Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/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, which opened prior to the appointment of new Arbitrators in January 2006, all new arbitrators are by default recused unless they un-recuse themselves at Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian. One, Morven, has done so, leaving six recused. One Arbitrator is inactive, which leaves eight un-recused arbitrators. This means that five votes are a majority for this case.

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=

Disruptive editors may be banned
1) Users who edit a set of articles in a disruptive way may be banned from editing those articles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

No personal attacks
2) No personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is the set of articles which involve the question of the contested sovereignty over Gibraltar.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Contestants
2) Contestants are and . Gibraltarian advocates the viewpoint of the citizens of Gibraltar; Ecemaml that of the Spanish government.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Point of view editing by Gibraltrian
3) Gibraltrian has engaged in point of view editing and sterile edit warring, often over Template:Disputed, see Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks by Gibraltarian
4) has frequently made personal attacks, see User_talk:Ecemaml,, , and many examples at Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely
5) From the block log: 20:43, December 16, 2005 Woohookitty blocked "User:Gibraltarian" with an expiry time of indefinite (for continued personal attacks, disruption and incivility. he is now using sockpuppets to violate the 3RR literally daily).


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
6) Following his block Gibraltarian has used sockpuppets such as, , , , , and . , , , , , , , , , , , , , and  have been created as sleeper accounts to defeat semi-protection. Ranges 212.120.224.0/24, 212.120.225.0/24, 212.120.226.0/24, 212.120.227.0/24, 212.120.228.0/24, 212.120.229.0/24, 212.120.230.0/24, and 212.120.231.0/24.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Affected articles
7) Disputed status of Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, and Gibraltar and a few others are the most affected pages.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Misuse of Arbitration-only pages
8) During this case and while blocked, has used anonymous accounts to continue his threats and attacks on this Arbitration page.


 * Support:
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 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.

Gibraltarian placed on personal attack parole
1) is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator if he engages in personal attacks, up to a day in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Gibraltarian placed on probation
2) Gibraltarian is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any article or talk page relating to Gibraltar which he disrupts. Bans shall be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian. This remedy may be extended by any three administrators for good cause shown.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Gibraltarian placed on general Probation
3) Gibraltarian is placed on indefinite Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

No action on indefinite block
4) No action is taken regarding the current indefinite block. The remedies in this decision take affect if any administrator unblocks him for any reason; counting of blocks for the purpose of enforcement commences at that point. It is recommended that no one unblock him in the absence of a promise by him to comply with this decision.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommended that no one unblock him, period &mdash; he is an POV warrior who has stated on this very page that he will neither cease his war nor abide by our rules ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
5) The actions of all users reasonably believed, based on IP used or style of editing, to be sockpuppets of Gibraltarian shall be attributed to him and charged to his account.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, the Epopt, "IP used" part will help quell mis-ident fears, surely? But yes, CheckUser would help sure up ideas. James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the "or" that bothers me &mdash; I'm geek enough to take it in its Boolean sense, which is that "style of editing" would be enough ➥the Epopt 04:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this. If it's really obvious, block as a sock. If there's reasonable doubt, CheckUser. I expect "reasonably believed" to be interpreted, well, reasonably. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, I'm convinced ➥the Epopt 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * not without CheckUser verification ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) If violates any probation or parole remedy he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

General
I doubt Gibraltarian is the only point of view editor involved but his constant attacks provide such a constant noisy background that getting to finer details is quite difficult. It is enough to deal with him for now. I find the bull fighting allusion persuasive, but I cannot excuse being such a fool as that. Fred Bauder 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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 ➥the Epopt 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * close Fred Bauder 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Neutralitytalk 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)