Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Proposed decision

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 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, 2 Arbitrators are recused (Neutrality and Fred Bauder), 1 has resigned (Mackensen), 1 is away (Filiocht), and 3 (Morven, SimonP, Dmcdevit) are automatically recused; 2 (Sam Korn, Charles Matthews) explictly unrecused themselves, and 6 Arbitrators (Mindspillage, Raul654, Theresa Knott, Jayjg, James F., and the Epopt) are active, making 5 votes a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Sockpuppetry
1) "The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as ... using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies." -- Sock puppetry


 * Support:
 * Raul654 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2000 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ruy Lopez sockpuppetry
1) There is strong evidence to suggest that Ruy Lopez has repeatedly made use of sockpuppets to evade arbitration related decisions This connection has been confirmed by David Gerard   in at least one case.


 * Support:
 * Raul654 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Remedies vacated
1) Remedy 3 from Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily ("VeryVerily, Shorne, and Gzornenplatz are hereby limited to one revert per page per day (this includes any page editable on the English Wikipedia).") and enforcement 1 ("If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.") are vacated with respect to VeryVerily. Remedy 4 from Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily ("Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.") and enforcement 2 ("If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.") remain in full effect.


 * Support:
 * ➥the Epopt 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I think "vacated" is a silly and overly-complex term to use for "removed". James F. (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Charles Matthews 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * VV has commented on my talk page . If VV can show that he can edit usefully without causing major disagreements by his behaviour, we can remove more restrictions.  I am not convinced that saying "I cannot function under these restrictions" (paraphrase) is a valid reason not to impose them.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * VV has commented on everyone's talk page. To be honest I am quite worried about someone who "cannot function" under the above restriction.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ruy Lopez sockpuppetry
2) Ruy Lopez is prohibited from editing using any sockpuppet account. Suspected Ruy Lopez sockpuppets may be banned, and administrators may ban Ruy Lopez for up to 2 months for each confirmed sockpuppet he uses.


 * Support:
 * ➥the Epopt 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ruy Lopez placed on Probation
3) Ruy Lopez is placed on Probation. Any administator may ban Ruy Lopez for an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which that administrator considers disruptive.


 * Support:
 * ➥the Epopt 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See enforcement provision below. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

VeryVerily appeal option
4) If after 4 months of regular and frequent editing, VeryVerily can show he has not been involved in serious edit warring or other interpersonal disputes, he may file a "request for clarification" that the remaining sanctions on his behavior (Remedy 4 and enforcement 2 from Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily) be lifted.


 * Support:
 * Raul654 09:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tightened wording. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In effect, this prevents VV from requesting us to review the situation. I think that that's overly unfair. James F. (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. We have just reviewed it and are willing to review again in four months time. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comment:
 * Is there anything you want to say to convince me that if I jump through your hoops you will hold up your end of the bargain? Very Verily 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do have a few things to say, actually - that, for one thing, you shouldn't be posting here, for page is for arbitrators only. Overlooking that, this is not a bargain of any kind, nor should you be under the dillusion that it is. It is, in fact, we who are giving you the opportunity to demonstrate to us that you can edit peaceably without these restrictions. If you demonsrate that, we may remove them (and, barring unforseen circumstances, probably will, although this is by no means a guarentee). Raul654 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should Ruy Lopez violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily.


 * Support:
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 18:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I keep saying, this should be part of the standard Probation remedy. James F. (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 14:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

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.


 * Everything has passed. Raul654 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)