Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" 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.

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.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

[edit]

Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

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.

Prohibition from editing Artificial consciousness

[edit]

Enacted. 1) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell (Psb777) are prohibited from editing Artificial consciousness for the duration of this case.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 13:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) They can still edit the talk page, I assume, and try to convince others of their case.
  4. ➥the Epopt 17:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

No personal attacks

[edit]

1) No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility

[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary

[edit]

3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No original research

[edit]

4) No original research.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Information must be published in a reputable source

[edit]

4.1) The test of whether something is original research or part of the body of human knowledge is whether or not the information or viewpoint has been published in a generally circulated work or peer-reviewed journal.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Gah, no. While that is entirely appropriate in this case, there are a myriad of other examples where this isn't applicable or appropriate. Ambi 12:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    We are working on principles here which apply to this case. Fred Bauder 13:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Then you may want to limit this to science topics (or some other such classification). As it stands, it is very general, and could be interpreted as setting an awful precedent against the wishes of the community (as with the recent mailing list debate about using Usenet as a source in some instances). Ambi 15:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
Abstain:

Cite sources

[edit]

5) Cite sources. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources." This particularly applies to controversial additions.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:02, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Terse version here.
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Adequate citation

[edit]

5.1) A citation must contain information sufficient to identify the specific language relied on in the reference.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. It's a bit vague. Ambi 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. what? sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. this statement doesn't seem to meet its own standard ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)


Neutral point of view

[edit]

6) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note 5, of course.
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

[edit]

7) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:01, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC) as always... I see disruption, but not the specific case of disruption to prove a point.[reply]
Abstain:

Sockpuppets

[edit]

8) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Support:
  1. Ambi 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Anonymous users are allowed to edit Wikipedia

[edit]

9) While some Wikipedians consider anonymous editors less credible than logged-in editors, anonymous users have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and the community has consistently rejected all moves to block anonymous users from editing. See m:Foundation issues.

Support:
  1. Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Creation of article

[edit]

1) On July 22, 2003, after a false start by another editor User:Tkorrovi created the article artificial consciousness [1]. Initially citing no authority, as he refined the article he included a reference to the book "Impossible minds" by Igor Aleksander, ISBN 1860940307 and to a website he controls: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/database/2/ [2]. On July 31, 2004 User:Heron copyedited the article [3]. After several more edits by Tkorrovi [4], [5] the article assumed the final form found by User:Psb777 (Paul Beardsell) when he made his first edit on March 8, 2004 [6]. This edit contravenes certain facts in the article but also cites no specific references.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. (although I'm not entirely sure this is necessary) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:21, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this

Original research and lack of references

[edit]

2) Following Paul Beardsell's entry into editing the article, a few others also tried, but all who edited the article relied on argument and reason rather than references to published information. This is nicely captured by the disputants pointing out on March 13, 2004 the authority the other was relying on, [7] [8], their own! An exception is a link to this discussion at [9]. But again the discussion soon reverts to argument [10]. Later that day a new organization of the article was proposed by Paul Beardsell, but again without reference to any authority.


Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. (although I'm not entirely sure this is necessary) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:21, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this

Tkorrovi's point of view

[edit]

2.1) Tkorrovi's point of view, derived from the ai-forum, is set forth nicely at [11] and [12]. Artificial consciousness is not consciousness but observed manifestation of the attributes of consciousness. This subtlety was seldom appreciated by later editors as they wrestled with the question of how a machine could be conscious in the sense that humans are [13]. this edit clearly shows that Tkorrovi relied on forum discussion on the ai-forum for authority.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. (although I'm not entirely sure this is necessary) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:21, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this

The ai-forum

[edit]

2.2) The ai-forum is a sophisticated on-going discussion of artificial intelligence topics but does not meet Wikipedia requirements of being a reliable authority.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. (although I'm not entirely sure this is necessary) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:21, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this
  2. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

State of the article

[edit]

2.3) Artificial consciousness, despite much progress, continues to contain a great deal of discussion without reference to specific language in any published authority.

Support:

  1. Fred Bauder 12:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this

Source of contention

[edit]

3) The article Artificial consciousness has been a continued point of contention between the users Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell.

Support:
  1. Start with the obvious... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:38, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. sannse (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Revert-warring

[edit]

4) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell have revert-warred with each other on the article artificial consciousness. [14], [15], [16],

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:41, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. sannse (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

[edit]

5) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell have engaged in frequent and innumerable personal attacks on each other. [17] , [18] , [19] (especially [20] [21] [22] [23]), [24], [25], [26], "stop trolling", [27]


Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:52, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC) There's a lot more from both than are listed - see evidence.[reply]
  3. Evidence is cited on the evidence page. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Need to see more evidence with Tkorrovi before I'd support this. Ambi 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. sannse (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC) The two do not seem equivalent to me, see 3.1[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Too sweeping
Abstain:

5.1) Paul Beardsell has engaged in innumerable personal attacks on Tkorrovi [28] , [29] , [30] (especially [31] [32] [33] [34]) and on other members of the community [(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grunt&diff=next&oldid=14824529]). Tkorrovi has also made some personal attacks [35], [36], [37], "stop trolling", [38]

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ambi 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:10, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 16:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I still feel there's been more attacks by Tkorrovi than this would suggest. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:30, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

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.

