Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Stephen Bain (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Harassment

1) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Support:
  1. Essentially the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Harassment. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Solid and uncontentious. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm not sure whether I'd frame this as the first principle relevant to the case, but it is certainly correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Hounding

2) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Support:
  1. Proposed. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the type of behavior also, or formerly, referred to as "wikistalking." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#"Wikistalking" has an earlier articulation of the principle, but this one may be more complete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dealing with harassment

3) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Support:
  1. Standard, though added the clause between the dashes. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed, one must try to make sure that they do not continue the vicious cycle. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Well stated. (However, I think "dealing with harassment" might be a better section heading; other than the last sentence, the focus is on dealing with harassment of oneself rather than harassment of other editors.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with such a change. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyedited accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflicts of interest

4) An editor may have a conflict of interest if their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with their obligations to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the neutral point of view policy.

Editors are generally discouraged from editing, creating, or participating in deletion discussions about articles in relation to which they have a conflict of interest, although they are not forbidden from doing so. Instead, they are encouraged to suggest changes on article talk pages and utilize community review processes such as requests for comment.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support making sure that people are aware of the guideline. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Will need to keep reviewing the evidence before I actually vote on this; none of the remedies seem to refer to COI issues, so I'm unsure of the necessity here. Have done, and I still don't see this as a core issue here. Tothwolf does appear to have COI issues with Eggdrop at least, but his behavioral issues are more concerning; Tothwolf's allegations that Miami has a COI appear to be entirely unfounded (I see no indication that he's ever provided diffs in support of that claim). I'll take another look at this once others have voted, but I don't see this as necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither allegation was handled in any approximation of the ideal fashion, and were significant factors in the personalisation of this dispute (previously a content-oriented dispute about deletions), hence the inclusion of these principles relating to proper conflict handling. The latter allegation is addressed in the proposed findings about Tothwolf, though without repeating the allegation explicitly, as that is hardly necessary. The former is not yet the subject of any proposed findings, though it could be if desired. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the latter is suitably covered with Decorum and Casting aspersions; as NYB says, a COI isn't always a bad thing, and I don't believe it was here except as a tool to discredit others. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not certain that reasonable participation in a deletion discussion by an editor with a conflict of interest is problematic. The editor ought to disclose the conflict, and should make sure that his or her participation does not unduly dominate the discussion, but often an individual with real-world knowledge of a topic can contribute usefully in addressing its notability or importance, and such input should not be spurned even if that editor ought not edit the article directly. Conversely, in BLP or comparable situations an article subject can often provide useful input concerning real-world implications of keeping or deleting the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Brad,  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handling conflicts of interest

5) An editor dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest should politely engage that user in discussion about that conflict, with reference to the conflict of interest guidelines, or where appropriate, engage in other forms of dispute resolution. Suspected conflicts of interest may be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith and remain civil in such discussions.

Editors handling a conflict of interest situation must always remember the primacy of Wikipedia's content policies. A conflict of interest may explain why an editor is producing problematic content, but the existence of a conflict, properly handled, is not problematic in its own right. Editors dealing with another editor who has or is suspected to have a conflict of interest must always consider the actual quality of their contributions with respect to content policies.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At least one party in here has a COI, and I'm not sure they handled it correctly. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per my abstention to 4. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Holding off on voting temporarily, until Bainer responds to Hersfold's point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli

6) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, or performing large numbers of similar tasks, and are apprised that those edits or tasks are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deletion best practices

7) While the reasons for which an editor may validly nominate an article for deletion are not exhaustive, Wikipedia's deletion policy and practices generally prefer that nominations express at least one generally accepted reason for deletion, and that alternative courses of action (such as merging, redirection, or curing problems through editing) will often be preferable to deletion.

