Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:PolishPoliticians/Proposed decision

Case closed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority yay vote will be enacted.
• Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority yay or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
• Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed principles

1) Personal attacks are not acceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Arbitrator votes for proposed principle 1:

1. Fred Bauder 20:44, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 22:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 12:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. mav 04:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed principle 1:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed principle 1:

1. The Cunctator 17:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Arbitrator votes for proposed temporary order 1:

Arbitrator votes against proposed temporary order 1:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed temporary order 1:

Proposed findings of fact

1) User PolishPoliticians has engaged in repeated personal attacks, in particular referring to those who disagree with him as "Nazis", often in edit summaries. Examples:

• Gdansk:
  • 23:28, 19 Jul 2004 PolishPoliticians (revert Nazi edits by John Kenney)
  • 23:03, 19 Jul 2004 PolishPoliticians (revert Henrygb Nazi vandalism)
• Marking John Kenney's user page as "neo-Nazi"
• Confirming his intention (in the above edits) to call certain Wikipedia users Nazis (ie, not just their edits). [1] [2]
• Accusing those who disagree with him over the appropriate article names as being criminals and implied anti-Semitism. [3]

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 1:

1. Fred Bauder 20:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 22:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 12:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. mav 04:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 1:

1. The Cunctator 17:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) ; see alternate finding of fact

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 1:

2) User PolishPoliticians has engaged in inflammatory and disruptive behavior, in particular referring to edits by those who disagree with him as "Nazi edits", often in edit summaries, See [4].

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 2:

1. The Cunctator 17:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 18:31, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
3. Martin 12:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (but definately prefer #1, as being more accurate)
4. James F. (talk) 14:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Agree with Martin--this isn't as fully accurate as #1)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 2:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 2:

3) User PolishPoliticians has been joined by various anon editors and other accounts such as User:The King. It is likely (though not proven) that these are sock puppets. These "others" have likewise engaged in personal attacks:

• Gdansk
  • 01:22, 13 Aug 2004 66.130.27.219 (Asshole RIcKKKKK has no life!)
  • 01:33, 13 Aug 2004 66.130.27.219 (that asshole RiKKk should make sure bush is not re-elected instead of losin time on fucken KrautSupportMafia)

Arbitrator votes for proposed finding of fact 3:

1. Martin 10:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 12:43, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 16:26, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed finding of fact 3:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed finding of fact 3:

Proposed remedies

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) User PolishPoliticians is instructed to abstain from personal attacks and other breaches of Wikipedia etiquette, and placed on personal attack parole. Sysops are authorised to apply 24 temp-bans on all those involved, at their discretion, if PolishPoliticians breaches this instruction. Users are encouraged to remove personal attacks.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:

1. Fred Bauder 20:42, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 22:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 12:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. mav 04:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 16:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:

1. The Cunctator 17:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) Haven't really seen the evidence of personal attacks. His behavior is certainly a gross breach of Wikipedia etiquette, though.

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 1:

2) To deal with any reincarnations of this user, this personal attack parole also applies to any new accounts (less than three months on Wikipedia) who edit the articles in question (such as Gdansk and Danzig). However, such accounts should be given a warning that this parole applies to them prior to their first 24-hr ban.

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:

1. Fred Bauder 20:42, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 22:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 12:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. mav 04:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 16:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) (To be clear, I would ask the admin issuing the warning to Assume Good Faith as much as possible -- I'd prefer a warning along the lines of "This is the personal attack policy, and these will be the consequences of violating it again" rather than "Admit you're a sock puppet!!! One more like that and I'll ban you!")

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 2:

Discussion by arbitrators

wikipedia:banning policy and wikipedia:blocking policy imply that personal attacks should not result in blocks without an arbitration ruling. However, there has been a pattern of users being blocked following personal attacks over the past month (and before), and only a single objection (by Guanaco) - and that objection was that it was not discussed, and it was only a single attack.

So, are the written policies just lagging here? Perhaps - but on the other hand, this account has come to us for arbitration, and RK has been requested, which implies that at least some sysops don't feel they're authorised, or at least not in all cases. It's all a little uncertain - as a result, I'm just going to ignore the issue. I'll vote for PolishPoliticians parole as if sysops aren't empowered to deal with it (in case they aren't), and I'll not criticise RickK's temp-ban, as if he is empowered to act this way (in case he is).

Really, the community needs to clarify for us - is it acceptable for sysops to temp-ban accounts and IPs for extreme personal attacks, and if so, in what circumstances? Do such cases have to go to arbitration afterwards? Some guidance would be helpful... Martin 19:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While "Nazi" may be more acceptable in the USA than in Europe, or in differing cultures, Wikipedia is a global project, and people must be sensitive to such differences. Martin 22:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)