Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & SirFozzie (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 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

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

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Verifiability, reliable sources, and original research

[edit]

1) One of Wikipedia's founding principles is that all information in Wikipedia articles must conform to the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. An editor who adds material to an article must be able to cite reliable published sources that directly support the material as presented.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This overlooks some nuances affecting borderline situations, but this case is not about borderline situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Accuracy of sourcing

[edit]

1A) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Support:
  1. Originally from the Franco-Mongol alliance case. If passed, this is in addition to 1, not instead of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True, although I'm not sure whether it's really necessary to expand on this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 06:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd rather have a little extra verbiage to explain why.. have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit-warring

[edit]

2) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Violation of policy

[edit]

3) Wikipedia's policies are complex, and occasional, inadvertent violations are entirely excusable; editors—even veteran ones—are not expected to be perfect. However, willful and deliberate defiance of core Wikipedia policy is generally incompatible with continued participation in the project.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I will support this, but I'm honestly not sure whether we are dealing here with "willful and deliberate defiance" or we are dealing with well-intentioned but misguided behavior. As we've observed in other cases (and we could add this principle too here if we wished), beyond a certain point, unhappily, it doesn't much matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. At some point when repeated requests to modify your approach are completely dismissed and ignored, the best of intentions no longer matter. Shell babelfish 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. 'Willful' and 'deliberate' defiances of core policies need to be substantiated by FoFs. I personally do not believe it is the case here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism

[edit]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This should probably be standard.  Roger Davies talk 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Standard. KnightLago (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

[edit]

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Previous sanctions

[edit]

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned in two prior arbitration proceedings, and additionally as the result of two separate community discussions:

  1. In the Stevertigo case, he was found to have "violated the three revert rule and edited a protected page to conform to his version,... used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times, [and] blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him", and stripped of his administrator status.
  2. In the Obama articles case, he was found to have "engaged in edit-warring and... edit summary attacks", admonished, and placed under an editing restriction.
  3. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, he was blocked for two weeks by Tznkai (talk · contribs), who cited "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy".
  4. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010, he was placed under an editing restriction by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), who concluded that "Stevertigo is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration".
Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stevertigo's editing

[edit]

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit-warring on multiple high-profile articles, including "human" ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), "time" ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), and "punishment" ([12], [13]).

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stevertigo's edit summaries

[edit]

3) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in personal attacks via edit summaries ([14], [15], [16]).

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reread the diffs in light of the abstentions, and remain comfortable with the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I don't see any personal attacks in the 2nd and 3rd diffs where Stevertigo commented on content, not on the contributors. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would say they borderline on problematic, but I am not comfortable supporting this one. As FayssalF said, the last two comment on the content, not the contributor, though could worded in a more friendly manner. Thus the abstain instead of oppose. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo's use of sources

[edit]

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources provided ([17], [18]), or with no sources provided at all ([19], [20], [21], [22]).

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And, conversely, made this strange edit last year.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. True in many instances, enough to warrant the finding. There are a couple of cited diffs that I do not agree with, however; at some point, a statement can be sufficiently a matter of common knowledge that a source is not required unless the statement is challenged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I can also note the lack of consistency in Svertigos's approach to the use of sources. Arbitrator Roger Davies brings in the example of Stevertigo tagging loads of {{fact}} tags at the Loudspeaker article while I can see in the last diffs above how Stevertigo omits using references for other important articles. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stevertigo's approach

[edit]

5) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has adopted a battleground approach, characterized by repeated assumptions of bad faith ([23], [24]), in his interactions with other editors; and has engaged in disruption to illustrate a point ([25])..

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Broadly correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Also per Newyorkbrad. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

"Conceptualization"

[edit]

6) The principles of "conceptualization", and the editing practices resulting from adherence to them (,[26][27] ), appear to be incompatible with the editing model set forth by Wikipedia's fundamental content policies regarding verifiability and original research.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. I find the ideas in this essay fuzzy-minded and in places very hard to follow. I'm less sure that the sort of abstract discussion that Stevertigo finds appropriate in concept articles would always be unverifiable or OR; perhaps there is a reliable source (such as a work of philosophy) that presents the concept in that way. But ultimately I agree that Stevertigo's approach has been an unhelpful one. (Note to the editor who asked on the workshop how one can address such an essay: the traditional answer has been to take them to MfD, and vote either to delete or to "userfy"; however, MfD standards in this area have been erratic, with many commenters opining that within limits essays as opposed to guidelines can properly express minority views.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In principle, that essay describes a valuable epistemological approach. That approach, however, is entirely incompatible with the creation of an encyclopedia which — at its heart — collates knowledge and does not seek to reinterpret it. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. On the principle that it is not ArbCom's role to sit in judgment on essays. Better would be a principle reminding people what essays are for, and then a finding showing how this editor has breached such principles. An actual verdict on this essay should be left to the community either through editing of the essay or through a deletion or userfication discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can't support this as it is phrased now. I agree somehow with Carcharoth and believe that this FoF can be framed in a different way. One example would be to show how Stevertigo used his own created and edited essay to advance its principles on articles talk pages as if they were policy principles. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Really outside our scope, it is not our job to judge essays. I would support a FoF framed as FayssalF suggests. KnightLago (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. After a bit more thought, I'd rather phrase this as Stevertigo's use of the essay is incompatible with policy rather than the essay itself. Shell babelfish 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing from "weak support" above. It is obvious that we are divided about, at the least, the wording of this proposal. Given time I am sure that a generally acceptable wording could be worked out, but the paragraph is not essential to the decision which is otherwise complete, so it is probably best to simply drop the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template

