This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Temporary Topic-Ban of SteveWolfer and ChildofMidnight[edit]

1) ChildofMidnight and SteveWolfer are banned from editing the Ayn Rand article until the conclusion of this proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is a giant dispute on the Ayn Rand article about whether she should be called a philosopher.[1] This dispute has not been resolved. However, two Objectivists, ChildofMidnight and SteveWolfer, have now taken it upon themselves to begin an edit war by designating Rand as a philosopher even though there is ongoing debate on this issue.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] This edit war was begun over an issue that is clearly still under heavy dispute on the talk page and it should not be tolerated. Idag (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idag has only presented one side of the dispute. There are a few editors that persist in deleting material that has solid, reliable, verifiable sources and to do so with no consensus. They initiated the change quite some time ago. Their change was allowed to stand out of respect for the ArbCom process currently under way. But they continued their negative process of editing without sources, without consensus, and since ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, I resumed providing sources to support that Rand is a philosopher. Idag and Snowded dispute this, but do not provide sources, and delete the sources provided.[10][11][12][13] --Steve (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve has pointed out above, the status quo before the ArbCom proceeding was that the article did not designate Rand as a philosopher. A number of people expressed an interest in designating her as a philosopher, and, as such, there was a LONG discussion about the issue on the talk page.[[14]] As of this moment, the issue remains unresolved and should be discussed on the talk page, not by unilaterally designating Rand as a philosopher. Even Kjaer acknowledged as much.[15] (Kjaer's comment appears to erroneously refer to talk page discussion as mediation-there is no mediation that I'm aware of) Idag (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken out the request, as the full-protect of the article makes it moot. Idag (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ban User's Snowded, TallNapoleon, SmashTheState, CABlankenship, Peter Damian and Idag from Rand Articles[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User's Snowded, TallNapoleon, SmashTheState, CABlankenship, Peter Damian and Idag should be banned from editing the Ayn Rand article or related articles, such as articles relating to her philosophy, for a period of 6 months or permanently in response to their persistent, repeated violations of key Wikipedia policies for the purpose of pushing a personal POV. --Steve (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this would be a ban of the majority of the editors editing the article, and all of the banned editors would be non-Objectivists. I would also love to see some evidence of my anti-Rand "personal POV".[16] Idag (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Temporary Topic-Administrative Request that Idag and Snowded Cease Deleting Sourced Material[edit]

3) Users Idag and Snowded are requested to abide by Wikipedia policy and respect sourced material. In specific to cease from deleting the word "philosopher" in the lede of the Ayn Rand article and to cease deleting the sources provided for that content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is a giant dispute on the Ayn Rand article about whether she should be called a philosopher.[17] This dispute has not been resolved. However, two editors, Idag and Snowded, have now taken it upon themselves to begin an edit war by deleting the word "philosopher" after Rand's name in the article's lead even though reliable, verifiable sources have been properly cited. Idag and Snowded dispute that she is a philosopher but offer only OR, do not provide sources, and delete the sources provided.[18][19][20][21] Here is the leded sentence with the word Philosopher and the sources:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher^{[1][2][3][4][5]}.

----

References:

Note: This disruptive editing by Idag and Snowded would not be occuring without that negative POV pushing where editors delete solid sources with NO sources to support their view. This is not just violation of Wikipedia policy, but it takes up inordinate time and effort of good people to deal with. this entire ArbCom is an example of wikilawyering by those who want to edit their POV even if they don't have sources, and even if it means deleting sources that are within policy. If the rules on POV were enforced, all of this nonsense would not even be occuring. --Steve (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo was that Rand was not designated as a philosopher. The following is Steve's summary of what happened with regard to the philosopher edits (with my added emphasis in appropriate places)

"There are a few editors that persist in deleting material that has solid, reliable, verifiable sources and to do so with no consensus. They initiated the change quite some time ago. Their change was allowed to stand out of respect for the ArbCom process currently under way. But they continued their negative process of editing without sources, without consensus, and since ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, I resumed providing sources to support that Rand is a philosopher."[22]

As pointed out above, even users who support calling Rand a philosopher ask that everyone hold off on making that designation until the relevant discussion is concluded.[23]]Idag (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possible Extension of the Full Protect on the Article[edit]

