Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck/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, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 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] Ban on editing outside pages related to this case

Enacted 23:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC). 1) For demonstrated disruptive editing habits, LevelCheck is prohibited from editing outside his userspace and pages related to this case for the duration of the case.

Support:
  1. Can we at least put a stop to this until we can figure out exactly what is going on? -- Grunt   ҈  02:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes, and yes David Gerard 23:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 23:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 00:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

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

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

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:33, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppetry

2) 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.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] LevelCheck's contributions

1) Most, if not all, of LevelCheck's contributions have been edits that are widely considered to be disruptive. See the evidence page for diffs.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:35, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (added "see evidence page")
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Potential sockpuppet?

2) LevelCheck's inherent familiarity with Wikipedia procedures and policies suggest that the account does not belong to an entirely new user and may indeed be a sockpuppet account.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:36, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 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] Indefinite block

1) The account LevelCheck is blocked indefinitely as a disruptive potential sockpuppet. Should any other accounts demonstrate similar disruptive editing habits to LevelCheck they may also be blocked indefinitely.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  14:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC) I'm not totally happy with the last sentence - it seems a bit too easily abused. can we make it a bit safer somehow?
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 06:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
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. We have a majority and this is a clear-cut case, so I move to close. Neutralitytalk 06:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Neutralitytalk 06:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 09:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed -- sannse (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 19:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Just to pile on.. -- Grunt   ҈  22:31, 2005 May 31 (UTC)