Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/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, arbitrators may 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 they so choose. 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 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority. (8 active)

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.

Need non-political arbitrators[edit]

1) In the last Arbcom against MONGO, User:Fred Bauder wrote up the remedies for the Arbcom case, among them was:

"No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." :Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision#MONGO_2

The "excessive zeal" was for MONGOs WP:NPA violations against several wikipideans. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence

Some of the dispute betwen MONGO, Seabhcan, and many of the other people in this dispute have centered around Operation Gladio, User:Fred Bauder also has been involved in this dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan personally, deciding that Daniele Ganser who writes on Operation Gladio does not meet WP:RS after Seabhcan asked him to share his opinion, stating "Any American citizen can recognize the phony 9/11 bull." [1][2]

Daniele Ganser is also involved in 9/11 conspiracies, which is the center of the dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan. Both MONGO and Seabhcan gave there opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser. Should User:Fred Bauder who thinks Daniele Ganser's view is "9/11 bull" decide an Arbcom case which central dispute is 9/11?

Suggestions

  1. If we are too get a completly impartial ArbCom ruling, User:Fred Bauder should recuse himself from this case. Where can I suggest this? What are the formalities? I am not as familar with wikipolicy as other users.
  2. This case is a very headed debate that centers around US political issues, with several editors, branding Seabhcan as anti-American, including MONGO, MONGO wrote:
    " I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns" [3] and
    "nationalistic bias against American users". above
    To help get a completly impartial ArbCom ruling, ALL Admins who are involved with editing US political pages should not be involved in deciding this dispute.

Fred ignores the last arbcom ruling in which he stated: "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed."

Signed: Travb (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
Oppose:
  1. No basis exists for recusal. My input was at Seabhcan's request, see User_talk:Fred_Bauder/Archive_33#Help_on_WP:RS_dispute. I have not been involved with the disputed articles or the dispute between the parties. Becoming greatly offended [4] at an opinion offered at your own request is not grounds for recusal. Rulings in prior cases also are not a proper basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Why did you make a motion that you don't support, and clearly has no chance of passing (and which doesn't really even mandate anything)? Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party made the motion. Fred Bauder 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made the motion. The party is not an arbitrator. This is the proposed decision page, not the workshop. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators[edit]

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved. They should not unblock themselves when blocked (unless in the case that their IP becomes accidentally blocked) or block others with whom they are in a dispute, and they should not protect pages in which they are involved in a conflict, or protect preferred versions of a page in a conflict. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring[edit]

2) Edit warring is considered harmful, because it causes ill-will between users and negatively destabilizes articles. Editors are encouraged to explore methods of dispute resolution. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to any reverts at all.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility[edit]

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reliable sources[edit]

4) It is inappropriate to include information in articles which is not verifiable or published in a reliable source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevant to any findings or remedies. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Appropriate reaction to harassment[edit]

5) Users, especially administrators and others who are involved in controversial decisions, are expected to respond to harassment, and legitimate criticism, in an appropriate way. Some forgiveness may be extended if the harassment is unexpected, but sustained inappropriate reactions are unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Frequent bad response to harassment shows judgment unsuitable for administrator status, IMO Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Harassment is a serious policy breach; but admins should remain level-headed.Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors who also edit on critical sites[edit]

6) Editors of the drama site, ED, and other sites critical of Wikipedia, are free to edit provided they do not engage in inappropriate behavior here or in behavior on another site which seriously affects Wikipedia or its users. Specifically, strong, even unfair criticism on another site is quite acceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No endorsement of such activities, naturally; but our tradition is not to look into or give much weight to off-wiki history (as a general rule, which is not absolute). Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the "seriously affects Wikipedia or its users" caveat an important one. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Even those that engage in off-wiki harassment? We don't have a policy of blocking them, but there's no reason for an arbcom ruling specifically allowing them. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Combatting harassment[edit]

7) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision#Combatting_harassment.

Support:
  1. Pointed out by MONGO Fred Bauder 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Irrelevant. None of these seem to be in response to harassment. The ED issue is over. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Background issues[edit]

1) Opposing viewpoints regarding the cause of the Collapse of the World Trade Center, 9/11 conspiracy theories and similar controversies lie in the background of this dispute with Seabhcan and a number of other editors advancing conspiracy theories from an anti-American viewpoint [5] and Mongo vigorously opposing what he considers "lunacy" and "ridiculous junk science" [6] and defending what he considers accurate characterizations [7] [8] [9].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Seabhcan is uncivil[edit]

2) Seabhcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is persistently uncivil in discussions, and has made personal attacks: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] (more). He was blocked for incivility and personal attacks at 17:58, November 25, 2006.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Seabhcan edit wars[edit]

3) Seabhcan has edit warred at Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, Operation Gladio, and other related articles. He has been blocked twice for violation of 3RR since November 2006. [17]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Seabhcan misuses his admin tools[edit]

4)

