Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed as of 10 January 2005

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.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

[edit]

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Temporary ban of Ciz

[edit]

Enacted 1) Pending resolution of this matter User:Ciz is banned from any Wikipedia pages other than his or her user pages and pages relating to this arbitration.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:06, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 20:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) (Would support a narrower ban on editing articles relating to zoophilia, since that seems to be the only disputed issue.)
Abstain:

Proposed principles

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

No personal attacks

[edit]

1) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:05, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fred Bauder 11:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

No disruption

[edit]

2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:05, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fred Bauder 11:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Controversial changes

[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:05, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fred Bauder 11:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Second accounts

[edit]

4) Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.

Aye:

  1. David Gerard 20:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:52, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) (True as stated, but is anyone really arguing that creating sockpuppets gives an editor free rein to use them abusively?)
  5. Ambi 02:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 04:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Fred Bauder 11:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Controversial edits

[edit]

1) Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:07, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

[edit]

2) Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:07, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Lack of discussion

[edit]

3) Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:07, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Ciz is a secondary account

[edit]

4) Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics [1]. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 20:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 02:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 05:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) - this was confirmed by a developer, who revealed to us (the arbcom) the name of Ciz's sock.
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fred Bauder 11:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Ciz/DrBat's good contributions

[edit]

5) Under his other account, Ciz DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 05:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 05:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 05:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 23:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 01:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 03:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed decision

[edit]

Remedies

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Prevention from editing Zoophilia

[edit]

1) Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I agree that he should be banned, but in this case, I'm a little worried about how much the word "closely" could be stretched. I can only think of one other article that this ban should probably cover, and that would be furry. So I'd be willing to ban him from those two articles, but I don't think we need to ban him from "its closly related articles". →Raul654 03:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Attack parole

[edit]

2) Ciz (using whatever account) is placed on standard personal attack parole indefinitely. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Good behaviour

[edit]

3)If Ciz can demonstrate at a later date willingness to discuss and accept consensus without resorting to personal attacks, then Ciz may apply to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Attempts to edit Zoophilia

[edit]

1) If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, its closely related pages, or their talk pages, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block Ciz for up to 24 hours.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:10, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 03:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 17:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 03:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  8. mav 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

I will remain recused in this case - due to past mediation work -- sannse (talk) 20:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close

[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. All proposed items have majority support. --mav 03:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:04, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 05:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 11:15, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz/Proposed_decision&oldid=808010126"