Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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 6 are inactive or away, 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 /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.

Gundagai editor restricted to one account
1) Enacted on 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor of Gundagai, New South Wales-related articles, subject of this case, is required to register an account and edit with only that account. All other edits from that editor shall be treated as edits from a banned user.


 * Support:
 * A milder form of the proposed full ban from the workshop (which is not far off). At least this way, I expect the admins could deal with it well enough until our decision. Dmcdevit·t 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Will surely be part of the final decision Fred Bauder 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Civility
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, Civility, Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)'
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruptive editing
2) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Legal threats
3) Threats of legal action, whether overt or implied, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Users who make legal threats will be sanctioned.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of the dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is the disruptive editing of an anonymous editor editing from Telstra range 203.54.0.0/16 (typically 203.54.9.0/24 or 203.54.186.0/24) on articles relating to Gundagai, New South Wales. See Requests for comment/Gundagai editor.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Gundagai editor assumes bad faith
2) The Gundagai editor has failed to assume good faith, calling other editors "liars" and "vandals".     See the evidence page here and here for more.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Gundagai editor is uncivil
3) The Gundagai editor is frequently uncivil in both edit summaries and talk page comments. She has personalized the conflict, engaging in ad hominem arguments.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Legal threat
4) The Gundagai editor made a legal threat on October 25, 2006:.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 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.

Gundagai editor banned
1) The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''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.''

Vote
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 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)