Support:
  1. Together with the previous proposal, this relates to the concerns raised here and elsewhere about not just the scale, but the quality of deletion nominations made by some of the parties. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Emphasis on generally preferable. In many cases deletion is the preferred avenue, such as (most obviously) with copyright violations and attack articles. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although I would strongly prefer if "generally preferable" were changed to "often preferable". Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyedits would be welcome; "generally" is used too many times as this is written. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyedited accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very Standard here SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Casting aspersions

9) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:
  1. Also standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although the first sentence could be made more general (the specific wording here is an artifact of another case in which the behavior was much more problematic than that involved here). Perhaps: "It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make unjustified or unsupported accusations of wrongdoing by another." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the new Committee would do well to review and edit the current boilerplate? --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Miami33139

Deletion nominations

1) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of computing-related articles for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good-faith concerns about the volume of Miami33139's deletion nominations, and whether Miami33139 has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The term "deletion best practices" is something of a neologism for this case, per the principles, but is apt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deletion nominations and harassment

2) In September 2009, Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made several allegations that his contributions were being followed by Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that Miami33139 was searching for articles that Tothwolf had worked on to nominate for deletion.

While many of the articles Miami33139 has proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion had indeed been edited by Tothwolf beforehand, Tothwolf's edits were often minor (examples: [1] - [2]; [3] - [4]) and had often occurred many months before Miami33139's edits (examples: [5] & [6] - [7]; [8] & [9] - [10]; [11] - [12]; [13] - [14]).

It is more likely that Miami33139 has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example: [15], five consecutive deletion nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat bouncers, gateways and proxies).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

JBsupreme

Deletion nominations

3) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over time, nominated a large number of articles (including computing-related articles) for deletion via proposed deletion or articles for deletion (see contributions).

A number of editors have expressed good-faith concerns about the volume of JBsupreme's deletion nominations, and whether JBsupreme has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations (for example: 1, 2).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my comment on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deletion nominations and harassment

4) Between 29 September 2009 and 1 October 2009, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion nine articles which Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had recently edited or applied WikiProject tags to (see [16] and [17]).

However in the midst of this sequence, JBsupreme nominated an unrelated article for deletion, and participated in a number of unconnected deletion debates. JBsupreme has subsequently nominated for deletion other related articles which have been edited by Tothwolf, but not for many months (examples: [18] - [19]; Special:Undelete/JIRCii - [20]; Special:Undelete/JmIrc - [21]).

It is more likely that JBsupreme has identified articles to propose or nominate for deletion from categories or lists of articles, rather than by any malevolent following of Tothwolf's contributions list (for example, of the sequence of nine nominations referred to above, the last eight were all nominations of members of Category:Internet Relay Chat clients).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed, there's a simpler explanation then hounding here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

5) JBsupreme has occasionally been uncivil ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]).

Support:
  1. Although it should be noted these are somewhat old examples, and many of the other examples given in evidence were of understandable - though not justifiable - outbursts directed at offensive vandalism, rather than statements directed at other editors. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Can't support this as written, since the examples provided are very old and not relevant to the case at hand, although I do agree those are all quite unacceptable. However, the more recent incidents involving Shii could be cited in support of this, as could this this series of edits (note that the issue there isn't so much with the edits, but the order in which they were made). One or two of the edits provided here can be used to show that there is a history of this type of behavior, but if we're to include it in this case, we need something recent. I might propose an alternate tomorrow along these lines. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support in principle, but agreed with Hersfold here, and will wait to see his alternate. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 5.1.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 5.1. Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 5.1 - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Cannot oppose as it is somewhat accurate, but I sympathize with the concerns of the opposition. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decorum

5.1) JBSupreme has occasionally been uncivil: typing edit summaries in all capital letters [27], using profanity or attacks in edit summaries [28], making edits to form inappropriate "contribution sentences" [29], and refusing to respond to good-faith criticism [30] [31].