1) Not really sure if this qualifies as an injunction, but the current full-protect on the Ayn Rand article is set to expire in about 4 days. If this proceeding has not concluded by then, I would ask the Committee to extend the full-protect until the end of the proceeding to prevent edit-warring.[24] Idag (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Within hours of the expiration of the full-protect, a new editor to the article made a number of major alterations [25] without any prior discussion whatsoever. Most of the editors, on both "sides", agree that a temporary full-protect is necessary[26], as we are all currently unsure of how to proceed until the ArbCom ruling is provided. Idag (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit...as long as they have the permission of those whose life revolves around Wikipedia and have a bone to pick regarding the subject of the article"?TheJazzFan (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If edit warring continues on Ayn Rand after the protection expires, I am fairly confident that the protection will be restored for a period of time, injunction or no injunction, and that ArbCom will be most unfavorable against those who edit war in spite of a pending case. If that situation arises, I would expect topic ban injunctions against those involved in the edit war, rather than a full protection order against the article. I therefore doubt the need for an injunction of this nature which prevents everyone from editing the article, not merely the edit warriors. Full-protection is fairly rare because it stymies normal article development. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-ban involved parties from editing the article[edit]

2) Instead of protecting the article (which I declined to do at RFPP) I suggest ArbCom topic-bans all involved parties from editing the article until the case is closed (and allows enforcement by blocks if needed). I think that would be wiser than locking down the article for uninvolved users as well, i.e. less disruptive. Regards SoWhy 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem is that the edits (after the beginning of ArbCom) were being made by a new user. This user made a bunch of major edits without any prior discussion whatsoever (and he still has not explained them on the Talk page). Due to some of the things that have happened in this case, there will probably be a number of new users joining the article who have a strong POV. I would also note that none of the involved parties have made any major edits on the Ayn Rand article since this proceeding began. Idag (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Democracy[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not a democracy, and decisions are not made by RFC straw polls. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RFCs should be clearly worded, remain open suitably long, and closed by neutral user[edit]

2) RFCs should be overseen and closed by a neutral editor, preferably an administrator, should be clearly worded, and remain open for a suitable length of time. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry and off-site canvassing[edit]

3) Meatpuppetry and off-site canvassing remain against Wikipedia policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the article were simply a neutral synopsis without views pro or con, it would be a moot point.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV requires us to include all major views. Idag (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the interpretation you're happy with, thus demonstrating exactly what I've said about the "rules" on Wikipedia. In your mind apparently "neutral point of view" means "using the article to debate the merits of Objectivism" rather than simply stating facts about Ayn Rand and her works. The article could easily be made truly neutral but there are too many with an agenda for that to happen.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In response to TheJazzFan's comment directly above, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis added). Neutral point of view means what WP:NPOV says it means. --Nog lorp (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're talking about is smuggling in justification to use the article to debate the substance of the author's work, which on its face removes neutrality. A truly neutral article would chronicle events that occurred in Ayn Rand's life, works that she wrote and a brief summary of Objectivist philosophy, period. The only "point of view" regarding this would be regarding accuracy. Her life is what it was, her body of work is what it is. The kind of misrepresentation of the concept of neutrality you're suggesting is exactly what leads to unending conflict over it.TheJazzFan (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take that up with the writers of WP:NPOV. This is not the place to discuss whether the fundamental Wikipedia principles are ill-defined. --Nog lorp (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "principles" are both ill-defined and variably interpreted. And of course there's "ignore all rules" just to make sure nothing is anchored. Wiki articles are all over the map regarding this and is exactly why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. I do know what "neutral" means, and the Article on Rand isn't. Neutrality means not taking a side one way or the other. Summarize what she said, not whether it was right or not. The very act of "asking for a neutral admin" is in defiance of the interpretation of the meaning of the same word when it comes to the article content. It just so happens that Rand said some things that many don't like. So a lot of people want "neutral" to mean exactly the opposite of what it means. Suddenly now it's supposed to be a forum to show disagreement with her instead of just a factual summary. There are plenty of articles on subjects that don't engender any such frantic insistence to disagree with the subject of the article and you won't find endless disagreement on them though there could be. There's already an article specifically on "criticisms of Objectivism". Why aren't all naysaying "references" relegated there? Because of the agenda of those who harbor animosity toward Rand. The last thing they want is a truly neutral article. Of course, the very fact that "Criticisms of Objectivism" supposedly is accepted as a "notable" topic in of itself negates those that say Rand wasn't notable as a philosopher. TheJazzFan (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property[edit]

