Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Proposed decision

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, 2 Arbitrators is/are recused (Mindspillage, Karynn) and 3 (Sannse David Gerard, Fennec) is/are 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.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Temporary ban on editing

1) Based on evidence of repeated removal of posts by others on talk pages, [1] -Ril- (talk • contribs) is banned pending resolution of this matter from editing any page other than his own user and talk pages and the RfC on him and this Arbitration. Removal of comments by others from the pages he is not banned from will result in a ban from those pages also.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. David Gerard 15:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Oppose (for now at least), 1.1 should do for the moment.
  2. Concur with David. →Raul654 16:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 13:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Temporary ban on editing 2

1.01) Taking into consideration the basis for the, now lifted, indefinite block of -Ril- by UninvitedCompany with broad community support, see User talk:-Ril-/ban, an event which occurred following rejection of the rejected proposal 1) above, -Ril- is banned pending resolution of this matter from editing any page other then his own user pages and the pages of this arbitration.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Alternative temporary ban on editing

1.1) For the duration of this case, -Ril- is not to remove others' comments from talk pages at all excepting his own talk page.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC) (second choice)
  2. David Gerard 15:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Yep. Note that we will expand this if needed. I would also ask -Ril- to please try harder to be civil in interacting with others, even if you think they really don't deserve it.
  3. →Raul654 16:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 13:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Disruption

1) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Speedy deletion criteria

2) Users should only tag articles for speedy deletion that meet the Criteria for speedy deletion

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Users expected to heed warnings

3) At the least, users are expected to respond to administrators' warnings about improper behavior. Users are generally expected to heed such warnings.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Improper usernames and signatures

4) Users with improper usernames or signatures may be required to change them.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Modifying other users' comments

5) Other than for archiving or formatting purposes, modifying another user's comments is something that should be done only in exceptional circumstances.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Repeated erroneous speedy deletion tagging

1) Ril repeatedly added speedy deletion tags to articles for reasons not listed in the criteria for speedy deletion. [2][3][4][5] He did so even after repeated warnings [6][7][8]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Removing others' comments

2) Ril has repeatedly removed other users' comments from various discussions [9][10][11]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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.

[edit] Sig change

1) Ril is required to adopt an un-confusing signature.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 04:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 1 month ban for removing others' comments

2) Ril is banned for one month for removing others' comments (all bans to run consecutively)

Support:
  1. →Raul654 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 1 week ban for incorrect CSD tagging

3) Ril is banned for one week for incorrect speedy-deletion tagging (all bans to run consecutively)

Support:
  1. →Raul654 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Continuing misbehavior

1) If Ril should speedy-delete tag an article for reasons not listed in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, or should remove comments made by another user (for reasons other than archiving), an admin may block him for a short period, up to 3 days.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

  1. Everything seems covered. →Raul654 21:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Close. James F. (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Close it ➥the Epopt 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Close Fred Bauder 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_-Ril-_Proposed_decision_1b23.html"