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, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 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.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Explanations that several people are using a computer or the same user account are not acceptable. It will be presumed that all edits from a single computer or user account are the responsibility of one user.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) The disruptive behavior of Eternal_Equinox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at issue. Considerations include aggressive and inappropriate use of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, ownership of articles, and obsessive editing of pop music articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Eternal Equinox has engaged in personal attacks [1] and [2].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Jim62sch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bishonen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HeyNow10029 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Giano ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], [8], [9], and [10].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Taunting is too strong a term. Responding sarcastically is not commendable, but it is also far from a personal attack. - SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Of all the evidence I see, only Jim62sch's and Giano's comments seem beyond the pale. Perhaps there's a case for a separate finding for them that I would support, however, put into the context of Eternal Equinox's persistently obnoxious behavior, a lot of this seems not taunting (trying to incite a response) but frustrated responses. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
3.1) Jim62sch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [11].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.2)
Bishonen (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox
(includes restoration of deleted edit by Jim62sch),
[12], and
[13].
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Error corrected Fred Bauder 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- As above, not in context. Dmcdevit· t 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not ban wit. Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
3.3) HeyNow10029 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [14].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.4} Giano ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [15], [16], and [17].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Eternal Equinox expresses her view of editing as a personal struggle with other users [18]. He/She has stated, "I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Eternal Equinox formerly edited as Hollow Wilerding ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and used the socks Winnermario ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DrippingInk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as Siblings_WC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Siblings_CW ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cruz_AFade ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cruz_Along ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Empty_Wallow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and TwoDown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen#Response, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen#Outside_view_by_Kelly_Martin, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence#Eternal_Equinox_is_the_latest_in_a_long_chain_of_Sockpuppets
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Eternal Equinox has "left" Wikipedia and is no longer editing under that account Special:Contributions/Eternal_Equinox, but has continued to edit Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence#July_15:_Eternal_Equinox_is_back_and_still_editing_from_the_same_Toronto-area_IP_range. Her latest statement, made July 20, 2006, is that she may return in September [19].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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) Eternal Equinox is placed on Probation for one year. Should they, editing under any username disrupt any page, they may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Eternal Equinox is placed on personal attack parole for one year. Should they, editing under any username, engage in personal attacks they may be banned for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Jim62sch, Bishonen, and HeyNow10029 are cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Abstain:
- As above. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- With Dom. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
3.1) Jim62sch is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.2) Bishonen is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.3) HeyNow10029 is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.4) Giano is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Not proportionate to offense Fred Bauder 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Inproportionate, yes. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
3) Giano is banned for one month due to aggressive taunting involving a suggestion of death [20].
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can do this, pour encourager les autres. I don't see Giano as a problem user, but there is a point to be made. Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) For long term and persistent disruption, Eternal Equinox is banned for one year.
- Support:
- I don't see a better solution. Eternal Equiox has been at it for a year, ceased being productive a long time ago, and is just going to cause more trouble. It is not worth another chance. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Unblockable
Fred Bauder
22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- But certainly bannable. Dmcdevit· t 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probation is merited and more likely to succeed. - SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per Simon. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per Simon. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unblockable
Fred Bauder
22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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.
The majority for this case is 6.
- All principles pass 6-0
- Findings of fact 1, 2, 3.1, 3.4, 4, 5, and 6 pass 6-0. 3.2 and 3.3 fail.
- Remedies 1, 2 and 3.1 pass 6-0. All others fail.
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.
- Close. Dmcdevit· t 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. - SimonP 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. Charles Matthews 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. James F. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 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.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Explanations that several people are using a computer or the same user account are not acceptable. It will be presumed that all edits from a single computer or user account are the responsibility of one user.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) The disruptive behavior of Eternal_Equinox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at issue. Considerations include aggressive and inappropriate use of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, ownership of articles, and obsessive editing of pop music articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Eternal Equinox has engaged in personal attacks [1] and [2].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Jim62sch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bishonen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HeyNow10029 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Giano ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], [8], [9], and [10].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Taunting is too strong a term. Responding sarcastically is not commendable, but it is also far from a personal attack. - SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Of all the evidence I see, only Jim62sch's and Giano's comments seem beyond the pale. Perhaps there's a case for a separate finding for them that I would support, however, put into the context of Eternal Equinox's persistently obnoxious behavior, a lot of this seems not taunting (trying to incite a response) but frustrated responses. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
3.1) Jim62sch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [11].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.2)
Bishonen (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox
(includes restoration of deleted edit by Jim62sch),
[12], and
[13].
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Error corrected Fred Bauder 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- As above, not in context. Dmcdevit· t 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not ban wit. Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
3.3) HeyNow10029 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [14].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.4} Giano ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [15], [16], and [17].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Eternal Equinox expresses her view of editing as a personal struggle with other users [18]. He/She has stated, "I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61#Votestacking_FAC_sockpuppets:_Hollow_Wilerding.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Eternal Equinox formerly edited as Hollow Wilerding ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and used the socks Winnermario ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DrippingInk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as Siblings_WC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Siblings_CW ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cruz_AFade ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cruz_Along ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Empty_Wallow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and TwoDown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen#Response, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen#Outside_view_by_Kelly_Martin, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence#Eternal_Equinox_is_the_latest_in_a_long_chain_of_Sockpuppets
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Eternal Equinox has "left" Wikipedia and is no longer editing under that account Special:Contributions/Eternal_Equinox, but has continued to edit Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence#July_15:_Eternal_Equinox_is_back_and_still_editing_from_the_same_Toronto-area_IP_range. Her latest statement, made July 20, 2006, is that she may return in September [19].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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) Eternal Equinox is placed on Probation for one year. Should they, editing under any username disrupt any page, they may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Eternal Equinox is placed on personal attack parole for one year. Should they, editing under any username, engage in personal attacks they may be banned for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Jim62sch, Bishonen, and HeyNow10029 are cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Abstain:
- As above. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- With Dom. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
3.1) Jim62sch is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.2) Bishonen is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.3) HeyNow10029 is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3.4) Giano is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Not proportionate to offense Fred Bauder 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Inproportionate, yes. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
3) Giano is banned for one month due to aggressive taunting involving a suggestion of death [20].
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can do this, pour encourager les autres. I don't see Giano as a problem user, but there is a point to be made. Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) For long term and persistent disruption, Eternal Equinox is banned for one year.
- Support:
- I don't see a better solution. Eternal Equiox has been at it for a year, ceased being productive a long time ago, and is just going to cause more trouble. It is not worth another chance. Dmcdevit· t 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Unblockable
Fred Bauder
22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- But certainly bannable. Dmcdevit· t 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probation is merited and more likely to succeed. - SimonP 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per Simon. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per Simon. James F. (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unblockable
Fred Bauder
22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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.
The majority for this case is 6.
- All principles pass 6-0
- Findings of fact 1, 2, 3.1, 3.4, 4, 5, and 6 pass 6-0. 3.2 and 3.3 fail.
- Remedies 1, 2 and 3.1 pass 6-0. All others fail.
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.
- Close. Dmcdevit· t 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. - SimonP 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. Charles Matthews 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close. James F. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)