Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/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 aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay 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 enacted.

On this case, 0 arbitrators are recused and 1 are away/inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

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

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

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

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)(waive 24 hour wait, accounts have been blocked because of the release of CDs password already)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:09, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 15:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 15:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enacted 2) User:CheeseDreams is limited to one account. The following accounts are presumed to be either sockpuppet accounts of CheeseDreams or impersonations of Cheesedreams and are therefore to be blocked: User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams, User:Cheese -dreams, User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams. All other sockpuppet or impersonation accounts identified can also be blocked. The password for User:CheeseDreams has been changed for security reasons and will be released to CheeseDreams if she is able to prove her identity. Otherwise the account will remain unavailable and CheeseDreams should mail any evidence she wants considered in her case to User:Sannse

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) (waive 24 hour wait, accounts have been blocked because of the release of CDs password already)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:09, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 15:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I blocked all these accounts, including User:CheeseDreams, to forestall deniable abuse - see user:jguk's edit at [1].
  4. →Raul654 15:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) again, true but not relevant to this case (disruption was not of the type described in this policy) see principle 9
  2. sannse is right ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. I'm not sure there was a point - David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless RfCs/RfAs

2) Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 15:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Of course, we need a very high threshold for such.
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppet abuse

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:27, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] One user or several?

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

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Particularly when there are the tiniest of variations between the usernames!
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) Although the possibility that they are impersonation accounts (see #5) should also be taken into account.
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation accounts

5) Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Security of accounts.

6) Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) If it isn't promptly locked as a public hazard.
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Arbitration rulings

7) Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proxy edits

8) "Proxy" edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Reasonableness and disruption

9) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 15:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] RfCs/RfAs

1) CheeseDreams has made repeated and unreasonable requests for comment and requests for arbitration, outside of the guidelines for these actions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. It's the last of those that's especially noteworthy... Grunt   ҈  18:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I wouldn't give an "aye" on this if it wasn't obviously extreme. The last one particularly qualifies.
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppet accounts

2) It can be assumed that the accounts User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams and User:Cheese- dreams are sockpuppet accounts of User:CheeseDreams.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. I believe (some of) these accounts shared passwords? -- Grunt   ҈  18:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
    all of, yes -- sannse (talk) 21:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Due to the shared passwords especially.)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Impersonation accounts

3) The accounts User:CheeseDreems, User:CheeseyDreams, User:Cheesydreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams may be impersonations of User:CheeseDreams intended to cause disruption.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. ...whereas these accounts did not share passwords with User:CheeseDreams. -- Grunt   ҈  18:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
    yep - these were not accessable with the password CheeseDreams posted, we should add that perhaps? -- sannse (talk) 21:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Deliberate release of password

4) CheeseDreams deliberately released her password for several accounts, either to cause disruption, to encourage others to cause disruption, or to disclaim responsibility for her edits [11]

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  18:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption of arbitration process

5) CheeseDreams, or someone editing from that account, has attempted to disrupt the arbitration process by repeatedly blanking several case pages [12], [13], [14], [15].

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:21, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Violation of previous arbcom rulings

6) Prior to releasing her password, CheeseDreams engaged in edits that violated the Arbitration Committee's previously issued ban on editing all Christianity-related articles for the period of one year [16], [17], [18], [19].

Aye:
  1. (I'll dig up the examples later) -- Grunt   ҈  18:53, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 17:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) but note that, as far as I can see, only the four edits above were violations that can be traced definitely to CheeseDreams (added diffs)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Abuse of sockpuppet accounts

7) CheeseDreams has used sockpuppet accounts to avoid blocks given for violations of arbitration committee rulings (Edit to Christianity related article resulting in block of 5 days from 01:38, 31 Jan 2005: [20]. Repeat of edit using a different account while blocked: [21]. Other edits during the block period: [22], [23], [24])

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) (diffs to follow)
  2. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 06:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] "Proxy" editing to violate an arbitration ruling

8) User:Tigermoon has made "proxy" edits on behalf of User:CheeseDreams [25], [26], [27]. This continued despite Tigermoon being informed that proxy edits for CheeseDreams were not acceptable (warning: [28], a comparison of the first proxy edit and one of those after Mirv's warning: [29])

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) This one seems little-known, but Tigermoon should have got it after one warning.
  6. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption involving Rienzo

9) Much of the disruption caused by CheeseDreams has been centred on her dispute with User:Rienzo. While there is no technical evidence to verify this, an overall view of the editing patterns of the accounts suggests that it is likely that Rienzo is responsible for some or all of the impersonations and the resulting disruption. Many of the edits presumed to be violations of previous arbitration rulings by CheeseDreams are likely to have been made by Rienzo using impersonation accounts. CheeseDreams reaction to these impersonations has also been disruptive.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 16:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  17:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) I doubt it's "all", but CD's wild accusations that large numbers of people she conflicted with were Rienzo socks ...
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Ban for disregard of previous rulings

1) For a complete disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for one month.