4) One may not post others' intellectual property to Wikipedia--either the mainspace or the userspace--without its owner's explicit permission, regardless of whether said work is copyrighted or how it was obtained. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just a bit of pointless pedantry: one may post certain intellectual property (such as content licensed under the GFDL or CC-BY licenses) to Wikipedia without the owner's explicit permission. However, this does not seem to be the case here. -kotra (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't licensing something under the GFDL or CC-BY count as pretty explicit permission? Point taken, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I thought you meant specific permission directly from the owner to the Wikipedia editor (which, ironically, is often insufficient due to downstream use). Comment struck. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate use of warnings[edit]

5) Non-administrative users should not issue warnings threatening blocks against another user unless it is absolutely clear that this would be uncontroversial (i.e., against vandal accounts). TallNapoleon (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

!vote[edit]

6) WP:!vote remains Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Flawed RFC[edit]

1) That the RFC conducted by User:Kjaer was not valid and was not binding upon any editor, and that no clear consensus exists to roll back the article to its state as of Dec. 31. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kjaer Canvassed[edit]

2) That User:Kjaer engaged in meatpuppetry and canvassing in violation of Wikipedia policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Users encouraged to seek mediation[edit]

1) Users will submit to neutral mediation under the guidance of the Mediation Committee. Users that refuse to do so shall not be permitted to edit Ayn Rand or Talk:Ayn Rand. Users are strongly encouraged to seek mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are there any remedies that would involve a neutral administrator with the power to resolve content disputes? Idag (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Unfortunately this isn't possible as the Mediation Committee will not accept a case where parties have been forced to enter into the mediation process. Encouragement is fine, but I suspect the Arbitration Committee know that forcing parties to enter mediation is a big no no. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal so changed. Thanks Ryan. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should watch article[edit]

2) At least two neutral administrators are to watch Ayn Rand to help ensure that problems do not reoccur. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure how this would work, but having a few admins camping the article might be a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this idea, but requests for admins to watch the article and talk pages were made on two occasions, and resulted in a very meagre response (the diffs are supplied for this in my evidence). The question is how this can be enured, and what to do if it cannot be ensured. It is also the reason why I consider that this article and its editors have been generally let down by the response of the administrative body (though if everyone had attended to complying with wikipedia policies and guidelines, administrators wouldn't have been needed in the first place.)  DDStretch  (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:brushcherry and User:stevewunder topic banned from Ayn Rand for 1 year[edit]

3) For repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:POINT. 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Further comment:Steve and Kjaer are both interested, as near as I can tell, in improving the article. It's just what they consider to be improvement clashes drastically with what most of the rest of us do, and they have exhibited several behavioral issues. However, these two apparently have no interest in improving the article, only in trolling and mocking the rest of the users on the talk page. They can do that on their own bloody web space; there is no need to permit them to do so here. TallNapoleon (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with regard to brushcherry, though I think the 1-year ban is a bit excessive for a relatively new user. With regard to Stevewunder, while he has vandalized the article a number of times, he has also attempted to engage in compromise and contribute constructively to the consensus process. I think mentorship or probation might yield better results with him. Idag (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Civility[edit]

1) Under Wikipedia's civility policy, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Patton's "Decorum" principles summarize the applicable behavior principles far better and more concisely than mine do. Idag (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Assume Good Faith[edit]

2) Wikipedia's good faith policy requires that each editor must assume that other editors do not have an ulterior motive for their edits. When others cast doubt on their own good faith, an editor must continue to be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No Personal Attacks[edit]

3) Editors should only address the merits of proposed edits, and they should not make personal attacks against other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Kjaer, SteveWolfer, and TheJazzFan[edit]

1) Users Kjaer and SteveWolfer, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appear to be personally attacking their fellow editors in violation of applicable policies. Users Kjaer, SteveWolfer, and TheJazzFan, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appear to be personally attacking their fellow editors and consistently failing to assume good faith in violation of applicable policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It would appear that TheJazzFan is as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed version: Users Kjaer, SteveWolfer, and TheJazzFan, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appear to be personally attacking their fellow editors and consistently failing to assume good faith in violation of applicable policies. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't edited the article at all. I *have* called a spade a spade in the comments. Interesting that your assessment seems focused on those who aren't part of the anti-Rand crusade. I outlined the essence of what I believed to be the proper course in my original statement, which I was encouraged to do but suspected was a waste of time. The environment doesn't foster a merely neutral synopsis devoid of "positions" one way or the other. What you have now is exactly what the structure encourages - a bloated article with some folks who have a disagreement with Rand trying to use it as a forum to discredit her ideas. The last thing they want is a neutral synopsis.

