Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/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, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority. (9 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.

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) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

1) It is inappropriate to promote commercial interests in the editing of Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest[edit]

1.1) Sustained aggressive editing promoting a commercial interest may be considered adequate proof of conflict of interest. It is not necessary to show an external financial nexus.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban for disruption[edit]

2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles by aggressive biased editing may be banned from editing those articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sock and meat puppets[edit]

3) The remedies imposed on a user with a distinctive pattern of disruptive editing may be imposed and enforced against users whose activity mirrors that of the disruptive user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support qualified: this is not to be read in a wide sense (relating to point of view), but should be read in the narrow sense of 'distinctive'. The evidence should be fairly secure that this is the same person. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

KyndFellow[edit]

1) KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uses the signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.", is involved with a commercial website, Slyguide.com. It is, within the limits inherent to its subject, informative and tasteful, focusing on travel destinations which offer legal prostitution.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm going to abstain from the second part of this finding, as it is not an Arbitrators job to evaluate the quality of external links. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Aggressive biased editing by KyndFellow[edit]

2) KyndFellow has edited articles which relate to sex tourism in a disruptive, aggressive, biased manner, particularly emphasizing maintenance of links to a set of commercial websites: slyguide.com, worldsexarchives.com, and perceptivetravel.com, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Statement by edgarde.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

KyndFellow banned[edit]

1) KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

KyndFellow placed on Probation[edit]

2) KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sites promoted by KyndFellow[edit]

3) Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Puppets[edit]

2) Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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. Close. Everything has passed. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. - SimonP 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. FloNight 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733459"