Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/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, [0] Arbitrators are recused and [4] 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.
 * 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=

Competence
1) Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Immature behavior
1) and his sockpuppets  and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors, . This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing  and scrambled syntax and spelling.


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Revert Warring
and his sockpuppets has frequently engaged in revert warring (see for example ) and has been blocked multiple times for breaking the WP:3RR (see block log for Gabrielsimon and block log for Gavin the Chosen


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (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.

Ban
1.1) Gabrielsimon (under any username) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.


 * Support:
 * I want to give probation a chance Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC) First choice
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * first choice &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * second choice; needs a longer break before coming back. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

1.2) Gabrielsimon (under any username) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.


 * Support:
 * My second choice. If my fellow arbitrators don't think any of the remedies below will work then I'd rather a year ban then leaving him free to return unchecked after a month ban is up  Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC) if serial probation rejected.
 * Second choice, as with Theresa. James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * last choice &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * first choice Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Serial probation
2.1) When returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans.


 * Support:
 * I feel that without this he'll be back before the AC almost immediately. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC) Like most new things this will probably not work, but I'd like to try it. First choice over 2.2
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * first choice &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * second choice; burden of monitoring him already great. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

2.2 When returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 2 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on this page of all bans. At the end of one year from closing of this case Gabrielsimon will be released from any current ban and his case reviewed.


 * Support:
 * I prefer an open ended remedy but will support this if 2.1 doesn't pass Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 13:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC) second choice relative to 2.1
 * Second choice, again. James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * last choice &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * first choice. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Revert Limit
3) is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles.


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Procedure if ban is broken
1) Should return using any sockpuppet or anonymous ip during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months.


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Violation of revert limit
2) Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.


 * Support:
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 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.


 * Move to close &#10149;the Epopt 17:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep we're done here Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, close. James F. (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 03:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)