Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/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 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, seven new Arbitrators are assumed recused (Morven, Smoddy, Filiocht, Mackensen, SimonP, Dmcdevit, Charles Matthews), and 8 longer-established arbitrators are active (Fred, Epopt, Jdforrester, Jayjg, Theresa, Neutrality, Mindspillage, Raul654), Charles Matthews has participated, thus unrecusing himself, making a total of 9 active arbitrators. So 5 votes is 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]

Discourtesy and personal attacks[edit]

1) Users are expected to be courteous to others and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of provocation, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reliable sources[edit]

2) Information added should have a reliable source, be verifiable and not be original research, or simply based on personal knowledge and experience.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits harassment of other users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jurisdiction over users who inject themselves into the conflict[edit]

4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over users who inject themselves into and become participants in a dispute which is in Arbitration. From the time any Arbitrator feels action under this principle may be appropriate any such user shall be notified on their user talk page.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Notice given to Friday and Jim Apple Fred Bauder 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Don't bite the newbies[edit]

5) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers provides that aggressively reacting to the mistakes of newcomers to Wikipedia is inappropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Communication with parties We're allowed to talk to you[edit]

6) During Arbitration, members of the Arbitration Committee may attempt to engage in communication with those who are parties to the Arbitration. These communications may be inquiries as to intent, efforts to explain policy to the parties, or attempts to resolve disputes. They may be ineffective or unwelcome, but have the purpose of facilitating the user's effective contribution as a member of the community.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, though having to go to the fag of saying this is a tad disheartening.[reply]
  3. cheese, Louise ➥the Epopt 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus requires communication[edit]

7) Wikipedia's method of making decisions by Wikipedia:Consensus requires communication in good faith between Wikipedia users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research[edit]

8) Wikipedia:No original research prohibits even interesting and valuable writing which is not based on information published in a reliable source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Deeceevoice has been discourteous and made personal attacks[edit]

1) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) has frequently been discourteous and has made personal attacks Miss Manners, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop#I_don.27t_do_nice, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Racial_slurs, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Attempts_to_.22shut_up.22_other_editors_.2F_discouraging_other_editors_from_editing. This behavior continues [1], [2] and [3].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Questions regarding sourcing and point of view editing[edit]

2) Legitimate questions have been raised regarding Deeceevoice's point of view editing and reliance on personal knowledge in her editing, "I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street.", Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Hairstyle_politics:__Afro_and_Dreadlocks and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Janis_Joplin.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Offensive user page[edit]

3.1) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) maintains a user page which, while expressing a legitimate viewpoint, is provocative and rather confusing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As I write this opinion, Deeceevoice's user page has been edited (apparently by Jimbo) so as to be acceptable, but earlier versions did not express a legitimate viewpoint; they were a hate-filled attack calculated to offend ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I write this, I see a new version with the big "Boycot Wikipedia" picture, he still links to the offensive old version. Provactive? Yes. Confusing? I don't believe so. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Inappropriate, yes. Many people misuse user pages, which ought to be used in a confidence-building way. This user is hardly the only one here to demonstrate 'attitude' Charles Matthews 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive user page[edit]

3.2) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) maintained a user page containing a unacceptable rant calculated to offend. Jimbo Wales stated that if it were not altered, he would be "happy to simply delete the page and block the user if necessary."

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of Deeceevoice[edit]

4) During this arbitration certain other users have harassed Deeceevoice. Friday (talk · contribs) posting a suggestion that she leave the project [4] and Jim_Apple (talk · contribs) first commenting on her user page [5] then creating a page User_talk:Jim_Apple/deeceevoice_departure (now deleted and viewable only by administrators) [6] also posting inquiries on her talk page [7]. Jim Apple then posted links to his page on other users' pages [8] and [9], see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Jim_Apple.2Fdeeceevoice_departure. See also this by an anonymous user inviting her to dialog on Stormfront [10]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. noting that some but not all of the "harassment" was provoked, ➥the Epopt 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deeceevoice a new user[edit]

