Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Motions and requests by the parties

[edit]

Place those on the discussion page.

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.

1) Enacted: User:Irate is banned from editing Wikipedia for the duration of this case except for the pages User:Irate, User talk:Irate and the arbitration case pages relating to him.

Support:
  1. sannse (talk) 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 22:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note this injunction does not wait 24 hours, btw.
  4. Fred Bauder 22:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 22:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

No personal attacks

[edit]

1) No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 16:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

[edit]

1) User Irate has engaged in personal attacks [1], [2], [3], and "Shit for Brains".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 04:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 16:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Promise to restrain self

[edit]

2) Since making the above attacks, Irate has stated that he will "undertake to act in a more restrained manner in future."

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. Yes, he has said that. I don't believe him for a picosecond, but he has said that. ➥the Epopt 19:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 16:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure where this is Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to restrain self

[edit]

3) Despite undertaking to act in a more restrained manner in future, Irate has failed to do so. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Support:
  1. David Gerard 20:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 16:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
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.

Suspended personal attack parole

[edit]

1) If, after the closure of this case, Irate continues to engage in personal attack, the Arbitration Committee may, upon notification of this fact, choose to subject Irate to a personal attack parole of a duration of three months wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 14:59, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. We wouldn't be anywhere near this lenient if it wasn't for the initial promise. If he returns to his old behaviour, then he deserves the full parole. Ambi 15:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. He has made no useful contributions and has made many rude demands — I don't accept his parole, and think a stiffer sentence will be required to get his attention ➥the Epopt 19:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. IRC conversation has changed my mind. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) If, after the closure of this case, Irate continues to engage in personal attacks, the Arbitration Committee may, upon notification of this fact, choose to subject Irate to a personal attack parole of a duration of one year wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Ambi 15:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) I expect that this will be in addition to a ban
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. He has made no useful contributions and has made many rude demands — I don't accept his parole, and think a stiffer sentence will be required to get his attention ➥the Epopt 19:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Personal attack parole

[edit]

1.1.1) Irate is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Support:
  1. I consider the unfounded allegations of vandalism etc. to be personal attacks, and so vote to activate the personal attack parole. (I agree this does not need a new case, a vote here should be sufficient.) -- sannse (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am very concerned about the abuse of the rfc proccess. RFCs are not there to use as a tool to whack someone over the head with just because you don't like something they did. It says at the top of the RFC page that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Starting an rfc that is bound to fail is simply a way of making a personal attack. I vote to activate the personal attack parole. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with both Sannse and Theresa -- activate the parole. →Raul654 16:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yep. - David Gerard 17:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 17:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Concur ➥the Epopt 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

[edit]

2) Irate's pattern of personal attacks and assumptions of widespread bad faith and his return to such are unlikely to change in the near future. As such, he is banned from editing for three months. Any personal attack parole starts at the end of the ban.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 20:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Third choice, if 2.1 or 2.2 don't pass. First choice, to avoid crossing the streams. David Gerard 22:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Third choice. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) first choice
  4. Second choice. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I need to give this idea more consideration. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

2.1) Irate's pattern of personal attacks and assumptions of widespread bad faith and his return to such are unlikely to change in the near future. As such, he is banned from editing for six months. Any personal attack parole starts at the end of the ban.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 20:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) First choice Third David Gerard 22:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. First choice ➥the Epopt 21:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) second choice
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Second choice. mav 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Second choice. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I need to give this idea more consideration. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

2.2) Irate's pattern of personal attacks and assumptions of widespread bad faith and his return to such are unlikely to change in the near future. As such, he is banned from editing for twelve months. Any personal attack parole starts at the end of the ban.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 20:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Second choice, if 2.1 doesn't pass. Second David Gerard 22:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Second choice ➥the Epopt 21:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) third choice - I'd like to try less than a year first
  4. Neutralitytalk 05:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I need to give this idea more consideration. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if such a longer ban period will be useful. mav 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[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.

Move to close - we're done here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:40, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  1. David Gerard 15:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. agree to close -- sannse (talk) 15:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) (valid 14:40, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC))
  3. Close mav 15:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 16:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Close ➥the Epopt 20:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Close Fred Bauder 20:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose for the moment; recently held another IRC discussion with this user and would like to give him another chance to prepare a statement (see the log on the mailing list). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:13, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    If anything, that conversation reinforces my belief. Still support closing. Ambi 03:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion to reclose

[edit]

(reopened for remedy 1.1.1 in late July)

  1. I have placed the personal attack parole on Administrative action requested and move this case be closed. Fred Bauder 00:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 00:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed sannse (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC) as this is not a full case, we should waive the 24 hour wait to close.[reply]
  4. Good to me - David Gerard 12:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irate/Proposed_decision&oldid=808011247"