Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[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] Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

2) Users are expected to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

3) Editors may be blocked at the discretion of administrators for disruptive editing. Repeated disruptive behavior may lead to bans or other restrictions.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Monicasdude is uncivil

1) Monicasdude (talk • contribs) has been frequently uncivil to other editors including making personal attacks, particularly at nominations for articles for deletion and regarding proposed deletions. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Monicasdude assumes bad faith

2) Monicasdude persistently assumes bad faith of others, particularly regarding deletion debates. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], etc.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Monicasdude disrupts the deletion process

3) Monicasdude's aggressive style of commenting on deletion debates by making assumptions of bad faith constitutes disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (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] Monicasdude placed on civility parole

1) Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Monicasdude banned from deletion process

2) Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.


Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

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.

[edit] Vote

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. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close ➥the Epopt 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Monicasdude_Proposed_decision_5c46.html"