There are no facts in this proposed finding. I will speak for myself and say that I have not been one who has called others name, but that I have been called names by others. There was no way to avoid asking people to avoid using personal POV, such as when SmashTheState called Rand a psychopath, or when TallNapoleon called her a godless idolator. The fact that they, and others, like Peter Damian, have strange views of Rand and that these views inform their edits is something that merited comment - that does not rise to the level of an attack. In return, I've been called a fanatic, a cultist, a vandal and continually accused of attacking other editors. Empty accusations. There has been a continual flood of attacks and violations of Wikipedia policy (particularly original research, non-neutral point of view, and deleting verifiable sources and the material using the cites). Snowded, Idag, TallNapoleon, SmashTheState, Peter Damian, and CABlankenship have been the ones to fail in good faith, good editing, and observation of Wikipedia Policy. --Steve (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kjaer[edit]

2) Kjaer has edit-warred, canvassed, and abused the RfC process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SteveWolfer[edit]

3) For the last two years, SteveWolfer has repeatedly failed to assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks against others. [27][28][29][30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Steve's comment above requesting more facts. Idag (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content Issues[edit]

4) The Ayn Rand article has complex and controversial content issues that require the help of one or more neutral administrators for a successful resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All the "complexity" is artificially created by trying to twist the definition of "neutral" to mean using it as a forum to debate the substance of her works. If it were simply a factual summary of Ayn Rand's life and works - i.e. a genuinely neutral article it wouldn't be at all complex.TheJazzFan (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Individual 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.

Article Probation[edit]

1) All Ayn Rand-related articles are placed on article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility Restrictions[edit]

2) Users Kjaer, SteveWolfer, and TheJazzFan are hereby placed under civility restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ROFLMAO!!TheJazzFan (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheJazzFan is right - this is beyond what should be taken seriously! No one will find anything a rational adult would consider uncivil in my comportment on this site. Further, people should be ashamed of themselves for wasting so much time with so much untrue twaddle. (That will probably be considered uncivil by the author of this silly request for a civility restriction!) What I have found is that some editors immediately go to an ad hominem attack to buttress weak arguments. Like when making up for a lack of sources, or trying to slip by obvious original research or when pushing a non-neutral point of view by giving undue weight to a minor view point.

With regard to Steve specifically, I recommended civility restrictions for him because of the AGF component of those restrictions. Idag (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SteveWolfer[edit]

3) SteveWolfer is placed on probation for six months. He is also topic banned from editing Ayn Rand and all related articles for one month. While editors should follow all Wikipedia policies, SteveWolfer should pay particular attention to the assume good faith policy and focus on the merits of the proposed edits instead of the motivations of the editor proposing them. He is also encouraged to seek out mentorship from more experienced editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Steve's extensive history of violating AGF and NPA means that he will continue to do this until he is forced to change his ways. Idag (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kjaer[edit]

4) Kjaer is topic-banned from editing Ayn Rand and all Objectivism-related articles for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kjaer is an experienced user. He has previously been blocked for edit-warring on another article.[31] This time, he has manipulated a dispute resolution process (an RfC) and used it to provide justification for edit-warring. While in the last 24 hours he has made an effort to bury the hatchet,[32] only two days ago he posted a section on the talk page in which he attempted to embroil all new editors in his "RfC conflict."[33] This user appears to understand Wikipedia policies, but has violated them repeatedly anyway. Aside from Kjaer's behavioral issues, there are a number of complex content issues that need to be worked out on the Ayn Rand article, and new users and future RfCs are going to be at least somewhat less trustworthy while Kjaer is participating in this article. Idag (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TheJazzFan[edit]

5) TheJazzFan is topic-banned for one year from editing the Ayn Rand article and all other articles that deal with Objectivism or Ayn Rand. This user is also blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While this user is somewhat new, he has shown complete disrespect to other editors, and even to this ArbCom proceeding. He has shown absolutely no willingness to change his behavior, and, therefore, I believe that harsh measures are necessary. Idag (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Decorum[edit]

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content disputes[edit]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry[edit]

3) The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing the progress of discussion is frowned upon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Kjaer canvassed[edit]

1) Kjaer, also known as Ted Keer, has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and the recruitment of meatpuppets to influence discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Behaviour regarding content[edit]

1) The wikipedia policies as described in WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are not optional, and must be applied to inform the content of Ayn Rand.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious, but avoid acronyms. GRBerry 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy regarding inclusion criteria for an article[edit]

2) WP:UNDUE is an important part of the WP:NPOV policy. Its application to Ayn Rand is related to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and other parts of WP:NOT, which is also a wikipedia policy.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accurate, if overdense on acronyms. GRBerry 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' behaviour on talk pages[edit]

