Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 16 active Arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although I do not suggest that every one of these aspects is implicated by G.-M. Cupertino's editing. (This comment applies to some of other other proposed principles as well.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum[edit]

2) 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.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fait accompli[edit]

3) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this was the one thing i was iffy about bringing into this case, as it is tagged on in the evidence rather briefly and not followed upon in the FoF. I'll keep my support here, but I have no problem with it not passing, since it's not all that necessary. Wizardman 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I see FloNight's point but for the would-be controversial edits we have noticeboards for that reason (especially for non-admins). FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing potentially libelous edits to a Notice Board defeats the purpose of removing them. The reality is that some of our BLP articles have defamatory material added that needs to be removed repeatedly. Bots catch the worst, but more subtle edits need to be monitored by humans. Our editors answering OTRS complaints frequently work together to monitor some articles. I agree that educating less experienced users about Wikipedia policies should happen on the talk pages of these articles, but the priority needs to be removal of the problematic content since experience shows that often the content is added by single purpose accounts. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per below comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Discussion is an important way to reach consensus and it needs to be encouraged as a way to settle editing disputes and user conduct problems, but I think that in some instances it is appropriate for users to make edits against local talk page consensus if they are experienced users following policy. This particularly true for editors that monitor articles for copyright violations and problematic content in biographies of living people. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Move to oppose since this is not an important aspect of the case. We can tweak the wording in another case as needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider proposing an alternative wording that would address your concern. Alternatively, we could drop the principle from this case (because it is not really tracked in the findings of fact below anyway) and work on refining it elsewhere as needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two valid options. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per FloNight. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure what this has to do with this case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waiting to see if alternative wording is proposed, but this has a tenuous relationship to the case. Risker (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli[edit]

3.1) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits. However, this does not include editors enforcing well-established policy against local consensus, such as removing BLP violations or copyright infringement.

Support:
  1. Proposed alternate wording. Added the closing caveat that this does not apply to the enforcement of well-established policy, pointing out the examples raised above. Vassyana (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, though I don't think it's imperative to pass 3 or 3.1 for this case. Wizardman 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No evidence to support this being related to this case. The concept of fait accompli may well be worth examining in another case in which it plays a role, but it would be a stretch to consider the edits made in this case to reach this threshhold. Risker (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I support the new wording but do not see it as needed for this case. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The conflict in this case revolves around the ability or inability of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to edit constructively and work civilly with other users.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (I did some minor copyediting and moved the link to the first mention of the user.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. more so since the socking anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

G.-M. Cupertino[edit]

2) G.-M. Cupertino has engaged in repeated incivility and personal attacks ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), edit warring ([6], [7], [8], [9]) and sockpuppetry ([10]).

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Added the word "repeated".) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Further evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

G.-M. Cupertino banned[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A ban is warranted here. I am not as convinced that the maximum ban of a full year is needed, but I will support it because the user has expressed no interest in addressing the issues raised by the case or changing his behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I took some time to consider this. Essentially, per Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. momentarily, I need to think on some options. Does strike me as harsh but given no interest in addressing the issues, probably support ofter some musing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G.-M. Cupertino restricted to one user account[edit]

2) Should G.-M. Cupertino return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Added introductory clause; minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) After G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) selects a single account for editing, his other accounts, including any newly discovered accounts, are to be blocked (or remain blocked) indefinitely. Furthermore, for any future breaches of the one account restriction remedy, G.-M. Cupertino may be blocked (or a block extended) for an appropriate period of time by any administrator. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vassyana (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Currently passing are

Principles 1, 2, 4
Findings of Fact 1, 2
Proposed remedies 1, 2
Proposed enforcement 1

Currently not passing are

Principle 3 - One oppose, needs one more support to pass.
Principle 3.1

-- Mailer Diablo 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

  1. Move to close. We have agreement on all proposals necessary to resolve the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Noting the ban passes because of the absention. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Kirill 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Presuming the ban passes, then yes, close. Wizardman 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. No need to salvage principle 3. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Close. Vassyana (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/G.-M._Cupertino/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507095"