Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/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, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 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 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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

DotSix edit restrictions[edit]

1) DotSix, using any IP, is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case.

{text of proposed orders}

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 10:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 12:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Request for clarification submitted by others[edit]

re: "DotSix, using any IP, is prohibited from editing" how will it be proven that any particular unregistered contributor to Wikipedia is User:DotSix? Will there just be a presumption the accused is guilty unless he can prove he is innocent?--172.193.149.250 20:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will look at the editing behaviour of the user and if in their judgement this is DotSix they will act accordingly. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You will look at the editing behavior and make a judgment? Isn't it true that many different editors can have very similar editing behavior involving a content dispute, so there is no logically satisfactory way to actually know who they are? Take a look at Nate Ladd, Anchetta Wiss, Rhobite, CesarB and the rest of their pack of obscurantists. They all act pretty much the same. They are all joining Mr. Banno in wetting their pants trying to suck start their odd notion that belief (personal subjective conviction) is a factor in the production of objective proof of precisely how it is that a given statement is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs in the case, in spite of the counterexamples that took out that odd notion presented by Gettier way back in the 1960s . Until Gettier's essay was published, most analytic philosophers took it for granted that something we might call the JTB (justified true belief) account of knowledge was correct. That changed with the publication of Gettier's essay, so it is no longer the case, in spite of Banno and the obscurantists efforts here to suck start the JTB account of knowledge. (See the epistemology article, controlled by the obscurantists by force of numbers, including Mr. Banno's diagram.)
So in other words, it is your intent that even though there is no logically satisfactory objective proof of guilt produced so that anyone can check the observations, just the personal subjective conviction of members of the committee, the presumption will be that the accused is guilty unless the accused can prove he is not guilty?--172.194.121.32 16:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it is the administrator who enforces the temp ban who makes the judgement not members of the arbitration committee. But yes, it's done without objective proof. It's a subjective decision. The admins are expected to use their own judgement in deciding if a particular anon is the same person as Dot 6 and then enforce the ban accordingly. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Theresa, since the admins will be basing their judgement on the content of the edits, rather than on their personal tastes, their judgements count as objective, not subjective. Don't let anyone snow you into thinking that only things that are absolutely proved are objective. Whether or not a judgement is objective depends on what kind of evidence it is based on, not on whether the evidence proves it to a certainty. Admins don't need to prove their judgements, they just need convincing evidence. --Nate Ladd 20:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Who said anything about ABSOLUTE proof, moron? Are there any absolute proofs? To be reasonable people we should always keep an open mind in case new evidence surfaces tomorrow, right? The question here is not concerning ABSOLUTE proof, the question here is why should all these completely baseless assertions coming from your side, your empty allegations with no basis in fact , why should they be considered any kind of proof at all, where the term, 'proof' means simply the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning? See www.m-w.com. --172.192.238.195 21:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please dson't call people morons. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about the big problem with that process outlined above, that there is no way to know (to prove objectively, so that anyone can check the observations) who any particular unregistered contributor to Wikipedia is? Doesn't that indicate a procedure that is biased towards Banno and Company's desire to have a default presumption, without proof, that ANY unregistered Wikipedia contributor contributing ANYTHING in opposition to them is User:67.182.157.6? Contributors on their side are free to exhibit almost identical editing behavior, yet still be counted as individuals, yet all on the other side are presumed by default to be one contributor, User:67.182.157.6? Would you say that is fair and impartial procedure?--172.196.242.17 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the proceedure is biased and I do think it's fair. I trust administrators to take reasonable decisions and to ensure that they are dealing with Dot6 rather than some other person who happens to be causght up in the argument. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the question, T, How could any administrator "ensure that they are dealing with Dot6 rather than some other person"? If you cannot answer that, then you will have to admit that the process is biased against the accused, because absolutely anybody with admin privileges, even one of Banno's meatpuppets, is free to block ANY contributor on the basis that he suspects it is Dot6, whether he can prove the allegation or not. And you still maintain that this is a fair process?--172.192.140.15 22:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well "the accused" is Dot6. If we see evidence of innocent users getting blocked or serially reverted we will take whatever action is necessary to remedy. However I've not seen this happen, nor do I expect it. The Admins are a sensible lot.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will CesarB please explain why User:67.182.157.6 has been TOTALLY blocked, and can't even make contributions here or on his user space, when the injunction clearly reads (emphasis added):

"DotSix, using any IP, is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case."

--172.192.238.195 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I recommend the block be removed - since Dot6 can just edit from another IP what is the point of a block? The ban can be enforced by reverting and page protection and temp blocks as necessary.(I'm speaking as an admin here not an arbitrator) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

NPOV[edit]

1) All reader content on Wikipedia should be written from a Neutral Point of View

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (added "reader content on" so that people don't think that this applies to, say, talk pages)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Modifying other users' comments[edit]

2) Other than for archiving or formatting purposes, modifying another user's comments is something that should be done only in exceptional circumstances.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Users expected to heed warnings[edit]

3) At the very least, users are expected to respond to administrators' warnings about improper behavior. Users are generally expected to heed such warnings.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

4) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary entries belong on the Wiktionary sister-project.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring considered harmful[edit]

5) Edit warring is considered harmful.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Edit warring on Philosophy articles[edit]

1) Starting before, and continuing on even after the Arbitration Committee's temporary editing prohibition, DotSix and his anonmyous sockpuppets edit-warred repeatedly to redirect various philosophy-related articles to his own dictionary-definition stub articles. [1][2][3]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DotSix has contributed little of value[edit]

2) There is strong evidence to indicate that DotSix has made few useful contributions to Wikipedia [4]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Vandalism[edit]

3) In the course of his editing on Wikipedia, DotSix has made left malicious comments on several users's talk pages [5][6]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (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.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

One year ban[edit]

1) DotSix, and all his sockpuppets, are banned from WIkipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I'm not absolutely sure about this. Will re-review the evidence.[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

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. →Raul654 21:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC) - everything has passed.[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Proposed_decision&oldid=1039424082"