Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/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 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 she/he 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 one is inactive (Filiocht) and one has since resigned (Mackensen), so seven votes are a majority.

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:

Tommstein banned until case closed except for Arbitration pages[edit]

1) Enacted on 07:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration, from editing any page except those directly related to Arbitration involving him, and his own User and User Talk pages. He may be blocked for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule.

Support:
  1. Was blocked indefinitely without any opposition, and only unblocked so he can comment on the case. Dmcdevit·t 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 01:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SimonP 04:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

No personal attacks[edit]

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring is harmful[edit]

2) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a block under the three-revert rule or more substantial restrictions. See also Wikipedia:Edit war.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith[edit]

3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption[edit]

4) Editors who are disruptive whether by edit warring or otherwise may be blocked. Persistent disruption with respect to a specific article or topic may lead to a banning from that area.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Community-imposed bans[edit]

5) Some editors are so odious that not one of the 800+ administrators will unblock them. Such an editor may be considered banned by the Wikipedia community. See Wikipedia:Banning policy.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is Jehovah's Witnesses and the editing of Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Duffer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and incivility by Tommstein[edit]

2) Tommstein has be uncivil and has made personal attacks [1], [2] [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]..

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tommstein fails to assume good faith[edit]

3) Tommstein fails to assume good faith with respect to other editors of Jehovah's Witnesses and Wikipedia admnistrators [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. For Tommstein's reaction to arbitration see [17]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tommstein blocked indefinitely[edit]

4) On January 24 Tommstein was blocked indefinitely by NicholasTurnbull [18] see also Tommstein's reaction. He was unblocked to participate in this arbitration, but based on the extensive evidence in this case was reblocked on February 4 by Fred Bauder. No admin has seen fit to unblock him.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring by Duffer1[edit]

5) Duffer1 has engaged in edit warring [19], [20], [21], and [22].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though it does seem that he is actually one of the more restrained participants at Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to edit warring. - SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and incivility by Duffer1[edit]

6) Duffer1 has been uncivil and made personal attacks [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], [40].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks by Central[edit]

7) Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a critic of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been discourteous and has made personal attacks [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], and [51].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Central fails to assume good faith[edit]

8) Central's strong opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses extends to failure to assume good faith with respect to editors other points of views [52], [53], and [54].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Tommstein banned by the community[edit]

1) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges and endorses the community's banning of Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Central placed on personal attack parole[edit]

2) Central (talk · contribs) 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. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Central placed on Probation[edit]

3) Central (talk · contribs) is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Central must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Duffer1 warned regarding incivility and edit warring[edit]

4) Duffer1 (talk · contribs) is warned to avoid making personal remarks about other editors, and instructed to remain civil at all times. He is also instructed not to engage in edit wars, and to discuss disputed changes.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of probation[edit]

1) Should Central violate any ban imposed under Probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 14:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

I've had this request up for a couple weeks on the Workshop page, please review it and/or comment before you close this arbitration. Duffer 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[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. Not a single oppose: close. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. James F. (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 10:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. - SimonP 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tommstein/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733336"