Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Moby Dick

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 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

Identity

edit

1) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment

edit

2) Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Coolcat, Davenbelle, and Stereotek.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

CheckUser and common interests Davenbelle, Moby Dick

edit

1) CheckUser results show Moby Dick edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's ___location. Edits show a common interest in Kurdish and Turkish issues.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Prior behavior by Davenbelle

edit

2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek involved findings that Davenbelle had inappropriately focused on the activities of Cool Cat.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Moby Dick has harassed other editors

edit

3) Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence#User stalks and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop#Bicycle.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 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.

Moby Dick banned from certain articles

edit

1) Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) At least.[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Moby Dick prohibited from harassing Cool Cat or Megaman Zero

edit

2) Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or Megaman Zero.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Acceptable, though second choice. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not necessary to state, but can't hurt either. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Acceptable but like Dmcdevit second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Hmm. Not sure that this is sensible wording - everyone is prohibited from harassing others, as it's prohibited behaviour. :-) "Prohibited from interacting with"?[reply]
  2. Prefer 2.1. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick may be blocked for continuing to harass

edit

2.1) Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans. This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any other user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is deemed necessary.

Support:
  1. This accomplishes the same (except for the last sentence, which I don't think is controversial) as passing remedy 2 and enforcement 2, except that I think, as with James' comments, it is preferable to leave absolutely no implication that anyone isn't already prohibited from harassment. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Preferred. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Enforcement of subject ban by block

edit

1) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on editing certain areas, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement of ban on harassment

edit

2) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on harassment, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Maybe "Should, in the opinion of any sysop, Moby Dick continue to harass Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked [...]"?[reply]
  3. If remedy 2 passes, otherwise this is superseded by 2.1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree that 2.1 is superior. SimonP 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

I am not particularly happy with these propositions. I am relying heavily on the judgement of Tony Sidaway and MONGO, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick/Evidence#Three_administrators_identify_Moby_Dick_as_a_probable_sock_of_Davenbelle. Fred Bauder 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Close case. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close - SimonP 12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Raul654 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close ➥the Epopt 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick/Proposed_decision&oldid=431108273"