3) WP:NPA is a wikipedia policy and WP:TALK is a behavioural guideline that should inform and guide behaviour of editors on Talk:Ayn Rand.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Acronyms again. GRBerry 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of collaborative working[edit]

4) WP:CONSENSUS is a wikipedia policy that must apply to the collaborative working by editors on Ayn Rand and its talk page. In particular, this quote summarises an important part of consensus building: "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The behaviour of disagreeing about content edits[edit]

5) WP:EDITWAR is a wikipedia policy that must apply to behaviour in editing Ayn Rand. It can be supplmented by WP:BRD, which is a useful essay that describes acceptable behaviour to use when disagreeing with the edits of another editor to Ayn Rand.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Edit warring has occurred on Ayn Rand[edit]

1) Edit warring on Ayn Rand occurred.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Many times, with apparently many different groups of editors. GRBerry 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaches of policies and guidelines on Talk:Ayn Rand[edit]

2) Personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, and breaches of WP:TALK occurred and are continuing to occur on Talk:Ayn Rand.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

irr editing restrictions on Ayn Rand[edit]

1) 1rr editing restrictions are placed on all parties in this dispute with respect to their editing of Ayn Rand. They are individually informed of this by messages placed on their talk pages which also indicates the time and date when the restrictions cease. This restriction shall last for a period of 1 year, but the period of time may be varied by ArbCom if they judge it appropriate to do so. They will be told when the period ends by a message placed on their talk pages at that time. New editors who contribute to Ayn Rand are placed under the same restrictions, with the period of time adjusted so that it starts immediately they make a contribution to Ayn Rand, but it ends on the same time and date as for the other editors. They will be informed of the restriction by a message placed on their talk pages, and will also be informed when the restrictions end by a mesaage placed on their talk pages at that time. Any variation in the end time and date for these restrictions shall be made known to all editors under these restrictions by a message on their talk page detailing in each message the complete restrictions operating from that time onwards. DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've made the description slightly wordy to try to prevent the later disagreement over who to, what, and when restrictions apply and when they end that have happened for "The Troubles" dispute(s).  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rigorous application of behavioural policies and guidelines for Talk:Ayn Rand[edit]

2) Editors who are parties to this dispute are placed on immediate editing restrictions on Talk:Ayn Rand. The restrictions limit them so that their contributions to Talk:Ayn Rand rigorously abide by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK policies and guidelines. Editors are allowed no leeway to these restrictions on Talk:Ayn Rand and any violation will result in the enforcement options being applied that ArbCom decide upon. This lasts for a period of 1 year. All new contributors to Talk:Ayn Rand will also be placed under these restrictions, with the end time and date made the same as those for the other editors already under the restrictions. Each editor will be informed of the restrictions by a message placed on each of their talk pages. When the restrictions end, they will also be informed of this at the time and date that they end by a message on their talk pages. Any variation in the end time and date for these restrictions shall be made known to all editors under these restrictions by a message on their talk page detailing in each message the complete restrictions operating from that time onwards.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've made the description slightly wordy to try to prevent the later disagreement over who to, what, and when restrictions apply and when they end that have happened for "The Troubles" dispute(s).  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't article probation essentially incorporate both of the above remedies? Idag (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the proposed remedies for the article and the talk page separate because different kinds of disruption occur on them, different breaches of policies and guidelines apply, and it seemed a good idea to be absolutely explicit about them, which I felt might be better worded if they were dealt with separately. Doing so helps make the proposed remedies very explicit so that the chance of them suffering from the kind of "wriggling" about what they mean, who they apply to, and how long they last that have accompanied "The Troubles" restrictions isn't duplicated. I may be wrong, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think my previous post was very clear. What I meant is that article probation doesn't place any outright restrictions, but if any editor gets out of hand (on either the article or the talk page), an admin could topic ban that editor. I have a problem with the above suggestions because they could really bite new users who are editing in good faith, but wind up violating policies due to inexperience. The admins' ability to topic ban would probably address most of the current concerns while at the same time giving them flexibility to address individual problems. That is, of course, presuming that more admins will monitor the article. Idag (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an issue of enforcement and penalties, which I foresaw would be a part of the next section, and which I haven't attended to yet. In that section I was going to propose that admins would use their discretion to impose all or none of topic bans and blocks or varying scope and length. Obviously, one would hope that a "first offence" in a new editor would be treated with care and not too severely, but for repeat offenders of longstanding, the penalties could be increased. We could buold that into the "enforcement" if that would help. If that were done, would that then deal with the possible "biteyness" of too rigid a set of actions?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would work =) Idag (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Extension of coverage of the previous two restrictions[edit]

