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.
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, one Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.
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}
1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
2) 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, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
3) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Wikipedia policies.
4) Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, official policy on Wikipedia, states, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace". This precludes the use of images under a "fair use" doctrine on Wikipedia user pages.
5) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith; all parties are expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly reverting is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users.
6) Administrators must not use their sysop powers against editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content or policy dispute.
1) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) revert-warred ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) with Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) ( [6]), Dbenbenn ( talk · contribs) ( [7]), and David Levy ( talk · contribs) ( [8]) over the inclusion on Netoholic's user page of various images used under the "fair use" doctrine, whose inclusion on a userpage directly contravened Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy.
This continued despite numerous warnings to Netoholic that he was contravening the policy. ( [9] [10] [11] [12] [13])
2) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) and Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) have engaged in revert warring on various pages throughout the template namespace.
3) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) has consistently engaged in behaviour similar to stalking Netoholic ( talk · contribs) about the wiki, contributing in the form of argument against Netoholic to many pages that had been untouched before Netoholic arrived there.
4) Following his previous Arbitration Committee decision, Netoholic ( talk · contribs) received permission from the Committee to violate the specifics of this decision, provided that he did not cause disruption. However, Netoholic has indeed subsequently caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces.
5) On several occasions, Locke Cole, when reporting or noting to others on Netoholic's actions, stated that Netoholic was restricted from certain namespaces, failing to note that this has been lifted by the Committee; at best, this was a significant mis-reading of the Committee's decision, despite being informed that the Committee had said that we would re-impose bans as necessary.
6) Sysop David Levy ( talk · contribs) abused his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.
6.1) Sysop David Levy ( talk · contribs) used his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.
7) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) repeatedly made personal attacks against Netoholic ( talk · contribs) during the course of this Arbitration case, despite warnings to cease. [14] [15]
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) For persistent edit warring, Netoholic ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing in the template namespace for one year from the end of this case, and is restricted to one revert per page per day. It is noted that it is and always was the intent of the namespace bans to encourage participation in the mentorship arrangement - it was not intended to prevent Netoholic from working productively.
2) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) and Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia.
3) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) is reminded to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.
4) David Levy is reprimanded in the strongest possible terms for abusing his sysop powers whilst engaged in a dispute, and should be aware that any further examples seen by the Committee will likely lead to his loss of sysop status. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from fellow, uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.
5) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) is banned for one month for harassing Netoholic.
6) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) is limited to one non-vandalism revert per page per day for one year. Each non-vandalism revert must be marked as such and accompanied by reasoning on the relevant talk page.
1) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
2) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) or Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) violate their bans in Remedy 2, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
3) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) or Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) violate their revert paroles in Remedies 1 and 6, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
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.
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.
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.
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, one Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.
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}
1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
2) 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, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
3) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Wikipedia policies.
4) Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, official policy on Wikipedia, states, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace". This precludes the use of images under a "fair use" doctrine on Wikipedia user pages.
5) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith; all parties are expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary. Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly reverting is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users.
6) Administrators must not use their sysop powers against editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content or policy dispute.
1) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) revert-warred ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) with Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) ( [6]), Dbenbenn ( talk · contribs) ( [7]), and David Levy ( talk · contribs) ( [8]) over the inclusion on Netoholic's user page of various images used under the "fair use" doctrine, whose inclusion on a userpage directly contravened Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy.
This continued despite numerous warnings to Netoholic that he was contravening the policy. ( [9] [10] [11] [12] [13])
2) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) and Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) have engaged in revert warring on various pages throughout the template namespace.
3) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) has consistently engaged in behaviour similar to stalking Netoholic ( talk · contribs) about the wiki, contributing in the form of argument against Netoholic to many pages that had been untouched before Netoholic arrived there.
4) Following his previous Arbitration Committee decision, Netoholic ( talk · contribs) received permission from the Committee to violate the specifics of this decision, provided that he did not cause disruption. However, Netoholic has indeed subsequently caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces.
5) On several occasions, Locke Cole, when reporting or noting to others on Netoholic's actions, stated that Netoholic was restricted from certain namespaces, failing to note that this has been lifted by the Committee; at best, this was a significant mis-reading of the Committee's decision, despite being informed that the Committee had said that we would re-impose bans as necessary.
6) Sysop David Levy ( talk · contribs) abused his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.
6.1) Sysop David Levy ( talk · contribs) used his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.
7) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) repeatedly made personal attacks against Netoholic ( talk · contribs) during the course of this Arbitration case, despite warnings to cease. [14] [15]
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) For persistent edit warring, Netoholic ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing in the template namespace for one year from the end of this case, and is restricted to one revert per page per day. It is noted that it is and always was the intent of the namespace bans to encourage participation in the mentorship arrangement - it was not intended to prevent Netoholic from working productively.
2) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) and Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia.
3) Netoholic ( talk · contribs) is reminded to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.
4) David Levy is reprimanded in the strongest possible terms for abusing his sysop powers whilst engaged in a dispute, and should be aware that any further examples seen by the Committee will likely lead to his loss of sysop status. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from fellow, uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.
5) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) is banned for one month for harassing Netoholic.
6) Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) is limited to one non-vandalism revert per page per day for one year. Each non-vandalism revert must be marked as such and accompanied by reasoning on the relevant talk page.
1) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
2) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) or Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) violate their bans in Remedy 2, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
3) Should Netoholic ( talk · contribs) or Locke Cole ( talk · contribs) violate their revert paroles in Remedies 1 and 6, they may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.
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.
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.