Support:
  1. Proposed, per my concerns to 5. The second diff is one that was used in bainer's original proposal and therefore an older one; it's duplicated here to show that this is not a recent occurrence, and because of the five diffs previously provided, I felt that one was the most concerning. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this better. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems unable to deal with vandals and criticism calmly. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is in no way, shape, or form "good faith criticism". The snarky sarcasm drip off of it. I'm not going to hold it against JBSupreme for reverting the edit with an unfortunately accurate label. Certainly, I strongly oppose it being used as an example of "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". Ignoring it would be ideal, but reverting it with an overly blunt summary is hardly a sanction worthy matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, that probably wasn't the best diff to provide, although I think there was some reason why I picked that particular one. IIRC, the initial concern brought forth by Shii was good-faith criticism, although you are correct in that her responses later on were rather unhelpful. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not certain this is necessary at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf

Allegations against other editors

6) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them, and without pursuing relevant dispute resolution in cases where substantiating the allegations could not be done publicly ([32], [33]).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though, to be fair, it is somewhat unclear and confusing when dealing with issues that involve privacy concerns or similar matters that are best not disclosed publicly. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

7) Tothwolf has from time to time engaged in uncivil or otherwise undecorous behaviour:

  • Tothwolf has made uncivil comments ([34], [35], [36]);
  • Tothwolf has assumed bad faith on the part of editors with whom he has interacted ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41]);
  • After Theserialcomma argued in favour of deleting an article that Tothwolf had argued in favour of keeping, Tothwolf argued in favour of deleting an article that Theserialcomma had argued in favour of keeping, only a short time after Theserialcomma's original edit, copying exactly Theserialcomma's wording.
Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't agree with the use of some of the diffs in the second bullet point, but overall the finding is good enough. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

Tothwolf restricted

1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Six months is not too onerous here. If problems persist and other sanctions are needed, a request for amendment can be filed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. - Mailer Diablo 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not 100% in favor of civility restrictions, because we're all supposed to act civilly, and in cases where we're not, we risk being blocked, but I will not oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would much prefer a general conduct probation permitting discretionary sanctions. I would also prefer to see a year's length. (I'm inclined to longer terms on probations than on direct restrictions. The former is just a clear final warning with encouragement for admins to act. The latter is directly hampering, as opposed to just a hard reminder.) Vassyana (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf restricted

1.1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Proposed in response to Vassyana. I was also considering a longer term anyway. First choice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly. I would much prefer a general conduct probation permitting discretionary sanctions. I am skeptical of civility paroles. Vassyana (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too long. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same as option 1. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBsupreme warned

2) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The diffs in the finding were sufficiently concerning for me to support this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
I do feel a warning here is necessary, but as I've opposed the finding that relates to this, I'm abstaining until a suitable alternative finding is available. Moving to support per my alternate finding. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per Hersfold. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning towards support, but will not unless I support an accompanying finding of fact. Vassyana (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not certain this is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miami33139 and JBsupreme reminded

3) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some restraint and a collaborative approach is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In the absence of a finding that they have abused the process(es), I cannot support this remedy. Vassyana (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

4) The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The hounding/harassing charges make this a necessary support. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vassyana (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It applies here because these standards need to be followed even when making such allegations. Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. None of the findings refer to conflicts of interest, and that doesn't seem to have been a core issue in this case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Standard.  Roger Davies talk 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. For the new arbs, as the old arbs have heard my rationale previously, I am generally opposed on principle to hampering admin discretion on blocks. I will support less restrictive versions in the interests of compromise, such as three blocks and then up to one year. Five blocks and thereafter a limit of one month is far too restrictive for me. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contra position, for the benefit of the newbies: the purpose is indeed to limit the role for discretion, but with the objective of increasing certainty and ensuring that administrators undertaking enforcement work can be confident in taking action. Enforcement work is often a difficult job, and we should do what we can to keep it simple. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Abstained on the civility restriction, so necessarily abstained here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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.

Proposals which pass
Principles : 1-9
FoF : 1-4, 5.1, 6, 7
Remedies : 1, 2-4
Enforcement : 1
Proposals which do not pass
FoF : 5
Remedy : 1.1

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Motion to close. Looks like most everyone active has voted at this point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Other issues can be dealt with in future cases, if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support closing. SirFozzie (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 09:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337131"