5) Deeceevoice is a relatively new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. Thus she has misunderstood certain Wikipedia policies.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Deeceevoice created her user page on 10 July 2004 — she has been editing Wikipedia for over 18 months ➥the Epopt 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 18 months is not "relatively new", and Deeceevoice appears to be quite familiar with Wikipedia editing. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. (Unless I too am a "new user".) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) - I agree with Jay[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OK, the old farts of Fred and I have been uncovered. ;-) James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Deeceevoice an experienced user[edit]

6) Deeceevoice created her user page on 10 July 2004 and has actively and continously edited Wikipedia for over 18 months. She has had ample opportunity to learn all Wikipedia policies, and cannot be excused for unfamiliarity or inexperience.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deeceevoice unwilling to communicate[edit]

7) Deeceevoice has in number of instances expressed her unwillingness to communicate with other users regarding her behavior or the content of Wikipedia articles. This behavior has continued in aggravated form during this arbitration [11], [12], commenting "Removed without reading. User has been advised NOT to post to my talk page.", and [13], commenting "PLAIN ENGLISH: DO NOT POST HERE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. GOT IT? (DONT REPLY - Duh)".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Deeceevoice[edit]

8) Deeceevoice has employed original research in the composition of articles, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop#History of Cool (African philosophy). While her writing is interesting, even profound, it violates fundamental Wikipedia policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Considerable sympathy, but NOR is good policy and we remain only a secondary source. Charles Matthews 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 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.

Non-escalating personal attack parole[edit]

1.1) Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I have removed the usual increase to a year after 5 blocks. I doubt she will come around that quickly. Fred Bauder 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Backing off is not the way to treat intransigience — if she doesn't come around, we need to try harder to get her attention ➥the Epopt 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Escalating personal attack parole[edit]

1.2) Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) She has a serious problem which will lead to a needless permanent ban if we enact this. Fred Bauder 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if she can't control her "serious problem," a permanent ban will not be "needless" ➥the Epopt 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I disagree; trying that bit harder isn't worthless. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Year ban clearly overkill in this case. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder regarding core Wikipedia policies[edit]

2) Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 17:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Counseling regarding offense[edit]

3) Deeceevoice is counseled to assume good faith and avoid offense, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Offensive user page prohibition[edit]

4) Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants. Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time. If she attempts to restore the offensive material, she may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. So many admins, so many ways to take 'offensive'. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Friday cautioned[edit]

5) Friday is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. and warned not to bake baseballs in the oven ➥the Epopt 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. There is not the slightest basis in policy for applying pressure in this way. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Leaving is the best option for some users (though I don't think so in this case) and I don't think suggesting it is, in such cases, out of line. Friday's comment appeared to have been made in good faith and so I oppose censure for it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Mindspillage. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. A tough one. People who do this with malicious intent should be sanctioned; people who do this in good faith should not. Raul654 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Apple cautioned[edit]

6) Jim Apple is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. and warned not to bake baseballs in the oven ➥the Epopt 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Leaving is the best option for some users (though I don't think so in this case) and I don't think suggesting it is, in such cases, out of line. Users should be very careful about making such suggestions, of course, and I think his page was in poor taste, but I oppose this restriction. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment in remedy 5. Raul654 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice placed on probation[edit]

7) Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hoping that this turns out not to be necessary to apply. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) - reluctantly agree[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Record of blocks or bans[edit]

1) All blocks or bans of Deeceevoice should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_blocks_or_bans.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Transparency. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unnecessary with special:log Raul654 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    special:log is confusing, being a log of every user. We need one place concerning this user. Additionally it does not show bans or their basis. Good cause needs to be shown. Fred Bauder 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my vote to support, per Fred's comment. Raul654 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:

Note[edit]

New arbitrator Charles Matthews is assumed to have unrecused himself. Possibly this increases the number of active arbitrators on this case.
(Clerk) Tony Sidaway 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

I have focused on personal attacks as that is the most obvious and pressing problem. Should Deeceevoice moderate her behavior in that regard we can address any additional problems. Fred Bauder 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an editor of value all that aside. Charles Matthews 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ➥the Epopt 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It appears the issue has been decided. Raul654 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. James F. (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734318"