Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

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

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Ban from voting on deletion pages[edit]

Enacted. 1) Due to a demonstrated tendency toward disruptive editing habits on deletion-related pages, GRider 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:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 23:06, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 23:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 13:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 11:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 02:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 18:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point[edit]

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Support:
  1. Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:36, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus[edit]

2) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Support:
  1. Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:36, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Frivolous VfD nominations[edit]

1) GRider has made nominations on Votes for Deletion which are widely viewed as frivolous. [1] (current iteration), [2] (current iteration)

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:42, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Refusal to accept VfD results[edit]

2) GRider has refused to accept community VfD results. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Support:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 16:44, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
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.

Deletion restrictions[edit]

1) Any nomination to a deletion-related page made by GRider viewed by an administrator to be frivolous may be removed immediately by that adminstrator and shall result in GRider being blocked for a short period of time of up to one day.

Support:
  1. Not sure if this will help; however it is less harsh than the alternative. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. mav 02:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. What reason is there for him to edit these pages at all? Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. prefer a ban ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Too complicated, will lead to endless wikilawyering
  5. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one month. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Support:
  1. This may be too harsh, however. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. A bit harsh. mav 02:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. No reason to be this short. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. too short ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Too short.
  6. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.2) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of three months. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Support:
  1. Only if 1) and 1.1) do not pass. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) OK by me.
Oppose:
  1. mav 02:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. No reason to be this short. Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. too short ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.3) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Support:
  1. He's making a major nuisance of himself, and I fail to see any reason to continue to let him edit these pages - how does this help Wikipedia? Ambi 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 11:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) The VFD page has enough people on it and GRider has been unproductively disruptive.
  6. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

I actually agree with most of GRider's opinions. But the sort of things he was doing in support of them were grossly disruptive and a discredit to the VFD process - David Gerard 03:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And of course the refusal to discuss problematic behaviour at any stage. Although I am generally an inclusionist, VFD is Wikipedia's immune system (try doing Special:Newpages patrol on a Sunday evening US time ...) and needs to be treated seriously by all involved - David Gerard 11:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close[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. Move to close - with Delirium's inactivity we only need a majority of five on all parts to be able to close the case, which we have. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:32, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 04:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 11:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider/Proposed_decision&oldid=808013869"