Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
General probation
Line 645: Line 645:
:Abstain:
:Abstain:
:#
:#

===Nobs01 placed on probation===
13) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Nobs01 with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on [[Wikipedia:Probation]]. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others]]. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Nobs01's probation shall automatically end.

:Support:
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Sam Spade placed on probation===
14) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sam Spade with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on [[Wikipedia:Probation]]. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others]]. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Sam Spade's probation shall automatically end.

:Support:
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#


===Herschelkrustofsky placed on probation===
15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sam Spade with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on [[Wikipedia:Probation]]. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others]]. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

:Support:
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#



==Proposed enforcement==
==Proposed enforcement==

Revision as of 13:56, 16 December 2005

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, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 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

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

1) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#State your point; don't prove it experimentally provides that parody or a breaching experiment is often a disruption of Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks provides that "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme" is an unacceptable personal attack.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Autobiography

3) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, discourages persons who have an article about themselves in Wikipedia from editing it, suggesting that they provide input on the talk page, but points out the need for citing published sources for information to be acceptable.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Don't bite the newbies

4) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of Don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Controversial experts

5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of controversial experts

6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

SNAKE! SNAKE!

7) Wikipedia editors who engage in immature behavior by inappropriately focusing their attention on controversial users should be extended some decree of understanding as this is a predictable newbie error.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (Though I don't get the title - perhaps something else?)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (odd title, but the idea applies)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment

8) Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cite sources

9) Users are required to adequately cite the source of any information they place in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources. Information which is unsourced may be criticized on that basis, and ultimately be removed. A clear understanding of plagiarism is required.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

External activities of users

10) Use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties", or guilt by association may be properly reported in a article; however, use of guilt by association by any party on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia requires verification of information by a reliable source, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors with a strong point of view

11) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates editing by users with strong political points of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Banning for point of view editing

12) Despite their welcome to Wikipedia, editors with strong partisan points of view may be banned or otherwise restricted if they are not courteous, engage in personal attacks on their "opponents", or aggressively edit in a point of view way which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Disruption by Nobs01

1) Nobs01 has disrupted Wikipedia by posing extensive material that he calls "links & ties", essentially guilt by association to Talk:Chip Berlet, see for example Talk:Chip Berlet#Intelligence Identities Protection Act and [1]. These postings to the talk page of an article about a Wikipedia user constitute harassment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attack by Cognition

2) Cognition has made a sustained personal attack on Cberlet [2]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks by Sam Spade

3) Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet [3] [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment of Cberlet

4) Rangerdude has inappropriately quarreled with and been involved in disputes regarding the article concerning a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Cberlet, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence#Rangerdude.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet

5) Cberlet, a minor public figure, has sometimes involved himself inappropriately in the content of the article on himself [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC) A comment on a talk page is not "inappropriate involvement", and the very serious accusations being made against him in the article were extremely provocative.[reply]
Abstain:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by Cberlet

6) Cberlet has sometimes been discourteous and made personal attacks. [6]. Added 18:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [7] [8] [9] Fred Bauder 18:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (I would disagree that that is a personal attack.)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Uncivil comments by Cberlet

6.1) Cberlet has made uncivil comments that should have been less confrontational. [10]

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (I feel that this is more accurate.)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No, not better. Fred Bauder 20:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It was clearly a personal attack, particularly the closing phrase "the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over." Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Sam Spade and sources

7) Sam Spade's use of citations is less than desirable; see Talk:Political correctness/Archive 5#Dispute header and Talk:Political correctness#Plagiarism allegations

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (Though, hmm, I'm not sure about the wording.)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (Addressed wording.)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attack by Nobs01 on Cberlet

8) Distressed by the proposed remedies in this case, Nobs01 has converted User:Nobs01 into a sustained personal attack on Cberlet. Titled "The Extremist Personality", the page outlines "twenty-two common traits of extremists" with each linked to some example of Cberlet's editiing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

Removal of personal attacks

1) The "links & ties" material posted by Nobs01 on Talk:Chip Berlet or any other page may be removed by any user as personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (Although I'm not really sure we should need to state this.)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reopen Lyndon LaRouch 2

2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is reopened. The remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2#Ban_on_editing_LaRouche-related_articles is modified to include an indefinite ban on editing Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates and Dennis King and their talk pages. Cognition may continue to edit under that name but is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (Unnecessary to re-open; just modify it, and also spin out the Cognition PAP, as below.)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) As per James.[reply]
  3. Raul654 13:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC) - I agree with James[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Modify Lyndon LaRouch 2

2.1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages).

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cognition placed on personal attack parole

3) Cognition (talk · contribs) may continue to edit under that name but is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rangerdude placed on probation

4) Rangerdude is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. Any administrator may ban Rangerdude from editing any article which he disrupts by aggressive or tendentious editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (added "or")[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rangerdude placed on probation

4.1) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Rangerdude with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Rangerdude's probation shall automatically end.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rangerdude admonished

5) Rangerdude is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet)

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC) - I have removed the final phrase because I don't think we should be deciding notability.[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

6) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Nobs01 banned for one month

7) Nobs01 is banned for one month due to disruption of Talk:Chip Berlet

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cognition banned for one month

8) Cognition is banned for one month due to an egregious personal attack on User talk:Cberlet

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sam Spade cautioned to avoid personal attacks

9) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sam Spade cautioned regarding citation of sources

10) Sam Spade is reminded that information which is included in Wikipedia must be properly sourced; that information that is not properly sourced may be criticized on that basis and ultimately removed, and that the source of any information used should be cited to avoid plagiarism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cberlet cautioned to avoid personal attacks

11) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No need for the caution, it was an aberrant outburst made under extreme provocation. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No need. James F. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Nobs01 banned for personal attacks

12) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Nobs01 placed on probation

13) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Nobs01 with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Nobs01's probation shall automatically end.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sam Spade placed on probation

14) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sam Spade with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Sam Spade's probation shall automatically end.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Herschelkrustofsky placed on probation

15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sam Spade with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

  1. I may have encountered Chip Berlet briefly in Denver while I was a member of the National Lawyers Guild in the late 1970s. We were friendly but had no significant involvement personally or politically. Fred Bauder 13:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As the result of complaints by Sam Spade on the mailing list I have spend some time rechecking evidence regarding Cberlet. I have found a few more examples of personal attacks or incivility but nothing else that is appropriate for adding to the decision. Cberlet edits from a left wing point of view, sometimes quite aggressively, his edits are sometimes biased and he does occasionally get involved in the content of the article on himself. These transgressions do not justify proposal of further remedies. Compared to other users on either the right or left who regularly edit on Wikipedia, he is model user. Fred Bauder 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&oldid=31608400"