Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister/Decision

This is the summarised decision of the Arbitration committee in the matter of User:Irismeister. Only those points which received a majority of votes are included here. For proposed findings which did not pass, and for the full vote, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister. Decision taken 31 Mar 2004.

Gutza recused himself from this case. He is not included in the vote tallies below.

1. Irismeister has engaged in inappropriate personal attacks. This is against the widely accepted policy to refrain from personal attacks. The following three edits are examples of such attacks:

• This edit to Talk:Alternative medicine, dated 09:19, 9 Feb 2004
• Repeated use of the term "baby" and "baby watching" with respect to Theresa Knott, such as the edit summary dated 15:24, 7 Feb 2004 to Mycobacterium leprae history
• This edit to Talk:Reflexology, dated 15:40, 20 Feb 2004

Accepted 6-0, with three de facto abstentions

2. Irismeister has engaged in legal threats that could be considered a breach of Wikiquette. The following three edits are examples of such threats:

• The edit dated 23:27, 22 Feb 2004, marked (STOP calling me a lier or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours !) on Talk:Disinfectant
• The edit dated 00:24, 20 Feb 2004, marked (Libel, slander, good will and... back to editing :-) on Talk:Iridology
• The edit dated 15:08, 23 Feb 2004, marked (Never fear if you really did nothing wrong in terms of libel) on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Accepted 5-0, with one explicit and three de facto abstentions

3. Certain Wikipedians have made some harsh comments or personal attacks with respect to Irismeister. The following four edits are examples of such inappropriate comments:

• Lord Kenneth's edit dated 12:23, 3 Feb 2004 to User talk:Lord Kenneth
• Theresa knott's edit dated 08:14, 8 Feb 2004 to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister (although Theresa knott later retracted the "nutcase" comment in the edit dated 10:12, 9 Feb 2004 and apologised for it in the edit dated 10:16, 9 Feb 2004)
• DavidWBrooks' edit dated 16:15, 21 Jan 2004 (though DavidWBrooks' later apologied for this "semi-literate" comment twice, in an edit dated 16:36, 21 Jan 2004 and an edit dated of 18:10, 21 Jan 2004)
• DavidWBrooks' edit dated 20:32, 22 Jan 2004

Accepted 5-0, with four de facto abstentions

4. We consider that Irismeister's edits, taken as a whole, show a pattern of harrassment towards Theresa Knott.

Accepted 6-0, with three de facto abstentions

1. DavidWBrooks Theresa knott, Lord Kenneth and Irismeister, are reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette, and are instructed to not engage in personal attacks or harrassment.

Accepted 5-0, with four de facto abstentions

2. Editing by User:Irismeister of the article Iridology is prohibited for an indefinite period.

Accepted 5-0, with one explicit and three de facto abstentions

3. Irismeister's editing privileges are revoked for ten days.

Accepted 5-0, with one explicit and three de facto abstentions

4. User:Irismeister is instructed to desist from attempting to intimidate other users by making unfounded legal threats or by any other means.

Accepted 6-0, with three de facto abstentions