  • On November 11, Seabhcan protected Operation Gladio [18] in the midst of an edit war [19] and after reverting to his preferred version [20].
  • On August 22, 2006 he made a contested edit to a protected page in which he was involved [21].
  • He also threatened in an edit summary to block another administrator over a content dispute, while reverting him [22].
  • Seabhcan has used the administrative rollback button in content disputes [23], [24], [25].
Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO misuses his admin tools[edit]

5)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO's habitual over-reaction[edit]

6) MONGO was seriously harassed in the past, and has been harassed to some extent recently, both with respect to the off-wiki drama site, ED, and with respect to his efforts to fight against inclusion of unsourced and poorly sourced information regarding 9/11. In many instances he has reacted inappropriatly to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools. This has been compounded by failure to communicate appropriately with other administrators with respect to his problems and actions [35], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#User:Miltopia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
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.

Template[edit]

1) (Place proposal here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO is desysopped[edit]

1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Added language regarding problems with relating appropriately with other administrators. Fred Bauder 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Second choice, fourth choice, see remedies 5 and 7. Fred Bauder 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shows poor admin judgment; not everyone is temperamentally suited. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Third choice now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice (1.1 is first, 7 is second) ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Fred Bauder 12:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the evidence pertaining to administrative misconduct is stronger with regard to MONGO. I'm puzzled. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MONGO is suspended[edit]

1.1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is suspended from administrative status. He may apply to the Arbitration Committee for restoration of administrative status.

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice (7 is second, 1 is third) ➥the Epopt 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We're in agreement about the desysopping, and (I think) that it needs to be explained explicitly that desysopped admins can get their adminship back by either RFA or application to arbcom. This seems to be doing the opposite, implying that he cannot get it back through RFA, excluding the possible community route. I don't understand the rationale here. Dmcdevit·t 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Seabhcan is desysopped[edit]

2) For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) See also remedy 6. Fred Bauder 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Seabhcan is placed on personal attack parole[edit]

3) Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Second choice Fred Bauder 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Seabhcan is placed on personal attack parole[edit]

3.1) Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. First choice Fred Bauder 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MONGO placed on civility parole[edit]

4) MONGO is placed on civility parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked, up to 24 hours, should he refer to other users or their edits inappropriately, using such language as "nonsense" "garbage" "moronic troll", etc. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) First choice Fred Bauder 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not convinced by the evidence at this time. Maybe a warning. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per Dmcdevit Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MONGO placed on civility parole[edit]

4.1) MONGO is placed on civility parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses, by any administrator for any edit which refers to other users or their edits inappropriately, using such language as "nonsense" "garbage" "moronic troll", etc. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Second choice Fred Bauder 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per 4. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MONGO on administrative parole[edit]

5) MONGO is placed on administrative parole for one year. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, MONGO has misused his administrative tools, he may be blocked briefly, up to one week for repeat offences.

Support:
  1. First choice Fred Bauder 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Desysopping per remedy 1 is third choice. Fred Bauder 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Admin parole is a bad idea. I don't like the idea of a valuable memeber of the community getting blocked over administrative judgments (which would be punitive, in any case). And if someone's an admin, they should be able to do their job unhindered. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IMO, if someone can't be trusted with admin privileges, they can't be trusted with them at all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Seabhcan on administrative parole[edit]

6) Seabhcan is placed on administrative parole for one year. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, Seabhcan has misused his administrative tools, he may be blocked briefly, up to one week for repeat offences.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Per 5. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Likewise; repeated poor judgment as an admin loses you admin privileges. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Offered Fred Bauder 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO suspended as an administrator[edit]

7) MONGO is suspended as an administrator for 6 months.

Support:
  1. Third choice. Desysopping per remedy 1 is fourth choice. Administrative probation is first choice. Indefinite suspension, 1.1, is second choice. Fred Bauder 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice (1.1 is first, 1 is third) ➥the Epopt 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

It may be too early to post this, given the dynamics and changing conditional votes, but I'll try anyway. Will update as needed.

Status of remedies

1) MONGO is desysopped (passes 6-0)

2) Seabhcan is desysopped (passes 6-0)

3) Seabhcan is placed on personal attack parole (1 week max block) (fails 4-0 per conditional votes)

3.1) Seabhcan is placed on personal attack parole (24 hr max block) (passes 6-0)

4) MONGO placed on civility parole (24hr max block) (fails 1-5)

4.1) MONGO placed on civility parole (1 week max block) (fails 1-5)

5) MONGO on administrative parole (fails 1-5)

6) Seabhcan on administrative parole (fails 0-3-3)

7) MONGO is suspended as an administrator for 6 months. (fails 3-0)

Vote[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 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. - SimonP 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I'm not sure we're ready. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. There seems to be a great deal of concern about the MONGO de-sysop decision, perhaps this should be re-evaluated. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better late than never if you want to vote. Charles Matthews
  4. Oppose Fred Bauder 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. After rereading and re-evaluating, I come to no new conclusion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Close Fred Bauder 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037688239"