Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Proposed decision

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 7 active Arbitrators, so 4 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

4) The use of alternate accounts, while not forbidden, is discouraged. Use of alternate accounts as sockpuppets, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability – and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize – is strictly forbidden.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rephrased Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

5) The neutral point of view policy requires that multiple or conflicting perspectives which exist within a topic should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not entirely comfortable with this wording. Might give the impression that all points of view need to be represented when our policy says otherwise. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The wording is straight off the policy page, so it probably needs to be changed there if there are problems with it. Kirill 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This principle as written does not include the rest of the policy that explains that ideas held by a tiny minority do not need to be included or presented in a way that gives the impression that they are a view accepted by more than a fringe group. This can be an issue because theories proposed by fringe groups are often ignored by mainstream groups because they are seen as absurd. This means we might not have sound sources that dispute them. They want to be included here because it gives them credibility that they do not have elsewhere. That we include them here as a legitimate idea makes us less than credible reference. Also, this could have real world consequences for people using Wikipedia as a reference tool or as a source for looking for good references. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute centers on the articles about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah, and, in particular, the extent and manner in which various negative claims about the subjects should be presented.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Artaxerex

2) Artaxerex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), sockpuppetry ([18]), and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([19], [20], [21], [22]).

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {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.

Artaxerex banned

1) Artaxerex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Parties reminded

2) The parties are reminded of the need to adhere closely to the neutral point of view policy and to present all views on a topic fairly.

Support:

1. Kirill 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {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.

• With 4 as the majority, everything passes except proposed principle 5. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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. Close. Everything passes that is needed for a complete case. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Kirill 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Fred Bauder 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. James F. (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]