3) If ArbCom judge at any time that the disruption on Ayn Rand is occurring on other articles related to Ayn Rand and her work, it may choose to place those articles, talk pages, or both under the same or similar restrictions. The time periods for which those restrictions last can be decided upon by Arbcom. This leave to extend the coverage of the the previous two restrictions can apply at any time up to a period of one year from the start of any restrictions placed on Ayn Rand or its talk page. If editors are unsure which articles may be covered by such restrictions, they should adopt the position that if there is a chance that they could be, they should assume that they are. Arbcom shall endeavour to keep an accurate and up to date public record of which pages are placed under these retrsictions.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is to try to establish a "fire-break" to prevent the dispute merely travelling to articles other than Ayn Rand.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Unlikely to be usefully worded as "if ArbCom judge", however, depending on the committee's read of the ongoing RFC on arbitration enforcement, either discretionary sanctions or an invitation for uninvolved admins to submit clarification motions when they see fit might be useful. GRBerry 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement: General Approach[edit]

1) Adherence to the normal rules for editing on wikipedia and for behaviour on Talk pages is required. The enforcement is merely a means of ensuring that these rules are more carefully monitored by neutral administrators with a more consistent application of guidance and means of protecting the articles and talk pages from disruption. Enforcement should take the form of a combination of blocks and topic bans, either on their own or in combination, applied to editors who fail to adopt the remedies given in the previous sections. Administrators should be particularly aware of the prime need to foster and to maintain a healthy collaborative editing atmosphere in the articles covered by the arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Classes of Editors and the degrees of enforcement for them[edit]

2) Three groups of editors can be distinguished: (A) editors new to wikipedia; (B) editors who are new to the articles covered by this arbitration; and (C) editors named in this arbitration.

Editors in group A failing to adopt the remedies would normally not require formal blocks or topic bans, except if they were found to be sockpuppets (in which case, they fall into group C). Instead, administrators are encouraged to use their discretion in supplying informative messages to and requesting informal mild topic bans from such editors. Repeated failure to adopt the remedies would place these editors into one of the other groups.

Editors in group B would normally expect mild yet formal application of blocks and/or topic bans if they failed to adopt the remedies outlined before. Repeated failure to adopt the remedies would lead to increasing length and scope of blocks and topic bans until they become formally members of the third group.

Editors in group C would normally expect to be given formal blocks and topic bans which need not be of a mild nature if they fail to adopt the remedies given.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrative judgement retained[edit]

3) Administrators are free to use their judgement to vary the scope and length of any topic bans or blocks that are imposed (or of any advice to editors in group A) though in general, the previously mentioned general guidelines for the three identified groups are useful to maintain. This freedom is to enable tailored actions that try to maintain and foster as collaborative and healthy an editing atmosphere as possible on the articles covered by this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Review and recording administrative actions[edit]

4) Administrators are expected to discuss and ask for review of any "difficult" cases on an Arbitration Enforcement page. Administrative action should be recorded in a suitable place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus[edit]

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view[edit]

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly and accurately report all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept behind this principle. Suggest that the term "guiding editorial principle" be linked to the five pillars, and consider changing the term "unforgoable" to "not optional". Risker (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and sourcing[edit]