Aye:
  1. As preceeded by Chuck F. -- Grunt   ҈  18:54, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too short. Neutralitytalk 18:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. too short ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too short.
  4. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) For a complete disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. I think this deserves longer. Ambi 23:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Grunt   ҈  00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  2. not long enough ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Only if one year or six months fails
  4. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) (note that this relates to violations of the injunction, the proxy editor incidents and editing while banned - ideally, I'd like to see this included in the wording)
  5. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. too short Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Prefer 1.2 to this. -- Grunt   ҈  14:32, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.2) For a complete disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for six months.

Aye:
  1. If Epopt and Ambi think three months is not long enough, I'll pitch this. -- Grunt   ҈  18:15, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I prefer a year.
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. My second choice Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Unless 1.1 does't pass - I think three months is right, especially with consecutive bans
  2. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Agree with sannse.)
Abstain:

1.3) For a complete disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for one year.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I see no prospect of CheeseDreams becoming a good editor any sooner.
  2. Neutralitytalk 17:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. disregarding AC rulings is a serious matter and deserves a serious censure. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. If Epopt and Ambi thinks three months is not long enough, I'll pitch this even though I think it's too long. -- Grunt   ҈  18:06, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) too long
  3. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Too long.)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban for disregard of Wikipedia procedure

2) For abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures including arbitration requests and requests for comment, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. Not sure about the length, but ok. Grunt   ҈  18:54, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) too long
  2. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Too long for just making complaints.)
Abstain:

2.1) For abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures including arbitration requests and requests for comment, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for one month.

Aye:
  1. Not sure about the length, but ok. Grunt   ҈  18:54, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) as part of the consecutive bans, this seems right
  3. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. only if a three month ban does not pass Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Too short. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too short. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Too short. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Too short. Neutralitytalk 17:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban for sockpuppet abuse

3) For abuse of sockpuppet accounts to further the above disputes, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for three months.

Aye:
  1. Not sure about the length, but ok. -- Grunt   ҈  18:58, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. I think this is fitting. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yep.
  5. Neutralitytalk 17:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) too long
  2. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3.1) For abuse of sockpuppet accounts to further the above disputes, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for one month.

Aye:
  1. Not sure about the length, but ok. -- Grunt   ҈  18:58, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 18:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) in comparison with other cases, this seems enough for this aspect
Nay:
  1. Too short. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too short. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Too short. Neutralitytalk 17:20, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
' Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Account restriction

4) CheeseDreams is restricted to editing from the account User:CheeseDreams.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  18:59, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 16:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) I would consider changing this to allow a different account name - but only with agreement of the committee
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Bar on starting RfCs/RfArs

5) CheeseDreams cannot initiate any requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Should CheeseDreams initiate any RfCs or RfArs, CheeseDreams may be blocked by any administrator for a period of time up onto and including one week. Any RfCs or RfArs initiated by CheeseDreams may be removed by any user.

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 06:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is OK by me.
Nay:
  1. Completely removing this ability is unacceptable; how would CD be able to resolve disputes? See below. -- Grunt   ҈  18:05, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

5.1) CheeseDreams shall not initiate any frivolous requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Should CheeseDreams initiate any RfCs or RfArs deemed by administrators to be frivolous, CheeseDreams may be blocked by any administrator for a period of time up onto and including one week. Any RfCs or RfArs initiated by CheeseDreams of this nature may be removed by any user.

