Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
  • 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 she/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 4 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 /Workshop.

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Edit warring[edit]

1) Edit warring is considered harmful, because it causes ill-will between users and negatively destabilizes articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

3RR[edit]

2) The three-revert rule, which allows administrators to block for more than three content reverts in a single article in 24 hours, is not to be interpreted as an entitlement to three content reverts per article daily. Editors are not to edit disruptively, whether that is fewer than three reverts or not, and consistently making three reverts in a day, or otherwise using reverts instead of more productive editing means, constitutes disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators[edit]

3) Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved. They should not unblock themselves when blocked (unless in hte case that their IP becomes accidentally blocked) and they should not protect pages in which they are involved in a conflict, or protect preferred versions of a page in a conflict. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility[edit]

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Irishpunktom edit wars[edit]

1) Irishpunktom has an extensive history of edit warring. (evidence)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Irishpunktom feels he is entitled to revert[edit]

2) Irishpunktom's habit of making 3 edits in 24 hours to game the WP:3RR (eg [1]), consistent lack of helpful edit summary or justification when reverting (often simply "rv" [2], [3], etc.), and comments like "self revert - gotta wait an hour or so" show Irishpunktom has a clear sense of entitlement to reverts and perceives reverting as a valid editing method.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Irishpunktom is unmoved by blocks[edit]

3) Despite Irishpunktom having a very extensive history of blocks for edit warring and violations of the WP:3RR, with 12 such blocks in the last 18 months, this behavior has failed to change. [4]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though "impervious" is a terribly odd term for it. :-) James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have tweaked the wording, per a suggestion of Timothy Usher's. James F. (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbiv edit wars[edit]

4) Dbiv has engaged in a protracted edit war with Irishpunktom, particularly regarding the article Peter Tatchell. [5]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbiv abuses his admin tools[edit]

5) After being blocked for a 3RR violation, Dbiv used his administrator status to unblock his own account[6], an explicit violation of the blocking policy. During the course of an edit war with Irishpunktom on Peter Tatchell, Dbiv reverted to his preferred version[7] and then protected the article[8], an explicit violation of the protection policy. During the course of his long-term edit war with Irishpunktom, Dbiv has consistently used his administrative rollback tool to revert Irishpunktom's and others' non-vandalism, good faith content edits.[9]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Karl Meier edit wars[edit]

6) Karl Meier has frequently edit warred on a number of articles and with a number of different editors. See list of relevant article edit histories.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Irishpunktom is uncivil[edit]

7) Irishpunktom is uncivil, frequently making assumptions of bad faith such as referring to other editors as racists and bigots for opposition to his edits. [10] [11] [12]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (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.

Article ban[edit]

1) Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Irishpunktom placed on revert parole[edit]

2) Irishpunktom shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Irishpunktom placed on Probation[edit]

3) Irishpunktom is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbiv desysopped[edit]

4) For abuse of protection, unblocking, and rollback powers, as well as poor judgment shown in edit warring, Dbiv is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote based on this Fred Bauder 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. I would support his being allowed to reapply through RfA after a period of time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. first choice ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Recent events have prompted me to change my mind. James F. (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too strong. Far too strong. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Objection removed. James F. (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with James. - SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Way too strong. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Dbiv placed on administrative probation[edit]

4.1) For abuse of protection, unblocking, and rollback powers, as well as poor judgment shown in edit warring, Dbiv is placed on Wikipedia:Administrative probation for one year. If during that year Dbiv engages in further gross violations of administrative responsibility, he may, following a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped or be subject to restrictions on his administrative activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 11:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Based on this Fred Bauder 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Much more sensible. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctantly, but this is essentially a non-remedy. He abused his admin tools, and now we're having a hearing to review that, and our decision is that if he abuses his admin tools, we may have a hearing to review that? Why are we afraid to put teeth to this? Dmcdevit·t 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. distant second ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Karl Meier placed on Probation[edit]

5) Karl Meier is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbiv's administrative status restricted[edit]

6) For one year, Dbiv is explicitly prohibited from unblocking himself for any reason, from using protection on any page to which he has made non-minor edits, or to which Irishpunktom or anyone else with which he has had significant conflict has made non-minor edits, from blocking Irishpunktom or anyone else with which he has had significant conflict, from using rollback in any non-vandalism situations other than to revert himself, or from taking any administrative action regarding a conflict in which he is personally involved. He may be blocked for up to 24 hours for each violation.

Support:
  1. "Administrative Probation" amounts to nothing more than a warning, when the consequence is that we may rehear his case. This remedy is designed to firmly restrict him from things he is already prohibited from doing as an administrator, but it has teeth. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be expected to do this anyway. It may be useful to spell out consequences for particular actions other than having to have another case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Administrative probation is intended to have teeth. Fred Bauder 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Making this a specific restriction on one sysop suggests that it does not already apply to all. What happened to common sense? Prescriptivism, thy name is Wikipedia. James F. (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disruption" is not already forbidden? Should we revoke all current probations? "Personal attacks" are not already forbidden? Should we revoke all current personal attack paroles. Etcetera. The point being, while both are already prohibited, probation/parole gives administrators an uncontroversial, within-process way of dealing with them, where they didn't have one before (and so it escalated to arbitration). It does not suggest that disruption, personal attacks, etc. are not already forbidden to all. This does the same. It just gives admins a way of dealing with it cleanly. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. All the above already applies per policy/custom; agree with above opinions that it makes it sound like a 'this time we really mean it!' kind of ineffectuality. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell and replaced with probation[edit]

7) The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Support
  1. James F. (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would have preferred revert parole because probation enforcement results in, well, article bans, but I'll settle for this, since it seems I'm the only one. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Fred Bauder 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Irishpunktom, Dbiv, or Karl Meier violate any ban or parole, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. A record of all blocks shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement of administrative probation[edit]

2) Should Dbiv be placed on administrative probation the Arbitration Committee shall retain jurisdiction over his behavior for so long as he remains on probation. Complaints about his behavior shall be made directly to the Arbitration Committee which shall after determining the validity and seriousness of the charge take such action as necessary. Complaints to be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motions in prior cases.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, but I'm presuming this won't actually come into effect. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 15 August 2006 (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.

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.

  1. Move to close. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, need to reconsider remedies for Dbiv Fred Bauder 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) My concern is based on this edit confirmed by checkuser Fred Bauder 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, agree with Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Move to close a second time, now stronger remedies applied. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close ➥the Epopt 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. - SimonP 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision&oldid=431105978"