Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 she/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 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Keeping notes[edit]

1) It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment[edit]

2) It is unacceptable to harass another user, Wikipedia:Harassment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and courtesy[edit]

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another and to avoid personal attacks, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption[edit]

4) Users may be banned from editing articles which they disrupt by inappropriate editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Honesty[edit]

5) Actions which are dishonest, including those which improperly attempt to move or delete records of their own editing behavior, are unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not ideal; many have tried to so for various acceptable reasons ("right to vanish," fresh start, anonymity/privacy concerns...) which I wouldn't term "improperly," but I'm still iffy. I'm not objeting, just concerned this might leave valid actions open to unreasonable criticism. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) Minun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits mostly articles which relate to Pokémon and is in dispute with HighwayCello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has the same interest [1] and [2]. There is some conflict over images.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppets[edit]

2) Iloveminun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now Minun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has created numerous sockpuppets: .HighwayCello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HighwayCello' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pika25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Poke Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Erupting Turtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cute Minun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Minun Rules the world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Po132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Minun132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), PokemonFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Pokesaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iloveminun.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassing sockpuppets[edit]

3) .HighwayCello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and HighwayCello' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were created on June 25, 2006 by Minun.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mutual notes[edit]

4} Both HighwayCello and Minun maintained notes on each others behavior: User:HighwayCello/Minun and User:Iloveminun/HighwayCello

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Page move vandalism by Minun[edit]

5) Minun moved User:HighwayCello/Minun, notes maintained by HighwayCello on Minun's behavior, to User:Iloveminun/Black Hole [3].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

db-owner[edit]

6) Minun added a request for a speedy deletion to User:HighwayCello/Minun requesting deletion using Template:db-owner, a misrepresentation [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

One account[edit]

1) Minun shall choose one account and edit only under that account. If that account is blocked he shall not create other accounts or edit under other existing accounts. He may be banned for up to a month if he edits under any other account. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Minun banned for creation of harassing sockpuppets[edit]

2) Minun is banned for two months due to creation of the sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop#Harassing sockpuppets, one month for each puppet.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding the next four remedies: I would have moved around the penalties a bit, but the sum total is that he is banned for a year for harassment, incivility, vandalism, and dishonesty/disruption, with which I agree, so I'll support them all. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Minun banned for moving another's user page[edit]

3) Minun is banned for one month for moving another's user's subpage, details at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop#Page move vandalism by Minun.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would argue that basic rules of civility block any user from moving another's talk page. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Minun banned for attempting to destroy evidence[edit]

4) Minun is banned six months for attempting a speedy deletion of a page containing information documenting his behavior by falsely holding out that the owner of the page was requesting deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop#db-owner.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with the penalty, but I'm not sure of the wording of the title. Attempting to destroy this page through WP:MFD would have been perfectly acceptable. It's not the attempt to remove the page that is the problem, but rather the misleading and deceptive methods employed towards this end. - SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree: "deceptively"? Or maybe "...banned for dishonest behavior" per our principle above? Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Minun banned for personal attacks[edit]

5) Minun is banned for 3 months for personal attacks and harassment of HighwayCello [5] and [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attack parole[edit]

6) Minun is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly banned if he makes personal attacks on another user. If the attack is on HighwayCello, the ban may be for up to one month.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Revert parole[edit]

7) Minun is placed on revert parole. He may revert any article, other than for obvious vandalism, only once in any 24 hour period.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Minun placed on Probation[edit]

8) Minun is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bans to be consecutive[edit]

9) All bans shall run consecutively including both the bans made in this decision and those made under it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reconsideration after 2 years[edit]

10) This decision shall be reviewed after 2 years to determine whether the restrictions imposed on Minun remain necessary.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not strongly, but just noting that we can review it at any time and when appropriate, and I don't like the idea of being obligated to do so, when it might not be appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Is this necessary? James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Minun, editing under any username or IP, violate any ban imposed by or under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

I am concerned that Minun may not be able to conform to the lengthy bans imposed on him. Fred Bauder 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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[edit]

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.

  1. Close case. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close SimonP 12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Raul654 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close ➥the Epopt 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed_decision&oldid=431105248"