Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | 168.209.97.34

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 20 January 2005. 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.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Discourtesy and personal attacks

1) Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Edit warring and the three revert rule

2) Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three revert rule consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:05, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Caching servers

3) In our decisions we should avoid requiring permanently blocking Proxy/caching servers that belong to an ISP if possible. (See User:202.72.131.230.)

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 13:06, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ambi 23:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Vandalism of userpage, trading of personal attacks

1) On September 9, 2004 a user with the IP address 168.209.97.34 repeatedly vandalized User OneGuy's user page, blanking it and inserting language insulting to OneGuy and to Islam, see [1], [2], [3]. User OneGuy responded with this edit [4], terming 168.209.97.34 an "anti-Islamic bigot".

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:08, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Edit warring and violation of the 3 revert rule

2) On November 17, 2004 User OneGuy and a user with the IP address 168.209.97.34 engaged in an edit war at article, Aisha each party reverting the article about 10 times, see edit history.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 18:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:08, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


168.209.97.34 as a caching server

3) The IP address 168.209.97.34 belongs to an ISP's caching server in South Africa; as such, many users can be considered to be editing as that IP address.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 13:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

168.209.97.34's identity

4) Given comments on the original case page, the user from 168.209.97.34 identified above in 1) and 2) can reasonably be assumed to be User:-lothario-.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 13:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

5) OneGuy and -lothario- have engaged in personal attacks on one another with very little attempt to discuss the issues at hand.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) whoops!


Nay:
  1. Unrepresentative, and overly harsh on OneGuy. Personal attacks don't seem to play a large role in this dispute, and this is the only example from either of them that I can find that is worthy of sanction.
  2. No equivalency between actions. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Not equivalent - OneGuy was sorely provoked - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Some specific examples would be helpful Fred Bauder 13:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) OneGuy and -lothario- are placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including 2 months. If one of them makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then that person shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:02, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Unrepresentative. I've barely seen any personal attacks from OneGuy. I considered objecting to it for lothario as well, but this sways me into supporting it in his case. Ambi 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. No equivalency between actions. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Reconsidering - not equivalent - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) -lothario- is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including 2 months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
Ambi 05:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd also consider supporting some sort of reprimand for incivility on OneGuy's part, but I can't think of a suitable remedy at present.
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 05:59, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Tho' I'd prefer a year
Nay:
Abstain:

1.2) -lothario- is placed on standard personal attack parole for up to and including one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 03:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (UTC) On second thoughts, a two-month personal attack parole is too short in a case like this. I'd also consider supporting some sort of reprimand for incivility on OneGuy's part, but I can't think of a suitable remedy at present.
    An admonition not to respond in kind even to severe provocation? - David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Makes sense. Ambi 01:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:09, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 16:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only if 1.1 doesn't pass, otherwise Nay)
  4. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) -lothario- is banned for three days for repeatedly vandalizing OneGuy's userpage.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 05:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 05:59, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on 1.1) Further vandalism to userpages by -lothario- may result in temporary blocks of up to a week by any administrator at the administrator's discretion. The blocking administrator has the authority to determine what constitutes "vandalism."

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'd prefer the broader one
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (unless 1.2 doesn't pass, then Aye)
Abstain:

1.2) Further vandalism by -lothario- may result in temporary blocks of up to a week by any administrator at the administrator's discretion. The blocking administrator has the authority to determine what constitutes "vandalism."

Aye:
  1. I don't see the point in limiting it to user pages, particularly considering the vandalism of arbitration pages. Ambi 03:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree in light of vandalism of this page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:11, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 16:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 00:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/168.209.97.34/Proposed_decision&oldid=9500493"