Aye:
  1. The wording might need a little bit of work, but the idea behind it is better, I think. -- Grunt   ҈  18:05, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is OK by me too.
  3. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I disagree. CD is going to use this a loophole. She has already demonstrated an inability to effectively resolve disputes and has abused the system in multiple ways. If CheeseDreams has a serious problem with a user after she comes back from the ban, she can get someone else to file a RfC/RfAr. Neutralitytalk 01:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • If she abuses this she will find herself blocked for a week. The wording should be aimed at the wikicommunity to interpret rather than cheesedreams Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

5.2) CheeseDreams is a vexatious litigant. As such she is prohibited from initiating any requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Should she initiate an RfC or RfAr, she may be blocked for up to one week. Any RfCs or RfArs initiated by CheeseDreams may be removed by any user. Should CheeseDreams feel she has valid grounds for initiating an RfC or RfAr, she may submit those grounds to one member (her choice) of the Arbitration Committee. That individual arbiter will judge her grounds and decide whether she will be permitted to initiate that particular RfCs or RfAr. If she attempts to resubmit an identical RfC or RfAr, she will be blocked for up to one week.

Aye:
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Fine by me.
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. This demonstrates a different problem - it does not prevent arbitrators from being deluged with frivolous cases. -- Grunt   ҈  15:30, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • It will be a lot less disruptive for one person to delete her frivolous e-mail messages than to deal with her bombardment of the wiki. ➥the Epopt 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I would consider it to be more harrassing and more difficult to have to deal with frivolous requests by oneself than on the wiki (where there are more people to deal with these problems) - a situation which I'm sure none of us would want to endure. -- Grunt   ҈  19:20, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we allow individual arbiters to refuse to hear her, so long as one (me) is willing. ➥the Epopt 04:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:


5.3) CheeseDreams is a vexatious litigant. As such she is prohibited from initiating any requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Should she initiate an RfC or RfAr, she may be blocked for up to one week. Any RfCs or RfArs initiated by CheeseDreams may be removed by any user. Should CheeseDreams feel she has valid grounds for initiating an RfC or RfAr, she may submit those grounds to the Epopt or sannse. That individual arbiter will judge her grounds and decide whether she will be permitted to initiate that particular RfC or RfAr. If she attempts to resubmit an identical RfC or RfAr, she will be blocked for up to one week.

Aye:
  1. I'll go for this if Epopt is demonstrating a willingness to hear these requests. -- Grunt   ҈  17:42, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) I suggest we also add an alternative name (and having suggested it, I will also volunteer for it)
    Added. -- Grunt   ҈  19:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Ideal.
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Ban for disruption

6) For significant disruption, relating to a dispute between CheeseDreams and Rienzo, both users are banned for 6 months. Edits by either that attempt to implicate the other, and so to extend this or other bans, will result in this ban being reset for both users.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 17:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  17:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. This looks unfair to me. How can we extend a ban on one person becasue of the behaviour of another? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It's not perfectly fair to the two of them - but it is, I think, a necessary step to stop these games and remove this damaging dispute from Wikipedia. In that respect it's fair to Wikipedia, and at this stage I think that's what's needed. -- sannse (talk) 02:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Consecutivity of bans

7) All bans of definite length above shall run consecutively (not concurrently).

Aye:
  1. This needs to be done. Grunt   ҈  22:13, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 18:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proxy editing

8) User:Tigermoon is reminded that it is not acceptable to "proxy" for a banned or restricted user. While editors can of course make judgements as to whether edits suggested by a restricted user are valid, simply editing for such a user is is regarded as the equivalent of the user making the edits herself.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  21:40, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Account restriction

1) If CheeseDreams is found to be editing from any account or IP other than User:CheeseDreams, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and CheeseDreams shall be subjected to a ban of up to one week cumulative with any currently-running bans.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:01, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Prefer 1.1. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. -- Grunt   ҈  00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 16:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 18:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) If CheeseDreams is found to be editing from any account or IP other than User:CheeseDreams, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and CheeseDreams shall be subjected to a ban of up to one week cumulative with any currently-running bans. If sockpuppets are used to avoid a ban, then that ban shall be reset. IP blocks should be handled as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aye:
  1. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:55, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 06:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 23:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I added the text "IP blocks should be handled as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy."
  6. sannse (talk) 18:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 23:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. I move to close; we've passed all principles and FoFs, a subsection (1.2, 2, 3, 4, 5.3, 6, 7) of each remedy, and the associated enforcements. This adds up to a year in plain bans plus the six month CD/Rienzo resetting ban (however we want to count it). -- Grunt   ҈  14:35, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 16:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) (effective 14:35, 3 March 2005)
  3. →Raul654 22:20, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 02:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) (effective 14:35, 3 March 2005)
  6. Neutralitytalk 22:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)