Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he/she would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

There are 11 active arbitrators for this case (one inactive), so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

1) Pending a final decision on this manner, Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages or on these subjects.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:16, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 18:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 09:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) I've added "or on these subjects".
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Cite sources[edit]

1) Cite sources.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

2) No original research.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

No personal attacks[edit]

3) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Consensus[edit]

4.1) Users are expected to abide by Wikipedia:Consensus; polite discussion is permitted to determine what the consensus is.

Aye:
Grunt 🇪🇺 19:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. There is no policy Wikipedia:Consensus, users are expected to abide by established Wikipedia policies, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Fred Bauder 20:09, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) There is no such policy, nor is "consensus" defined
  3. There is a valid policy here, but this is not the way to word it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:20, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

4.2) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Aye:
  1. mav 09:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it is very, very wrong to say that consensus is not policy; just look at the number of times 'consensus' is used at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - itself a policy doc - esp for the early steps)
  2. This wording is the more appealing than ones I've seen previously. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:10, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 05:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. Prefer 4.3 Fred Bauder 16:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4.4
Abstain:

4.3) Wikipedia:Negotiation, Surveys and the Request for comment process are used on Wikipedia to attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Clunky wording, but I agree with the sentiment.
Nay:
  1. Prefer 4.2 Ambi 23:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Abstain:
  1. I prefer mav's wording; policies and guidelines are not the only application of consensus. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:10, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
My concern is possible misuse of consensus to abrogate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and substitute consensus as the principle for determining content of articles. Fred Bauder 17:06, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - too many idiots already misapply NPOV as being about editor viewpoints, rather than outside-world viewpoints - David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4.4) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Aye:
  1. Merged the good points of mav's and Fred's. Make any changes you want. Ambi 22:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 23:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 23:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) this is the wording we were looking for
  4. Neutralitytalk 23:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) This is better, though.
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:40, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 05:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fred Bauder 16:45, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Initial non-citation of sources[edit]

1) Antifinnugor was not immediately forthcoming for sources for his edits to Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages despite being asked by editors at the articles in question to do so.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:23, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 22:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Eventual citation of sources[edit]

2) After being repeatedly asked by the community to provide sources for his edits, Antifinnugor eventually complied.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 22:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Like pulling teeth.
Nay:
Abstain:


Eventual citation of sources[edit]

3) Antifinnugor's edits are not original research, as shown by the numerous sources cited on his personal critique page.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:33, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. With some reservations. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) True, though not to the point of deleting the mainstream POVs.
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) As David says
Nay:
  1. Although he cites sources, they appear to be somewhat eccentric and out of the linguistic mainstream. I would be more comfortable with a finding of fact which focused on NPOV. While the points Antifinnugor is making deserve mention they would not justify removal of the traditional viewpoint and substitution of Antifinnugor's theories in their place. A more appropriate treatment would be a short section which outlines and references the divergent viewpoint. Fred Bauder 22:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Personal attacks[edit]

4) Antifinnugor has engaged in personal attacks during the course of events described above. [1] [2]

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:30, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) Not to the extent of some we have seen, but certainly there is room for more civility
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The links cited barely amount to personal attacks, being mostly heated protests at removal of his material Fred Bauder 22:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Calling someone a "terrorist hippo" isn't a personal attack? Or "primitive"? Ambi 02:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Lack of cooperation and regard for consensus[edit]

5) Antifinnugor has failed to work cooperatively with other editors. He has made insufficient attempts to seek consensus on issues including the application of NPOV, and the inclusion and prominence of aspects of article content. This lack of cooperation with other editors has caused significant disruption to the articles in question.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 12:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 12:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:53, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 23:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:02, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 22:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed decision[edit]

Remedies[edit]

Article editing ban[edit]

1) Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages or on these subjects elsewhere.

