaining WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project which has significantly improved the quality of innumerable articles within Wikipedia (see e.g. Economy of Africa).
12) During arbitration User:Slrubenstein has on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision continued to engage in personal attacks "I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean that he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit", "personality disorder"
13) Xed has engaged in wide-ranging personal attacks on other Wikipedians: for example Jayjg [15] [16] [17] [18], Slrubenstein [19] [20] [21] [22] Hyacinth [23], Modemx [24], Neutrality [25], Jfdwolff [26], Ed Poor [27] [28], and Viriditas [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].
14) Xed has a pattern of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, mainly through assumption of widespread bad faith [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. [41], [42], [43], including spurious claims of personal attack ( [44]; [45] in response to [46]).
1) Xed 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) Slrubenstein 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.
3) Slrubenstein, an experienced and sophisticated Wikipedia user, is banned for one week due to making a series of personal attacks on Xed, an inexperienced Wikipedia user who was engaged in disputes with other users. He is warned to avoid aggravating similar situations which involve conflict in the future.
4) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for three months.
4.1) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for six months.
4.2) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for one year.
5)
Slrubenstein is strongly cautioned to avoid even the appearance of a personal attack, even when provoked. Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor, particularly an academic expert.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) For the period of the personal attack parole, Xed may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator who feels a given edit or edit summary includes or constitutes a personal attack.
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, 2 arbitrators are recused and 1 is away/inactive, so 5 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}
1.5) It is not a defense to a charge of personal attacks that they are true or in good faith believed to be true.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
3) It is fundamentally unfair to attack User:Jimbo Wales on the basis of global generalizations such as his interest in the Objectivist philosophy or his status as founder and financial supporter of Wikipedia. As a collaborative project whatever failings Wikipedia has are not properly attributed to him personally. He is subject to reasonable criticism regarding decisions he may make from time to time which may be expressed on User talk:Jimbo Wales or other Wikipedia forums and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to ordinary editing.
4) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.
5) Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)
6) Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
7) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) It is the assertion of User:Xed that User:Jimbo Wales, founder and chief financial supporter of Wikipedia, due to his allegiance to the principles of objectivism as exemplified by by writings of Ayn Rand is opposed to solicitations of voluntary contributions of funds to be applied to relief of the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. In support of his assertion he cites [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] an article posted on [www.freerepublic.com/home.htm the conservative website FreeRepublic.com] (which was originally posted by the Ayn Rand Institute) and the change of a box soliciting donations from its position as a banner at the top of the Main page (Template:Helpout) to the In the news section of the Main page, see Xed's post to Jimbo's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
2) After debate Template:Helpout was restored. Jimmy Wales' response, made later, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Where_is_the_donation_link.3F favored discussion of the matter. Although no longer linked from the In the news section of the Main page the article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake which is linked to from a number of Wikipedia pages has been developed by Wikipedia editors.
3) The article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311135/posts "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"] which Xed describes as "a deranged tract which calls charity 'extortion' and rants about 'billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians'" addresses the use of government funds, not voluntary contributions and is thus irrelevant to solicitation through links from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
4) User:Xed characterizes Wikipedia as largest online lunatic asylum in the world and questions the value of donations to Wikipedia as compared to donations to tsunami victims asserting that less prominant placement of a link to donations was "a decision which probably led to a great deal of suffering" see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#Background
5) Earlier there had been an exchange of posts concerning User:Secretlondon between User:Jimmy Wales and User:Xed on User talk:Xed: [1], [2], [3], then User:Pakaran weighed in [4] [5]. At this point the question of the donation box on the Main page comes up [6] [7]. More continues [8] ( noting a clarification by the Ayn Rand Institute)
6) Following the edit [9] User:Slrubenstein posted the following personal attack, "You have such a small, petty mind." See this edit: [10] for the state of the article at that point.
7) In the meantime a dispute developed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism involving User:Xed with Xed defending the sockpuppet User:Pinlighter, apparently over from Stormfront, and attacking User:Jayjg, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/VfD. This resulted in a serious of hostile posts on User talk:Xed with an exchange of personal attacks and insults by User:Mel Etitis and User:Slrubenstein. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Evidence/Exchange.
8) Xed followed with a personal attack on User:Slrubenstein on User_talk:Slrubenstein "So wanting a link to allow to the tsunami aid is evidence of a small and petty mind? Fuck off you little shit"
9) Xed's reference to tsunami relief (which Xed had been discussing on other pages) [11] [12] surprised Slrubenstein [13] who explained his meaning, "You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo." Slrubenstein elaborated further "You moron, etc" [14] comment: "maybe he really is a moron?"
10) Xed sent an insulting email to Slrubenstein but as there is sufficient evidence on Wikipedia itself of personal attacks that it is not necessary to decide the question of whether it should also be considered. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#15_February_2
11) Xed was responsible for starting and maintaining WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project which has significantly improved the quality of innumerable articles within Wikipedia (see e.g. Economy of Africa).
12) During arbitration User:Slrubenstein has on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed/Proposed decision continued to engage in personal attacks "I really did think he was a moron, by which I mean that he suffers from a congenital cognitive deficit", "personality disorder"
13) Xed has engaged in wide-ranging personal attacks on other Wikipedians: for example Jayjg [15] [16] [17] [18], Slrubenstein [19] [20] [21] [22] Hyacinth [23], Modemx [24], Neutrality [25], Jfdwolff [26], Ed Poor [27] [28], and Viriditas [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].
14) Xed has a pattern of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia, mainly through assumption of widespread bad faith [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. [41], [42], [43], including spurious claims of personal attack ( [44]; [45] in response to [46]).
1) Xed 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) Slrubenstein 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.
3) Slrubenstein, an experienced and sophisticated Wikipedia user, is banned for one week due to making a series of personal attacks on Xed, an inexperienced Wikipedia user who was engaged in disputes with other users. He is warned to avoid aggravating similar situations which involve conflict in the future.
4) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for three months.
4.1) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for six months.
4.2) For a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, Xed is banned for one year.
5)
Slrubenstein is strongly cautioned to avoid even the appearance of a personal attack, even when provoked. Personal attacks even in response are considered unbecoming behaviour for a Wikipedia editor, particularly an academic expert.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) For the period of the personal attack parole, Xed may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator who feels a given edit or edit summary includes or constitutes a personal attack.
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.