Regarding unreferenced information

[edit]

1) Any information in the article artificial consciousness which is unreferenced or referenced by an inadequate source may be removed by any Wikipedia user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm supporting because it's a restatement of something people are already allowed to do; though it verges close to affecting users not involved in this case. Ambi 03:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Weak support, as Ambi, because it does not get at the major issue in this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:54, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) OK, on the basis of P5 above
  6. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Adequate citation required

[edit]

1.1) In order to be considered adequately referenced information must be supported by a citation sufficient to permit a person familiar with the topic artificial consciousness to identify the language relied on in the cited reference.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Weak support (it only addresses a minor issue and does not get at the major issue in this case). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:54, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) we don't need this
  2. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of unreferenced information

[edit]

2) Should User:Tkorrovi or Paul Beardsell reinsert any unreferenced or poorly referenced material in the article artificial consciousness they may be banned for a short period (up to a week for repeat violations).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. While I agree, I'll support only on the grounds that 3.1 or a form of it passes. I think some form of ban is necessary, and I'm not convinced that these two are capable of working cooperatively on it, original research or not. If it doesn't pass, consider this an oppose. Ambi 03:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Weak support (it only addresses a minor issue and does not get at the major issue in this case). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:54, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't see this as the key issue
Abstain:

Ban on editing Artificial consciousness

[edit]

3) Due to a demonstrated inability to work with each other on artificial consciousness, Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell are prohibited from editing that article indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:55, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC) agree with Ambi[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Would rather go back to basic principle of requiring information regarding this speculative topic be well referenced.
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm still unsure about how to handle Tkorrovi; would support as far as Paul Beardsell goes. Ambi 22:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Tkorrovi's been less obnoxious than Psb777, but that doesn't make his behaviour the least bit acceptable. The article could do with the rest - David Gerard 22:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not, but I'm reluctant to hit both parties with the same penalty when the behaviour hasn't been equally as bad. Ambi 11:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) Due to a demonstrated inability to work with each other on artificial consciousness, Paul Beardsell is banned from editing the article indefinitely, and Tkorrovi for a period of three months.

Support:
  1. Reword as necessary - I think this is fairer. Ambi 11:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. as Ambi below, this is worth a try -- sannse (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:54, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This will not sufficiently motivate Tkorrovi to learn to work with others. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
    That Tkorrovi has behaved badly is true, but frankly, he's not been anywhere near as bad as Paul Beardsell (making the equal bans unfair), and I'd like to give him the opportunity to edit without having to put up with someone who bullies him. Should he show that he still cannot work well with others after that point, I'm entirely prepared to throw the book at him then. Ambi 02:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Would rather go back to basic principle of requiring information regarding this speculative topic be well referenced.
Abstain:

Personal attack parole

[edit]

4) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell are placed under a six-month personal attack parole. Should any administrator consider one of their edits constitutes a personal attack, they may block the offender for up to 24 hours.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Either is just fine by me[reply]
  2. Second choice. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Although I support this... I'd like to point out to Tkorrovi that, while there were many personal attacks from Paul, not all comments described as such by Tkorrovi were attacks. "you are wrong" is not a personal attack.[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Would support for Paul Beardsell; need to see more evidence before making up mind on Tkorrovi. Ambi 22:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Ambi. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

4.1) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell are placed under indefinite personal attack parole, unless and until they succeed in a joint appeal to have the ban on editing artificial consciousness lifted. Should any administrator consider one of their edits constitutes a personal attack, they may block the offender for up to 24 hours.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Either is just fine by me[reply]
  2. First choice. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC) In another case, this might be a very good proposal. In this case I'm not convinced that it would be fair.[reply]
  2. On the basis of the collective punishment appeal mechanism. Making someone who is being bullied join with the bully to appeal a penalty is cruel. Ambi 16:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 12:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC) I do not support a ban for either party from editing the article.
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Would support for Paul Beardsell; need to see more evidence before making up mind on Tkorrovi. Ambi 22:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Tkorrovi's been less obnoxious than Psb777, but that doesn't make his behaviour the least bit acceptable - David Gerard 22:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree, but I'd prefer to see a time-limited parole for Tkorrovi (I think six months would be appropriate), and the removal of the joint appeal, which I'm afraid is a really bad idea. Ambi 11:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Joint appeal

[edit]

1) Should, after a period of three months, Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell feel they can work productively with each other, they may issue a joint appeal to have the above ban on editing artificial consciousness lifted.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:57, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Appeals are always good, but allow them to appeal individually. If they get their individual acts together, then all is well and good. Let's not get ourselves involved with collective punishment. Ambi 11:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

1.1) Should, after the above ban on editing artificial consciousness expires, Tkorrovi demonstrate that he can work productively on editing that article, he may apply to have other restrictions placed on him lifted.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 02:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 05:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 16:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

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. sannse (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) if we leave out those parts that did not attract enough votes at all, then we have our decision on this overdue case. I think we should close.[reply]
  2. Support Fred Bauder 16:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 19:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 20:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision&oldid=808013809"