Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/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, 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.
  • 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 they so choose. 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 7 are away or inactive, so 4 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]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harrassment[edit]

1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Combatting harassment[edit]

2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though one must be careful as that something is clearly harassment. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Links to attack site[edit]

3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An attack site is a fortiori not a reliable source. We can link to reliable criticism, but not to such sites. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. What is meant by an attack site? I agree that provocatively linking to sites that attack Wikipedia users is a problem, but this finding could be interpreted as banning all critical external links. For instance [1] is certainly attacking Mother Teresa, but its inclusion in that article is quite justifiable. - SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity[edit]

4) Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guilt by association[edit]

5) Participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Wikipedia is not an actionable offense in itself.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We don't have any real basis for telling people what to do with their time. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Requests for deletion[edit]

6) Involvement by Wikipedia users in debates regarding deletion, even of subjects they are involved in, is not an actionable offense.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Support of harassment[edit]

7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a far better proposal than 3. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Karma[edit]

8) Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Users may edit anonymously[edit]

9) Users, including administrators, may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Many edit anonymously[edit]

10) For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians, including many administrators, edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Outing sites as attack sites[edit]

11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Added from)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of MONGO[edit]

1) It is alleged that MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been harassed by Kirkharry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Todd_Lanuzzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hmmm1111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Keystone23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Trazombigblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) criticized MONGO's efforts to defeat the harassment, Request for comment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Attack article[edit]

2) A article attacking MONGO was created at Encyclopædia Dramatica, hereafter ED.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editing on ED[edit]

3) MONGO apparently edited the article at Encyclopædia Dramatica. Checkuser was run and his ip disclosed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Method of harrassment[edit]

4) The MONGO article on ED was made the featured article, links were posted on Wikipedia to it, and screenshots of the main page of ED with that article on it uploaded to Wikipedia. MONGO responded by deleting the links and images and protecting the article on ED. He was upset.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rootology[edit]

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was involved in the Bantown deletion debate and strongly argued against deletion of Encyclopædia Dramatica, see [2]. In addition to complaining about MONGO's efforts to defeat harassment [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], complained about Mongo's edits to ED Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details. Rootology was himself involved in tendentious editing of Encyclopædia Dramatica [8].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Weevlos[edit]

6) Weevlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has copied charges against MONGO and other administrators to User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence. These were originally placed on his talk page by Trazombigblade [9].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Karwynn[edit]

7) Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has compiled evidence regarding MONGO at User talk:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO[edit]

8) MONGO was criticized for removing the link to ED while it was protected and made this response [10]. This is while the attack page on him was the featured article on ED. The debate on page protection. He has made accusations regarding rootology and SchmuckyTheCat Discussion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Badlydrawnjeff[edit]

9) Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits under the same name on ED, but is lately inactive there. He has been mildly critical regarding the MONGO incident.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Encyclopædia Dramatica[edit]

10) Encyclopædia Dramatica (ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Wikipedia. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Provocative material on ED[edit]

11) ED contains a few articles which sharply satirize prominent Wikipedians, including an article on MONGO which was featured on its Main Page. That article includes a number of specific alleged "misdeeds". There have been efforts on Wikipedia to link to, and in one case, import such material from ED.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Involvement on ED by Wikipedia users[edit]

12) There are several Wikipedia users who also edit on ED, including at least two sysops there. There is an extended discussion of their alleged responsibility at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deletion of ED[edit]

13) As the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) the article was recently deleted. The reason given was that the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source. A number of Wikipedia users known or suspected of involvement with ED argued for its retention while MONGO and users aligned with his position argued for deletion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fuckface[edit]

14) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a prominent editor on ED, Fuckface, see Image:MongoUSDHS.jpg which was uploaded by ED user "Fuckface" and used in the MONGO article there. The user contributions of Fuckface show him to be the principal editor there who has created articles which harass Wikipedia users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rootology and PrivateEditor[edit]

15) There is substantial evidence that Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PrivateEditor are the same user Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence#Is_Rootology_an_ED_user.3F. Rootology has admited that Private Editor is his account [11].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Changed in the light of [12]. Fred Bauder 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site[edit]

16) Numerous pages of the Encyclopedia Dramatica website purport to disclose detailed information concerning the names, geographical locations, ISP's, and personal attributes of various Wikipedia administrators and editors. Any Wikipedian whose conduct assists the ED editors in compiling and publicizing such information has acted contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Links to ED[edit]

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO[edit]

2) No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors of ED[edit]

3) Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

PrivateEditor[edit]

4) PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rootology banned[edit]

5) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:54, 18 October 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. All principles, findings, etc. have passed. Jayjg (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 14:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close Fred Bauder 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. close ➥the Epopt 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037705791"