Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Proposed decision

all proposed

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 and 3 are inactive, so 4 votes are 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 the discussion page.

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=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Limited sanctions
1) In order to maintain the principle that anyone may edit Wikipedia all sanctions placed on Wikipedia users by the Arbitration Committee are limited to a maximum of one year.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Arbitration policy makes no such limitation. The one year maximum is a self-imposed convention, albeit one that has tremendous momentum and will probably never see an exception. Also, I disagree with the purpose&mdash;it has nothing to do with the anyone-may-edit mentality; it's more a recognition of the fact that 'internet time' is much faster than real-world time; a one-year prohibition is akin to a ten-year jail sentence. &rarr;Raul654 02:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Per Raul. We have also imposed indefinite sanctions before&mdash;just not bans. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sez who? &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Sustained edit warring
2) Sustained edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * We've used this principle before, and the wording was better then - why not use it?

Use of Sockpuppets
3) The use of anonymous editing or sockpuppets to evade editing bans is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note - I changed the above from 'strongly discouraged' to 'prohibited'. &rarr;Raul654 02:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Stick to the usual wording - it covers things better. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Prior cases
1) User:Cantus has been the subject of two prior arbitration cases. Requests for arbitration/Cantus and Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Cantus 1
1.1) The decision in the first case which involved Cantus Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus provided:

1 Cantus is placed on revert parole, indefinately, as was applied to Wik. As a result, he may not revert any page more than three times in any 24 hour period. This may be enforced by 24-hour temp-bans at sysop discretion, as per Wik.

2 Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation.

3 If Cantus gets into further sterile and pointless revert wars in the future, the Arbitration Committee may ban him from editing the pages involved in order to discourage him from wasting his valuable Wikipedia time.

Decided August 1, 2004


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Cantus 2
1.2) The decision in the second case which involved Cantus, Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco, provided, in relevant part:

1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.

3) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

Decided November 24, 2004


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Slow revert wars
2) User:Cantus, has engaged in lengthy edit warring with respect to a number of articles, see Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence, Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence and Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_3/Evidence


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of sockpuppets in revert wars
2.1) User:Cantus has used sockpuppets and anonymous editing in the conduct of these revert wars.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Having discussed with David, I am now convinced. Added "and anonymous editing".
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I have no issues with this, but it would be nice to cite the sockpuppets used. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC) as Ambi

Template talk:Infobox Biography
3) User:Cantus, after minimal discussion, made a change to Template talk:Infobox Biography which did not work on a number of pages and was strongly objected to by other editors, after a time he retracted his change, see Template_talk:Infobox_Biography


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 14:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit summaries
4) User:Cantus frequently does not enter adequate edit summaries, see his user contributions.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Eh, I'm on the fence -- he certainly doesn't use them often, but I'm not sure how he compares to the average wikipedian. His edit summaries can be helpful when he makes them. &rarr;Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Limitation on prior remedies
1) All prior remedies which are not limited to a one year term are limited to a term of one year.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * See Raul. Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Cantus banned from certain articles
2) User:Cantus is banned from editing the articles Developed country, Template:Europe and Terri Schiavo


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I'm not convinced this is enough of a solution, but will at least allow these to escape the edit warring
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit summaries
3) User:Cantus is reminded to provide adequate edit summaries.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 15:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Further revert limitation
4) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).


 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (the previous ruling said "article" only) Second choice
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Third choice
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) &mdash; third choice


 * Oppose:
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - been there, done that, didn't work.


 * Abstain:

4.1) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 7 day period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Second choice
 * sannse (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) First choice
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - second choice
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) &mdash; second choice


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

4.2) User:Cantus is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30 day period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC) First choice
 * sannse (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) third choice
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC) - first choice
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) &mdash; first choice


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets and reverts
5) Should User:Cantus break his revert limitation on any page by using sockpuppets or anon editing, an admin may ban him from that page for up to a month. A list of pages that Cantus is banned from shall be kept for the reference of all.


 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 16:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcing bans
1) Should User:Cantus edit any article from which he is banned he may be banned from Wikipedia for a short period, up to a week for repeat offenses.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 03:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 June 28, 2005 21:01 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
1.1) Should User:Cantus use a verifiable sockpuppet to edit articles from which he is banned he may be banned from Wikipedia for one month.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:21, July 15, 2005 (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.

We have all the votes we need, and clearing the Arbitration backlog is important at this time. I move to close. Neutralitytalk 14:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see talk page for Netoholic's comment. Fred Bauder 21:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see new proposals -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

 * It seems that everything likely to pass has the requesite 4 votes. &rarr;Raul654 08:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree -- sannse (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Fred Bauder 12:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)