6) The neutral point of view, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. The neutral point of view is not fulfilled by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. Prevalence in reliable sources determines proper weight. Relying instead on implied arguments, synthesized claims, and the views of Wikipedia editors is contrary to the neutral point of view, and explicitly considered "original research".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Unhelpful, in my opinion, unless ArbCom also deals with the issue of WP:UNDUE and its language. "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."J Readings (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with JReadings. Essentially the question for how to apply Undue with regard to a lack of prevalence is do we look at sources that omit the viewpoint or do we only look at sources that explicitly reject that viewpoint? Idag (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. --Vassyana (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I am still confused a bit, and would really like some kind of clear statement dealing with the negative evidence issues we've been confronting. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just me being dense (which is why I self-reverted), but I must admit that I'm also somewhat confused. How do we determine whether a viewpoint is prevalent without engaging in original research? I.e. if a viewpoint is ignored by a large number of pertinent sources should we ignore those sources when determining prevalence to avoid running afoul of the original research policy? Idag (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying purely as an individual editor: As a general rule, no original research strongly discourages claims not explicitly reported in reliable sources. An argument from silence, particularly involving sources that do not address the topic (Ayn Rand), is very likely to be considered original research. That said, principles in an ArbCom case are necessarily broad (as underlying principles). The NOR noticeboard would be a much more appropriate place to discuss policy and particulars. Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the issues on editor behaviour which brought this to Arbcom in the first place, this is the policy issue raisedand it is a complex issue. For example if one source says she is an amateur philosopher, another says she is a philosopher and both sources have equal weight, then does the absence of mention in other sources of the same nature swing the decision to amateur? If a small group of people with access to money fund journals and books that make a claim, does that outweigh the vast bulk of the material in the field which simply ignore the claim? Similar issues have come up elsewhere on Intelligent Design to take another example. Where we go on this depends a bit on what Arbcom do and the sooner that is out the way the better, then we can determine how to handle these issues (for which the Rand page is just one example). --Snowded (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An argument from silence, particularly involving sources that do not address the topic (Ayn Rand), is very likely to be considered original research." This is the approach that I have taken, but not by itself. I have sought out reliable, verifiable sources that are not silent and have addressed the issue. All of the edit warring, deleting of material and sources, the name-calling, the wikilawyering, and attendent frustration have arisen because of the editors who have insisted that an argument from silence could be made that would overturn the positive sources. And this despite the fact that with Rand, one would expect much more silence, since she chose to present her work in the popular market rather than in academia. And, in addition, her style, the positions she took, and her opposition to many of the positions dear to academic philosophers... these are still more reason to expect silence. But those sources where there is not silence on the subject, what is said is "Rand is a philosopher." --Steve (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve the question of her status as a philosopher is only one of the issues on the Ayn Rand page and not the most important by any means. In that respect there are cited sources for example with call her an "amateur" so its not a simple evidence against null evidence. Most of us have asked for clarification and stated (several times) that if policy allows a limited number of reputable sources to count over negative evidence then we will accept it. When that ruling is made we need to discuss how to handle it rather than just inserting controversial material before the ruling. Given the cited evidence Philosopher cannot be used without qualification is some way, and there is no evidence that it was her "occupation". Once we have the Arbcom ruling there is going to be a need for discussion. However its not the main issue. There are many others, the use of explanations for all criticism, the behaviour of editors, the nature of evidence presented (and many more) all of which require a rulign before we make progress. Your explanation of the reason for the behaviour on the page (blaming only those who disagree with you) is of course par of the course and to be expected. --Snowded (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded you said, "Given the cited evidence Philosopher cannot be used without qualification..." but Wikipedia policy says that is exactly what MUST be done, because that is what the cited evidence shows. What you are doing is making up some new rule that finds no mention in Wikipedia policy. And you go on to say, "...and there is no evidence that it was her 'occupation'." Again, you venture into original research. We have many, many, many reliable, verifiable cited sources that label Rand as "philosopher" and none that say she was not a philosopher. That is the end of the story, but if there was some rule that called for us to do research on her 'occupation' then the fact that she derived income from the sale of books written on original works of philosophy, like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" ought to take care of that. I am not opposed to this ruling you are calling for, but I would be more receptive to your requests if you weren't violating Wikipedia policy by deleting sourced material and violating the non-neutral point of veiw policies while wikilawyering and accusing others of policy violations they haven't commited. --Steve (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice: (i) read what other people say rather than reacting, (ii) try and post the odd comment without accusing the world and his wife of violating policy and (iii) try and realise that people can disagree with you on legitimate grounds and it might be an idea from time to time to deal with them in a less combative manner --Snowded (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't understand all the combativeness and confrontational language. One editor -- not speaking for ArbCom in the least -- offers a vague personal opinion and suddenly this opinion becomes the springboard for telling the rest of us that we are engaging in original research and not familiar with Wikipedia policies. Well, I can only speak for myself when I say that I am familiar with Wikipedia policies and I don't believe that I am engaging in original research. Ultimately, ArbCom decides this problematic thicket and it will be used as precedent to interpret the "undue" language across articles on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake frustration with combatitiveness. Snowded said, "...if policy allows a limited number of reputable sources to count over negative evidence then we will accept it." But saying 'a limited number' is such a mis-statement. Look at this. And one shouldn't have to wait for guidance to observe the existing policy, and one shouldn't be engaging in edit warring over something they are saying they need clarification on. And 'negative evidence' is not evidence, but the absence of evidence. I'm feeling a frustratation born of having my edits deleted along with the cited sources. And it isn't just me. I know of about 6 different editors that no longer edit this article because sourced material is deleted and because of their belief that it's POV based editing and that it won't ever change. My statement didn't say anything about policy violations that hasn't been said on other pages in this ArbCom, by many of the participants. --Steve (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, look, let me be frank. You act as if I were some naive guy who just got off the beginner's boat. I'm not. When I can produce literally hundreds of reliable sources with citations (and I have already) which literally state that Ayn Rand was a novelist by occupation as opposed to relatively few which label her as something else, when I produce reliable sources making no mention of her being a philosopher, and then also produce multiple reliable sources which categorically state (and again I have already) that Ayn Rand was disregarded by academia, only then to ask repeatedly for authoritative (read: ArbCom) rulings of the current wording on the undue weight policy given what we know of WP:FRINGE, it makes little sense for you to repeatedly imply that you must be right and I must be wrong. What's the point, after all? I disagree in good-faith with your reasoning and you disagree with mine, so why must we continually post the same arguments over and over again with no variations? I'm sure you'll agree -- it's both tiresome and boring for us both. I'm just waiting for the ArbCom ruling. So should you. Let's face it: outside of their ruling on this particular matter, everything else is just unhelpful noise. Sorry, but it's true. J Readings (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ I think the various edits can speak for themselves on frustration and combativeness. Long lists of uncited material that contain admitted errors and incorrect inferences does not constitute evidence. You might like to list the six editors for example. As a gesture of good faith (and this must be the tenth time I have asked) you might want to reveal the name of the californian Professor of Philosophy you mention, as "evidence".--Snowded (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Readings, I'll be frank in return. Your views of Rand are peculiar. Contrary to your statement, there is a degree of academic interest in Rand, and sources to that effect have been presented. Your reference to WP:FRINGE is bizarre and out of place in this discussion. We aren't talking about crop circles, alien abductions, or creationism. We are talking about a person who is discussed in philosophy courses, who wrote on philosophy, who has been referred to in authoritative sources as a philosopher, who is in philosophy textbooks as a philosopher. It is true that she is not part of mainstream academic - she disagreed with analytic philosophy, she wrote for the popular market, she disliked the current academic approach to philosophy... but it is so very peculiar for you to reach for WP:FRINGE. --Steve (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view[edit]

