Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Anthony DiPierro 2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theresa knott (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 16 March 2005 (→Userpages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay 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 enacted.

On this case, 5 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Userpages

1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Userpage.)

Aye:
  1. As from Libertas. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:23, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 19:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) with the proviso that use of user pages and user subpages as scratch areas is not necessarily discouraged.
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. I will support if "Wikipedia is not a hosting sevice" or words to that effect are added. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Done. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Abstain:

Deletion of content from userspace

1.5) Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.

Aye:
  1. I feel this is common sense. Agree with rewording. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. Proposed rewording ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Speedy deletion of recreations of deleted articles

2) If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via votes for deletion or speedy deletion, it may be speedily deleted. (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.)

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:23, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Civility

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Assume good faith

4) Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points-of-view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Aye:
  1. Imported from Xed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:33, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Recreation of deleted material I

1) Anthony DiPierro has attempted to recreate material at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula which had previously been deleted at Shawn Mikula. [1]

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Recreation of deleted material II

2.1) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula.

Aye:
  1. I feel the idea behind the article is the same, but it is not in article namespace and should not be considered an article. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Not an article. mav 20:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

2.2) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. I feel the idea behind the article is the same, but it is not in article namespace and should not be considered an article. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Protection of Shawn Mikula

3) The intent of the protection of Shawn Mikula as a blank page was to prevent vandalism in the form of recreation of an article deleted according to the proper process. Such actions do not constitute abuse of administrator powers.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Revert warring

4) Anthony DiPierro has engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring in order to promote his recreation of the content of Shawn Mikula in his userspace, among other disputes.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Incivility / assumption of bad faith

5) Anthony DiPierro has at times been incivil during the course of the above dispute, apparently based on an assumption of bad faith as indicated by accusations of instigating edit wars, etc. [2], [3]

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. he has certainly been uncivil, but I'm not prepared to conclude that his assumption of bad faith, if it existed, was inappropriate. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)Agree strongly with Epopt.
Abstain:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

5.1)Anthony DiPierro has at times been incivil during the course of the above dispute. [4], [5]

Aye:
  1. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) (let's take motives out)
  2. ➥the Epopt 04:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. (Where did my vote here go?) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:44, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 20:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Previous arbitration

6) There was a previous arbitration concerning Anthony DiPierro, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Evidence concerning Wikipedia:Votes for deletion are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Evidence. Other evidence is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Old evidence. The decision, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro#Decision provided:

1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted.

2. The issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Settlement of previous arbitration by agreement

7) As the result of mediation Raul654 and Anthony DiPierro made an agreement on July 24, 2004, see the standing order.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Provisions of the settlement agreement

8) "If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocactive edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours, not subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other users.

At six month intervals, three members of the mediation committee (enumerated below) should vote on whether or not Anthony has reformed. If two or more of those members should agree that Anthony has reformed, this agreement is considered fullfilled and over. Otherwise, the agreement should be renewed for another six months. Should one of those members leave, Anthony and Raul654 must agree on a replacement (who must be a member of the mediation commitee).

If Anthony should attempt to evade a ban or block (for any reason), he is considered in breach of this agreement and subject to immediate arbitration.

If at any time Anthony feels that this agreement is unduly restrictive of his ability to make clearly legitimate edits, he may withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration."

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Agree with Grunt Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Stating the text of the agreement verbatim isn't necessary in the context of this case; the previous FoF will be sufficient. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Grunt. --mav 20:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Six month review

9) The six month review provided for in the agreement was held and resulted in the extension of the agreement for three months due to evidence of isolated instances of disruptive behavior, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony#Six_month_review.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Noting the use of the term "isolated instances". -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Withdrawal from the agreement

10) The settlement agreement provided an option for Anthony to withdraw from the agreement and go directly to arbitration, thus activating the original arbitration. Anthony did so on 26 Feb 2005 [6].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Disruptive behavior by Anthony I

11) The evidence in the original arbitration includes numerous instances of disruptive behavior by Anthony which occured in the first part of 2004.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  3. mav 20:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Disruptive behavior by Anthony II

12) With the exception of the incidents outlined in findings 1 and 4 above, Anthony has not recently engaged in significant amounts of disruptive behaviour.

Aye:
  1. I feel this to be true. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:04, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  2. I think the terms recent and significant are vague; under my interpretation of those terms, I agree.
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony#Six_month_review
Abstain:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) I think we need to see some recent evidence before a remedy limiting his general editing is approved.

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.

Revert limitation

1) Anthony DiPierro is limited to one revert (per article) per twenty-four hour period for a period of three months. Violations of this shall be treated as violations of the three-revert rule, and shall cause the three months to reset.

Aye:
  1. I note that Anthony has previously stated he would be willing to abide by this. See [7]. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:14, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 20:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Recreation limitation

2) Anthony DiPierro is instructed that if a page is properly deleted via votes for deletion and votes for undeletion fails to get the article recreated then he is not permitted to recreate that article in any namespace on Wikipedia for a period of three months after the vote for undeletion fails. Any violation of this rule will be a candidate for speedy deletion.


Aye:
  1. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 23:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Sensible enough; just make sure the VfU doesn't get obstructed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 20:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't think there are any substantive harms to Wikipedia, whether financial, as in the usage of storage and bandwidth, or reputational, as in the inclusion of content which has been deemed inappropriate, in harboring deleted articles in user namespace subpages, as long as those articles aren't actively linked to or from articles in the main namespaces. If there are more than a handful of such pages harbored in user subpages, then I would consider it to be a violation of the "Wikipedia is not a hosting service" policy, but harboring a small number of such pages has no potential for substantial harm.
  2. I'm pulling my support for this because we've basically affirmed above that users are most likely allowed to recreate deleted material in userspace. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:56, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Abstain:

Bans for disruption

3) If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. Anthony has annoyed too many admins; they would find the temptation too much ➥the Epopt 04:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    What if we added "all such blocks must be posted on WP:AN/I"? That way other admins can review and undo overzealous blocks. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 06:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) See alternative below
  3. mav 20:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I am still (slightly?) concerned about potentially disruptive behaviour here, and much sentiment has been expressed in favour of this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:41, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

3.1) For one year, if Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of one hour.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 20:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Nohat 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Revert limitation is sufficient.
Abstain:
  1. I remain hesitant about implementing an action of this nature. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:36, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Old motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Aye

  1. Move closing case Fred Bauder 16:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nay

  1. I feel that we may not have covered everything related to this dispute. I'd at least like to see one or two more arbitrators have a look at everything before we close the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:17, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  2. Not yet. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 06:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. We have a deadlock with no reasonable prospect of resolution. I would warn Anthony that should Anthony 3 be necessary any hesitations we have about imposing a substantial remedy may not apply Fred Bauder 10:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Anthony 3 will be my request to lift the recreation limitation. anthony 警告 12:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. With the note that another case is probably inevitable, given the behaviour of the involved disputants. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:54, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=11231811"