Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (9 active).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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]

Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable established knowledge found in reliable sources. Unpublished or self-published information is generally unsuitable for inclusion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban for disruption[edit]

2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles may be banned from them, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Autobiography and Conflict of Interest[edit]

3) A user who apparently disrupts editing of the article on themselves and their areas of interest may be restricted in their editing. It is not necessary that a definite identification be made; only that the user engages in such a pattern of editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No original research[edit]

4) Information which has not been published in a reliable source may not be included, see Wikipedia:No original research. It is not acceptable whether the user attempting to insert original research is the author or a third party.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Patience[edit]

5) Enthusiastic but inexperienced users frequently commit gaffes such as intensively editing subjects they are involved with such as the article on themselves or their own research. However, if patiently corrected, many go on to become valued contributors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Attack accounts[edit]

6) Accounts created and used only for the purpose of attacking the subject of an article and their work may be indefinitely banned.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Suspected autobiographers[edit]

7) The appropriate place to bring attention to and discuss users who are suspected of editing articles about themselves or their activities is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This may also occur on the talk pages of affected articles. There are circumstances where editing by such persons is appropriate, particularly on the talk page of articles about themselves. It is inappropriate to harass suspects by repeatedly accusing them in inappropriate ways or by reverting all their edits. Only if, after explanation and referral to Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, they continue to engage in inappropriate editing, should their editing be restricted. If all else fails, the dispute resolution procedure should be used.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators[edit]

8) Wikipedia administrators are expected to consult with other administrators, especially before reversing their actions, and to avoid use of their tools in situations in which they are involved, see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#If_you_disagree_with_a_block.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Generally true as a broad principle, but the specifics of every situation are important, and it is not clear if it is relevant in this particular case. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Subtext[edit]

.5) Disputes over Intelligent design may have played some role in energizing this dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. True but unneeded, imo Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Matthew. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. O RLY ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On the balance of probabilities, I suppose so; we don't need the finding. Charles Matthews 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist[edit]

1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is a prolific Wikipedia editor, with over 12,000 edits and two years of service.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Relevance? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Matthew. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. O RLY ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

2) Asmodeus (talk · contribs) had a request for comment filed against him/her (see here), with concerns about WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVILITY.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True, but I agree that having had an RFC filed doesn't mean much. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. RFCs mean nothing. Allegations made during RFC should be repeated during the evidence phase and should be found independently here, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:


Asmodeus is an aggressive and tendentious editor[edit]

3) Many of Asmodeus' edits are tendentious and with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. [1], [2]). He also introduces special pleading in support of fringe subjects (e.g. [3]). The degree of disruption he has caused is surprising given his limited mainspace edit history [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus is uncivil[edit]

4) Many of Asmodeus' talk page comments and edit summaries are uncivil, attacking those attempting to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus' editing style[edit]

5) Asmodeus' editing style of Langan-related articles is characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits promoting/inflating Langan's viewpoints over those of mainstream science: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31][32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discourtesy by Asmodeus[edit]

6) Asmodeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discourteous [42] [43]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Asmodeus[edit]

7) Asmodeus has engaged in original research [44] [45].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus area of editing[edit]

8) Asmodeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in his editing concentrated on the set of subjects associated with Christopher Michael Langan, an independent scholar noted for original research. In this context "original research" means advancement of original ideas outside traditional academic venues such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FeloniousMonk.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DrL[edit]

9) DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits articles related to Christopher Michael Langan in a disruptive way Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence#DrL_ignores_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:NOT.2C_WP:OWN.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Hal Fisher[edit]

10) Hal Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [46] and Haldane Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [47] are accounts which are mainly devoted to opposition to Christopher Michael Langan and Asmodeus who they identify as being him, often posting comments to that effect. example of a nasty edit

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

FeloniousMonk[edit]

11) Haldane Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been blocked for harassing Asmodeus by Cowman109 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [48]. When Hal Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on November 27 and engaged in the same activity he was warned by Cowman109 [49]. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) responded to this warning with a post characterizing Cowman109's warning as harassment [50], stating, "Hal is doing just fine as far as I have seen." He then unblocked Haldane Fisher [51].

Support:
  1. true, but see FeloniousMonk explanation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop#FeloniousMonk Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Fred. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ScienceApologist's suspicions[edit]

12) On November 9, 2006 ScienceApologist began to suspect that Asmodeus was Christopher Michael Langan. He posted to Wikipedia talk:Autobiography requesting advice [52] and left a polite note on User talk:Asmodeus [53]]. When Asmodeus responded aggressively [54] [55], he voiced his suspicions in an aggressive way [56].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus banned[edit]

1) Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus placed on Probation[edit]

2) Asmodeus is placed on probation indefinitely. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Asmodeus cautioned[edit]

3) Asmodeus is cautioned to be courteous to other users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DrL[edit]

4) All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

FeloniousMonk counseled[edit]

5) FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. He is cautioned to avoid conflict of interest with respect to the use of administrative tools.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't see any strong "conflict of interest"; prefer 5.1. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been vigorously fighting against improper presentation of intelligent design and believes Asmodeus is an advocate of it. Fred Bauder 22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

FeloniousMonk counseled[edit]

5.1) FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher banned[edit]

6) Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ScienceApologist counseled[edit]

7) ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Many users err, but eventually become valued contributors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

With a majority of 5, all principles, findings and remedies pass except:

Finding 0.5) Subtext (1-0-4)
Finding 1) ScienceApologist is a prolific editor (1-0-5)
Remedy 5.1) FeloniousMonk counseled passes (6-0) in lieu of 5) FeloniousMonk counseled (2-2 excluding conditional votes)

Thatcher131 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.

  1. move to close ➥the Epopt 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. - SimonP 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Fred Bauder 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733478"