• Condensed version of 5) and 6).

6.1) The neutral point of view is the guiding, and unforgoable, editorial principle of Wikipedia. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is contrary to the neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Simpler. Vassyana (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding in a reference to verifiability before the reference to reliable sources, because it is the policy on which the reliable sources guideline is founded. Otherwise, looks good. Risker (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct and decorum[edit]

7) 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption[edit]

8) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Disruption is disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canvassing and meatpuppetry[edit]

9) Canvassing with a biased message and/or requesting intervention from partisan audiences is disruptive and sanctionable behavior. Editors fulfilling a biased or partisan canvassing request may be considered "meatpuppets".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute is focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. It is a long-standing and unresolved conflict.[34]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing environment[edit]

2) The editing environment surrounding the Ayn Rand topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurances. Notably, edit warring continued to occur during this arbitration case.[35][36][37][38][39]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution[edit]

3) Dispute resolution has been underutilized in the Ayn Rand topic area. Content venues, such as the reliable sources and no original research noticeboards, are rarely used. Avenues to resolve conduct concerns, such as requests for comment and the incidents noticeboard, are rarely sought out.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Editors warned[edit]

1) Editors are warned to refrain from edit warring, incivility, soapboxing, and other disruptive behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors encouraged[edit]

2) The editors at the Ayn Rand article are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from MedCab or the Mediation Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content issues[edit]

3) Editors are reminded to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, but the individual content issues are deferred to the consensus process and community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Topic bans[edit]

1) Administrators are strongly encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that for this case, this is likely to be superior to general discretionary sanctions. I take it you feel that page protection use has been fine, and no specific changes are needed on that. I note for the parties that expansions of scope might go in one of a few patterns, as for example:

• Article X, Article X and its talk page, articles about X and their talk pages, any discussion on Wikipedia about articles about X, any content about X and any discussion thereof
• Article Y, articles about Y, any content about Y in any article, ... eventually adding discussions.

These patterns don't have to start at the first step I listed. Were I to become an admin again, I'd use the first pattern where someone is a net negative on a topic, and the second pattern where their talk page discussion is constructive but they are regularly edit warring on the article pages. GRBerry 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks[edit]

2) Administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Vassyana (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: