| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Case Opened on 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
- 8bitJake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- FRCP11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving leave the project entirely.
FRCP11 left of his own free will due to a dispute in being temporary banned from editing due to his many edit wars. There is no one to blame for his actions but him. -- 8bitJake 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Statement by badlydrawnjeff
- (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)
Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . [1]. 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content [2] in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson [3] [4] [5], eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire [6] [7]. 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ( "Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries ( Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly. [14]
Badlydrawnjeff is very difficult to deal with and is incapable of listening to any dissenting opinions from his own POV, he is in essence a troll and a political POV pusher. Bazzajf 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that Badlydrawnjeff reciently failed admin bid is no doubt contributing to his rage and anger against me. -- 8bitJake 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Badlydrawnjeff is the worst example of an editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.-- 8bitJake 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It take you both hands and both feet to count all the people that have posted their objection to Badlydrawnjeff questionable activity on Wikipedia [15] This is another example of the personal axe he has to grind and how unhealthy and obsessive he can be.-- 8bitJake 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at the evidence page Badlydrawnjeff is the only person to contribute and he continues to list his rants after rants against me.-- 8bitJake 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I also would like the state that I have never used a sock puppet. 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf are not sockpuppets.-- 8bitJake 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved party JzG
I investigated 8BitJake's allegations above prior to nominating Badlydrawnjeff for adminship. I found no evidence to support them. No diffs have been provided which persuade me otherwise. If 8BitJake is unable to provide evidence then this counter-claim should be struck as baseless.
As far as I am aware there is no requirement for editors to be neutral, only their contributions. For the record, Jeff and I disagree in almost every matter of personal opinion, but his those of his contributions I have reviewed appear to me to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the record that would be Badlydrawnjeff failed attempt to get adminship. --
8bitJake
15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff closed no consensus at 81/26/6. That's a lot of support, from a lot of editors. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am uninvolved with 8BitJake, Badlydrawnjeff or their articles and have no real knowledge of their edits. I do take issue with Badlydrawnjeff's assertion of damage to the Wikipedia project by 8BitJake with respect to the "withdrawal" of FRCP11. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct [16] with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many uncivil tirades (you have to be careful which expurgated versions of FRCP11's talk page you see). I have had extremely contentious edit situations on orthomed related areas, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts without investigation, to use prejudicially uncivil labels, to intransigently try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion or response to meaningful discussion, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critics (real MD/DOs). Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgment were more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk [17] [18])
So I also agree with the assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly" [19] and "Edit warring" [20] [21] ) . My brief, but too long view of FRCP11 was that of a scurrilous{ "...pseudoscientists ensure that garbage like orthomolecular medicine..."), egotistical (check his deleted User page, too), bullying (check his edits) individual that was happy to use some of his adversarial training to represent his various economic interests (offsite: "...I did use to work for a law firm where I did work for Merck in several Vioxx cases..." Ted, CEI , and now for CEI) a little more personally in Wiki article areas that he showed no actual knowledge [22] [23]. FRCP11 came bursting into edit with uncivil labelling [24] [25] (demonstrably false [26] & provocative) followed by accusations against my good faith as "sanitizing" when I bent over backwards to accommodate [27] [28], twisting WP:NPOV and making unsubstantiated misstatements (wild claims??? on simple descriptive articles [29] [30]) to prejudicially justify multiple tags, and finally thinly veiled personal attacks on his now departed user page [31]. I explained at referenced length and reasoned several times [32] [33] [34] with no acknowledgment of my efforts. If 8BitJake's argumentation aided FRCP11's departure or editorial improvement, IMHO, one might consider that a substantial positive for Wikipedia. I leave all other issues to other editors and the administrators. Thank you.-- 69.178.41.55 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accept, (but still waiting for a response from 8bitJake...). Dmcdevit· t 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. - SimonP 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accedt. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that users in their interactions with other users proceed on the basis that that other editors are trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) Only information which is verifiable by reference to a reputable source may be included in an article. Likewise, removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper. See Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4) Wikipedia is a compilation of verifiable information, not an assertion of truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles discourages assertions of ownership or control over articles a user has an interest in.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6) Original work or conclusions are not acceptable for inclusion in articles, Wikipedia:No original research.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7) Template:POV is properly used in support of NPOV. Use of the tag by a user who is attempting to impose a point of view on an article or suppress an opposing point of view is improper. Such improper use renders Category:NPOV disputes less useful as includes articles within it regarding which there is not an authentic NPOV dispute, but an assault on NPOV.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
8) In instances where two or more users are exhibiting substantially the same behavior they may be treated as one user.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
1) 8bitJake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited aggressively with respect to articles regarding American political figures [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. His aggressive initiatives were opposed by FRCP11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who generally engaged in reasoned argument [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also contested 8bitJake's point of view, editing in a reasoned manner, referring 8bitJake to relevant policies [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62]. In June, 2006 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf, apparent sockpuppets of 8bitJake appeared [63], [64], [65], and bogus FAC template. Examples are from Talk:Henry M. Jackson where 8bitJake contests any mention of Jackson as a forerunner and inspiration of the neocons.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) 8bitJake has been blocked briefly several time for violations of the three revert rule [66].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) 8bitJake has been discourteous to other users [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4) 8bitJake has failed to assume good faith on the part of other users. This is seen at Talk:Henry M. Jackson where he repeatedly accuses other editors of improper motives.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5) There is evidence that 8bitJake misunderstands Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as permitting removal of information which in his opinion is negative [72]. He also inserted Template:POV into an article when his objection was that a point of view he opposed was included in the article [73] [74] an outside comment. After extensive discussion the tag was removed; 8bitJake reinserted it [75]. Another outside view
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7) 8bitJake has asserted that he has "truth on his side" [76].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
8) 8bitJake, using as an analogy "1 +1 = 2", has advanced original research as appropriate information for inclusion [77].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
9) Bazzajf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ( 62.77.181.16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet of 8bitJake, has engaged in personal attacks [78].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
1.1) 8bitJake is banned from editing articles about political figures from Washington State.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) 8bitJake is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) The remedies applied to 8bitJake also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
|---|
|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Case Opened on 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
- 8bitJake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- FRCP11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving leave the project entirely.
FRCP11 left of his own free will due to a dispute in being temporary banned from editing due to his many edit wars. There is no one to blame for his actions but him. -- 8bitJake 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Statement by badlydrawnjeff
- (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)
Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . [1]. 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content [2] in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson [3] [4] [5], eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire [6] [7]. 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ( "Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries ( Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly. [14]
Badlydrawnjeff is very difficult to deal with and is incapable of listening to any dissenting opinions from his own POV, he is in essence a troll and a political POV pusher. Bazzajf 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that Badlydrawnjeff reciently failed admin bid is no doubt contributing to his rage and anger against me. -- 8bitJake 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Badlydrawnjeff is the worst example of an editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.-- 8bitJake 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It take you both hands and both feet to count all the people that have posted their objection to Badlydrawnjeff questionable activity on Wikipedia [15] This is another example of the personal axe he has to grind and how unhealthy and obsessive he can be.-- 8bitJake 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at the evidence page Badlydrawnjeff is the only person to contribute and he continues to list his rants after rants against me.-- 8bitJake 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I also would like the state that I have never used a sock puppet. 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf are not sockpuppets.-- 8bitJake 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved party JzG
I investigated 8BitJake's allegations above prior to nominating Badlydrawnjeff for adminship. I found no evidence to support them. No diffs have been provided which persuade me otherwise. If 8BitJake is unable to provide evidence then this counter-claim should be struck as baseless.