Aye:
  1. We don't judge content. Antifinnugor's beliefs may well be legitimate, but his behaviour in editing these articles have not. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Antifinnugor's content, in my opinion, is warranted in these articles; it is the manner in which they are being added that needs to be addressed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:15, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Grunt, rather than replacing the traditional view with the theories he cites, they need to be presented in a brief section which puts them in perspective Fred Bauder 22:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Prefer 2.
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 03:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) For significant disruption relating to the articles Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages, Antifinnugor is banned from editing these or related articles for one year. Antifinnugor may edit the related talk pages and is encouraged to work with other editors regarding article content. Other editors may add content and make changes suggested by Antifinnugor at their discretion.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 12:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 12:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 17:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC) I would encourage those who can edit in these areas to find a way to appropriately integrate Antifinnugor's profered information into the articles during that year.
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 03:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 22:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) He has good content, but appears ill-able to work with others in representing it properly in the article.
Nay:
Abstain:

Sources in Ugric articles[edit]

2) Antifinnugor is prohibited from editing Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages, and its closely related articles for a period of one year except in the following manner:

  1. Information added shall be referenced to a specific page in a book published in English and readily available in libraries or by purchase. References to URLs are acceptable only if the site is in English and the information referenced is readily located by consulting the webpage.
  2. Valid, complete edit summaries are obligatory.
  3. Violation of the above restricts will lead to a 24-hour-block which may be imposed by any administrator. Repeated violations will result in blocks of increaingly long periods, which may be up to double the length of the previous block.
  4. These restrictions do not apply to talk pages.
Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) (Iff remedy 1 doesn't pass)
  2. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I'm inclined to feel these bans are too complicated to be enforceable. Prefer complete ban. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:25, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  3. Again, the nature of the problem is not being addressed, the information he seeks to add should not replace the traditional view, but supplement it in a short section porportionate to its significance. Fred Bauder 22:54, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Personal attack ban[edit]

3) Antifinnugor is banned for a month for making personal attacks.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. I don't believe that a ban in this respect is warranted. Personal attack parole should suffice. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:15, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. The personal attacks don't amount to much Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) A bit long.
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.1) Antifinnugor is banned for two weeks for making personal attacks.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. As 2) above. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:15, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. The personal attacks don't amount to much Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Personal attack parole[edit]

4) Antifinnugor is placed on standard personal attack parole for two months: if Antifinnugor makes an edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for up to a week by that administrator and the parole timer shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. Iff 4.1 does not pass. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:15, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) If 4.1 doesn't pass.
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 03:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too short, see 4.1.
  2. The personal attacks don't amount to much Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

4.1) Antifinnugor is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year: if Antifinnugor makes an edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for up to a week by that administrator and the parole timer shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:25, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only if 5 also passes)
  6. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The personal attacks don't amount to much Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too long Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Abstain:

Good behaviour[edit]

5) If Antifinnugor can demonstrate better editing habits free of personal attacks three months from now, he may apply to have the above restrictions reduced or removed.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:15, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 23:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Yep.
  8. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Violation of article editing ban[edit]

1) If Antifinnugor, under whatever username, attempts to edit Finno-Ugric languages or Uralic languages, he may be banned for up to twenty-four hours.

Aye:
  1. Support, as Remedy 1. Ambi 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support iff Remedy 2 doesn't pass. Neutralitytalk 23:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 12:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) related to remedy 1.1
  4. Support as Remedy 1.1. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:35, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 22:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Good for 1.1
  6. mav 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Oppose as Remedy 1. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:18, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  1. Fred Bauder 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    sannse (talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Judging by the username he chose, those articles are particular hotspots. I think a referencing requirement, as in remedy 2, is a good idea. We applied a referencing requirement in HistoryBuffEr. Simplify as needed. - David Gerard 02:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. With the consensus principle worked out, and passed down the FoF/remedy chain, I believe we're done here. (everything likely to pass has either passed or been superceded). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:10, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC) Withdrawing; enforcement has yet to pass. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:13, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)Umm, you may consider this to be a remotion, I suppose ;) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:02, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 03:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I cast the deciding enforcement vote. --mav 23:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 23:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) (effective 03:11 Feb 01)
  5. For good measure. Ambi 00:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 01:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor/Proposed_decision&oldid=808009310"