Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 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 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.

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] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] No Personal Attacks

Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Remove personal attacks

(CC'd from: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI)

3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [1]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Badgering

1) BigDaddy777 (talk • contribs) has a distinct badgering style of dialogue which is readily recognizable and edits with a focus on articles regarding conservative commentators which share this confrontational style Bill O'Reilly (commentator) and Ann Coulter.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Common mistakes

2) BigDaddy777 (talk • contribs) has, especially since this arbitration process began, violated Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly by altering or removing comments he considers to be critical. Now, he has even created a "banned" list of people that he instantly removes all comments from. This behavior has been exhibited on a daily basis.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Banned indefinitely for disruption

3) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been banned indefinitely due to disruptive tactics.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 05:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Alteration of talk page comments

4) BigDaddy777 has altered talk page comments, removing other people's words and replacing them with other content, but leaving the signatures behind. See, e.g. [2] [3]; see also [4].

Support:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 05:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 7 November 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] Banned for modifying other users' comments

1) BigDaddy777 is banned for 2 months for modifying other user's comments (an abuse of the remove-personal-attacks guideline, whether or not it is in force).

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Slight wording tweak to avoid double-bracketting.
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Banned for one year for incivility and engaging in personal attacks

1.1) BigDaddy777 is banned for one year for badgering other users, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Discourtesy_and_personal_attacks_by_BigDaddy777

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Banned from articles related to American politics

2) BigDaddy777 is banned indefinitely from editing on topics related to American politics

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Effect of release from indefinite block

3) Should BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) be released by any administrator from the indefinite block imposed on him the other remedies imposed in this decision shall take effect at that point.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yup. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. This seems reasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Violation of terms

1) If BigDaddy777 should make a personal attack, or edit an article related to American politics, an admin may ban him for a short time, up to 3 days.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

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. Everything has passed. →Raul654 19:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 18:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_BigDaddy777_Proposed_decision_0c93.html"