As far as I am aware there is no requirement for editors to be neutral, only their contributions. For the record, Jeff and I disagree in almost every matter of personal opinion, but his those of his contributions I have reviewed appear to me to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPOV. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the record that would be Badlydrawnjeff failed attempt to get adminship. --
8bitJake
15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff closed no consensus at 81/26/6. That's a lot of support, from a lot of editors. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am uninvolved with 8BitJake, Badlydrawnjeff or their articles and have no real knowledge of their edits. I do take issue with Badlydrawnjeff's assertion of damage to the Wikipedia project by 8BitJake with respect to the "withdrawal" of FRCP11. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct [16] with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many uncivil tirades (you have to be careful which expurgated versions of FRCP11's talk page you see). I have had extremely contentious edit situations on orthomed related areas, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts without investigation, to use prejudicially uncivil labels, to intransigently try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion or response to meaningful discussion, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critics (real MD/DOs). Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgment were more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk [17] [18])
So I also agree with the assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly" [19] and "Edit warring" [20] [21] ) . My brief, but too long view of FRCP11 was that of a scurrilous{ "...pseudoscientists ensure that garbage like orthomolecular medicine..."), egotistical (check his deleted User page, too), bullying (check his edits) individual that was happy to use some of his adversarial training to represent his various economic interests (offsite: "...I did use to work for a law firm where I did work for Merck in several Vioxx cases..." Ted, CEI , and now for CEI) a little more personally in Wiki article areas that he showed no actual knowledge [22] [23]. FRCP11 came bursting into edit with uncivil labelling [24] [25] (demonstrably false [26] & provocative) followed by accusations against my good faith as "sanitizing" when I bent over backwards to accommodate [27] [28], twisting WP:NPOV and making unsubstantiated misstatements (wild claims??? on simple descriptive articles [29] [30]) to prejudicially justify multiple tags, and finally thinly veiled personal attacks on his now departed user page [31]. I explained at referenced length and reasoned several times [32] [33] [34] with no acknowledgment of my efforts. If 8BitJake's argumentation aided FRCP11's departure or editorial improvement, IMHO, one might consider that a substantial positive for Wikipedia. I leave all other issues to other editors and the administrators. Thank you.-- 69.178.41.55 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accept, (but still waiting for a response from 8bitJake...). Dmcdevit· t 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. - SimonP 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accedt. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that users in their interactions with other users proceed on the basis that that other editors are trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) Only information which is verifiable by reference to a reputable source may be included in an article. Likewise, removal of relevant information which is verifiable is improper. See Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4) Wikipedia is a compilation of verifiable information, not an assertion of truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles discourages assertions of ownership or control over articles a user has an interest in.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6) Original work or conclusions are not acceptable for inclusion in articles, Wikipedia:No original research.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7) Template:POV is properly used in support of NPOV. Use of the tag by a user who is attempting to impose a point of view on an article or suppress an opposing point of view is improper. Such improper use renders Category:NPOV disputes less useful as includes articles within it regarding which there is not an authentic NPOV dispute, but an assault on NPOV.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
8) In instances where two or more users are exhibiting substantially the same behavior they may be treated as one user.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
1) 8bitJake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited aggressively with respect to articles regarding American political figures [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. His aggressive initiatives were opposed by FRCP11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who generally engaged in reasoned argument [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also contested 8bitJake's point of view, editing in a reasoned manner, referring 8bitJake to relevant policies [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62]. In June, 2006 62.77.181.16 and Bazzajf, apparent sockpuppets of 8bitJake appeared [63], [64], [65], and bogus FAC template. Examples are from Talk:Henry M. Jackson where 8bitJake contests any mention of Jackson as a forerunner and inspiration of the neocons.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) 8bitJake has been blocked briefly several time for violations of the three revert rule [66].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) 8bitJake has been discourteous to other users [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4) 8bitJake has failed to assume good faith on the part of other users. This is seen at Talk:Henry M. Jackson where he repeatedly accuses other editors of improper motives.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5) There is evidence that 8bitJake misunderstands Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as permitting removal of information which in his opinion is negative [72]. He also inserted Template:POV into an article when his objection was that a point of view he opposed was included in the article [73] [74] an outside comment. After extensive discussion the tag was removed; 8bitJake reinserted it [75]. Another outside view
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7) 8bitJake has asserted that he has "truth on his side" [76].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
8) 8bitJake, using as an analogy "1 +1 = 2", has advanced original research as appropriate information for inclusion [77].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
9) Bazzajf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ( 62.77.181.16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet of 8bitJake, has engaged in personal attacks [78].
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
1.1) 8bitJake is banned from editing articles about political figures from Washington State.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) 8bitJake is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/8bitJake#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3) The remedies applied to 8bitJake also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
|---|
|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.