Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/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 2 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
 * 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.

Ban on editing deletion-related pages for duration of case
Enacted. 1) Due to a demonstrated tendency toward disruptive editing habits on voting-related pages, Iasson is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for the duration of the case. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.


 * Support:
 * Vote to take effect without delay. Neutralitytalk 06:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Order sounds reasonable. Do give the normal 24 hours before enacting though. --mav 06:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 07:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:17, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 17:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 23:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Semi-policy
1) The Arbitration Committee may consider current community norms and practice, regardless of whether the community have got as far as writing up an "official" policy on the matter, in making its decisions. This is an Arbitration Committee, not a court of law, and the community has empowered us to make such judgements by ratifying the Arbitration policy. By the same policy, we are to apply such judgements with common sense, discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Public accounts
2) The current community practice with respect to public accounts is to block such accounts on sight indefinitely due to the potential for potential security risks et al.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) note that changing the password is a valid alternative to blocking


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Security of accounts
3) Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

One user or several?
5) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring / the three revert rule
6) Users are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitration rulings
7) Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruption
8) Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith.


 * Support:
 * Imported from precedents. --mav 00:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:53, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) for once, I agree "point" is relevant here


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Public sockpuppet accounts
1) There have been numerous "public" sockpuppet accounts created by one user; these accounts comprise Faethon, Faethon2 et al., as well as Acestorides, Achaeus et al. from List of ancient Greeks.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 20:08, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Iasson's accounts?
2) Due to similarity in editing habits (especially with respect to deletion policy) and the sharing of a proxy server through which the above accounts apparently edit, the above accounts may be considered to be operated by Iasson.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 20:08, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Abuse of accounts
3) The above accounts have been used in numerous abusive capacities, including outright vandalism and edit warring.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruption
4) Iasson has on numerous occasions caused disruption in the VfD process and the deletion policy. This has been done by trying to forcibly impose his own view of what the polices covering those processes should be when those changes were in contradiction to consensus views. This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. vs,  and  (unilateral changes to deletion policy) see also Requests for comment/Iasson


 * Support:
 * mav 01:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 01:26, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editing record
5) Iasson has only made 7 edits in the article namespace. Almost all edits Iasson has made have been to VfD pages, deletion policy, and an RfC page concerning that user.


 * Support:
 * mav 01:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 01:57, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 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 of public accounts
1) Any and all so-called "public" accounts to which the password is generally known shall be blocked indefinitely as it becomes known they are public accounts; no arbitration ruling is required for these routine blockings.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 20:21, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) note that changing the password is a valid alternative to blocking


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ban for sockpuppetry
2) Iasson shall be held responsible for the abusive actions of the sockpuppet accounts and is banned for three months for edit warring and outright vandalism.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 20:21, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * mav 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ban for disruption
3) Iasson is banned for one year for deliberate and widespread disruption of the VfD process.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 01:27, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * This user's editing record clearly shows he is not here to help us build an encyclopedia. mav 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * 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 - we've covered everything. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:28, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * I concur. Neutralitytalk 17:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * agree sannse (talk) 22:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 23:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)