[edit]

7) {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.

Stevertigo banned

[edit]

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd obviously prefer not to be banning an editor who has been part of the project since 2002, but no reasonably effective lesser sanction has yet been proposed to address the multiple issues raised in this and the prior decisions and discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've carefully considered Stevertigo's comments on the talkpage, and thank him for his candor in reacting to the decision. I'd like to assure him that matters such as the name of the case have played no role in the outcome. I (and I'm sure all of us) wish him the best in his future endeavors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No choice left. — Coren (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sadly, there seem to be no other viable options that will stop the cycle. KnightLago (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Stevertigo has made it clear, especially in comments on this case, that he doesn't get it and has no intention of changing these behaviors; that doesn't leave us with much in the way of choices. Shell babelfish 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Shell Kinney. There have been multiple attempts over the years to work with this editor to change behaviours. Risker (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I can support the other remedies, but I think an immediate ban goes too far here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Stevertigo to be placed on probation

[edit]

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined by the Arbitration Committee, effective on the completion of the ban imposed in remedy 1. He is prohibited from returning to Wikipedia until the terms of this probation have been set, regardless of whether any other ban remains in place.

Should Stevertigo wish to return to editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee via email once six months have elapsed from the date of this decision. The Committee will then open a discussion regarding the terms of his probation; this discussion may include the involvement of the community at an appropriate venue. Should Stevertigo reject the terms offered by the Committee, he will be limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting the edits, I see that this is now explicitly conditional on something else passing. It was, I thought, fine before, where it applied either as a stand alone (with time out until probation conditions were agreed) or as an adjunct to R1. Still, never mind,  Roger Davies talk 06:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the intent of the edit. If 2 passes but 1 doesn't, then the "effective on" qualifier would come out again. I've put the addition in brackets to reflect this; we can finalize the wording when we close the case and see what else is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :)  Roger Davies talk 07:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (And now removed the brackets since the outcome is clear.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Clarified by editing "effective on the completion of the ban imposed in remedy 1." Of course, these words should stand part of the decision only if that ban passes; and if some other ban passes in its place, an appropriate substitution should be made. Also copyedited by changing "irregardless" to "regardless." Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) is banned for one year for typing "irregardless." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stevertigo required to cite sources

[edit]

3) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article.

Should Stevertigo fail to cite a published source, the added material may be removed by any editor. Reverts made to enforce this provision are to be treated as reversions of obvious vandalism for the purposes of revert limitations and editing restrictions.

Should Stevertigo cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. To be interpreted and enforced in a common-sense, non-wikilawyerish manner, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In general, indisputable statements do not need to be sourced (and not, in my opinion, merely "common knowledge" statements that still should be sourced — there are a number of things which are "commonly known" but for which no reliable source can be found for the simple reason that they are erroneous and an encyclopedia should strive to not further propagate them).

    The problem here is that Stevertigo has been unable to estimate when a statement should be sourced, and has failed to source them when disputed. — Coren (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  7. Though noting that this in no way weakens the requirements for anyone to provide a source when something is validly challenged. As my opposition to the ban indicates, I would prefer a probationary period to be done first, with this sourcing requirement in place, before moving to a full ban, but that looks unlikely since the ban looks to be passing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Newyorkbrad. KnightLago (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

[edit]

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

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.

Proposals which pass
Passing Principles: 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4
Passing Findings of Fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Passing Remedies: 1, 2, 3
Passing Enforcement: —
Proposals which do not pass
Failing Principles: —
Failing Findings of Fact: 6
Failing Remedies: —
Failing Enforcement: —
Last updated NW (Talk) 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

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. KnightLago (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 11:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support closure. Given that the decision is not unanimous, the closure should be about 24 hours from Kirill's vote, which should also give the one or two arbitrators who still wish to vote time to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142496955"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy