Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/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, one Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 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 considered harmful[edit]

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Userpages[edit]

3) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Wikipedia policies.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fair use[edit]

4) Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, official policy on Wikipedia, states, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace". This precludes the use of images under a "fair use" doctrine on Wikipedia user pages.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stalking[edit]

5) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith; all parties are expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly reverting is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of sysop powers[edit]

6) Administrators must not use their sysop powers against editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content or policy dispute.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But this asks for scrupulous behaviour, not letter of the law (per Jayjg's point). Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Vague finding which will inevitably be used for wikilawyering. What does "policy dispute" mean? This goes against existing policy. Furthermore, not all "sysop powers" are equal; for example, currently available tools allow all editors access to rollback functions far more powerful than "admin rollback". Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I feel this is remaking policy without sufficient justification - or clarity. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Revert warring on Netoholic's user page[edit]

1) Netoholic (talk · contribs) revert-warred ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) with Locke Cole (talk · contribs) ([6]), Dbenbenn (talk · contribs) ([7]), and David Levy (talk · contribs) ([8]) over the inclusion on Netoholic's user page of various images used under the "fair use" doctrine, whose inclusion on a userpage directly contravened Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy.

This continued despite numerous warnings to Netoholic that he was contravening the policy. ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13])

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Revert warring by parties[edit]

2) Netoholic (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) have engaged in revert warring on various pages throughout the template namespace.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Stalking[edit]

3) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has consistently engaged in behaviour similar to stalking Netoholic (talk · contribs) about the wiki, contributing in the form of argument against Netoholic to many pages that had been untouched before Netoholic arrived there.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Netoholic given leeway, and violated this[edit]

4) Following his previous Arbitration Committee decision, Netoholic (talk · contribs) received permission from the Committee to violate the specifics of this decision, provided that he did not cause disruption. However, Netoholic has indeed subsequently caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Locke Cole misrepresented Netoholic's restrictions[edit]

5) On several occasions, Locke Cole, when reporting or noting to others on Netoholic's actions, stated that Netoholic was restricted from certain namespaces, failing to note that this has been lifted by the Committee; at best, this was a significant mis-reading of the Committee's decision, despite being informed that the Committee had said that we would re-impose bans as necessary.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

David Levy using sysop powers whilst involved[edit]

6) Sysop David Levy (talk · contribs) abused his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC) There are 900 sysops. Let another one do it; don't fight your own private war. Just to clarify that this has been withdrawn in favour of F6.1. James F. (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is not obvious, so at the very least I want a FoF with diffs showing prior involvement. I'm still thinking about this and will make an alternate proposal if I decide there was involvement (if no one else does). Dmcdevit·t 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This finding and the evidence underlying it are a huge expansion on current blocking policy, which is very specific and restricted. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I completely agree with James. That being said, I'm not convinced that 'abuse' is a word I can support in this case. Charles Matthews 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would dropping the "ab" prefix suffice to gain your support? James F. (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'Used his sysop powers'- yes, why not. Charles Matthews 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per Charles Matthews, Jayjg, Dmcdevit. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 12:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

... used, not "abused"[edit]

6.1) Sysop David Levy (talk · contribs) used his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC) As I suggested.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I still don't find that the evidence shows this rises to the level of inclusion in this case. Dmcdevit·t 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Dmcdevit. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Locke Cole making personal attacks on Netoholic[edit]

7) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) repeatedly made personal attacks against Netoholic (talk · contribs) during the course of this Arbitration case, despite warnings to cease. [14] [15]

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Honestly believe" it all you want, but that kind of confrontational language is exactly how we got here. Dmcdevit·t 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. More a comment on the arbitration Fred Bauder 13:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Bans in Netoholic 2 reinstated in modified form[edit]

1) For persistent edit warring, Netoholic (talk · contribs) is banned from editing in the template namespace for one year from the end of this case, and is restricted to one revert per page per day. It is noted that it is and always was the intent of the namespace bans to encourage participation in the mentorship arrangement - it was not intended to prevent Netoholic from working productively.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Netoholic and Locke Cole not to interact with each other[edit]

2) Netoholic (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Netoholic reminded to follow fair use policy[edit]

3) Netoholic (talk · contribs) is reminded to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

David Levy reprimanded[edit]

4) David Levy is reprimanded in the strongest possible terms for abusing his sysop powers whilst engaged in a dispute, and should be aware that any further examples seen by the Committee will likely lead to his loss of sysop status. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from fellow, uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Neither the evidence nor current policy (blocking and other) support this finding. The Arbitration Committee should not make unilateral and massive changes to policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly disagree that it is a change, let alone a significant one, and given that it has not-inconsiderable external support, the choice of the term "unilateral" seems... odd. James F. (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy discusses using blocks to gain an advantage in a current article content dispute, this expands it to any conflict of any sort, ever. That's significant. And if the Arbitration Committee makes this change, rather than the community, then it is unilateral. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In line with what I said on the FoF. Charles Matthews 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 12:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Locke Cole banned for a month for harassment[edit]

5) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is banned for one month for harassing Netoholic.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure what this will solve that 2 and 6 can't prevent. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Locke Cole placed on revert parole[edit]

6) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is limited to one non-vandalism revert per page per day for one year. Each non-vandalism revert must be marked as such and accompanied by reasoning on the relevant talk page.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Presumably this reference to "content revert"s would only cover edits to the main namespace; as such, I don't think that it's necessary (yet). Certainly, there's no FoF to require this. James F. (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC) This is fine. James F. (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was meant for the significant amount of edit warring, as attested by the FoFs, in the template and Wikipedia namespace (so I used "per page" and not per article). I changed "content revert" to "non-vandalism revert" to make this more clear. Dmcdevit·t 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes a great deal more sense. :-) James F. (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of namespace ban[edit]

1) Should Netoholic (talk · contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. No week-> ratchet; noose to hang himself, etc. etc.. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement of interaction ban[edit]

2) Should Netoholic (talk · contribs) or Locke Cole (talk · contribs) violate their bans in Remedy 2, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement of revert parole[edit]

3) Should Netoholic (talk · contribs) or Locke Cole (talk · contribs) violate their revert paroles in Remedies 1 and 6, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Err... Remedy 1 isn't a revert restriction, it's a namespace editing ban. James F. (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC) OK, this is fine. James F. (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedy one is Netoholic's reinstated revert parole as well: "and is restricted to one revert per page per day." Dmcdevit·t 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right you are. James F. (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 23:39, 7 June 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.

  • The majority vote is 5.
  • All proposed Principles pass
  • Proposed Findings 1-5 pass.
  • Finding 6 was withdrawn.
  • There is considerable opposition to proposed Findings 6.1 and 7 (concerning alleged personal attacks by Locke Cole, and David Levy's use of his sysop powers), and they will fail if this case is closed now.
  • Remedies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 pass.
  • Remedy 4, "David Levy reprimanded", fails.
  • All Enforcements pass
  • This case will be closed when there is a clear four net vote to close.

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. Appears to be finished: Close. Dmcdevit·t 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Erm. It's not finished - see the FoFs. Against closing. James F. (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, didn't check it closely enough. Voted there now. Dmcdevit·t 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Finished now. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It really isn't; see where Tony wrote "Proposed findings of fact 6.1 and 7 [...] are still under discussion now"? :-) James F. (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't pass anymore with the current votes though. I think it's time to close this. Dmcdevit·t 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close Fred Bauder 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close ➥the Epopt 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733886"