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 she/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 3 are 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.

Place those on /Workshop.

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.

1) Until the conclusion of this Arbitration case, Blu Aardvark is banned from editing any Wikipedia pages other than his talk page and those pages related to this arbitration.

Support:

1. Let's have no more admin tussles for now. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited. Egregious or persistent personal attacks may lead to administrator blocks or bans. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) A safe environment for editors in general and administrators in particular is essential for the functioning of Wikipedia; without safety, building an encyclopedia is impossible.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Controversial actions like unblocking a banned user should not usually be done without prior discussion and consensus among the community. See WP:CON.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Disruptive editing, like trolling, abusive use of sockpuppets, and especially vandalism, may be dealt with by a block at an administrator's discretion.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Blu Aardvark engaged in personal attacks, for which he was blocked. (evidence)

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Blu Aardvark has created many abusive sockpuppets for block evasion and harassment, and engaged in vandalism of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Blu Aardvark is a user who was banned as the result of his disruptive behavior. The ban followed community discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive87#Blu_Aardvark:_I_recommend_a_permanent_ban.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Blu Aardvark has engaged in harassment of other editors, mostly SlimVirgin and Raul654, both on-wiki and on an external site. He has created offensive usernames for the purpose of abusing other users (User:SlimVirgin is a lying manipulative cunt, User:SlimVirgin is a lying manipulative cunt (on wheels), and others) and used sockpuppets to make vicious attacks ("SlimVirgin is a lying manipulative cunt.", [1]). Blu Aardvark also used a number of sockpuppets to harass Raul654 with provocative or simply vandalizing edits to his user pages (eg, [2], [3], [4], [5], and many more). He has also used the external forum Wikipedia Review to continue harassment, encouraging banned user's stalking and posting personal attacks like "Jewjg" and calling established users trolls and meatpuppets.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) On May 28, Linuxbeak unblocked Blu Aardvark along with banned user Mistress Selina Kyle (who was reblocked) in good faith with the intent of mentoring him, but without prior community discussion or consensus. Three days later, Raul654 unblocked Blu Aardvark twice in less than an hour, without having entered into prior discussion or finding consensus. A different administrator reversed each of the three unblocks. [6]. There was wide community dissent to the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle, and some editors decided to leave the project, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) For personal attacks and disruption, Blu Aardvark is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Considerable community support, not worth the disruption to the community that his presence, with good reason, has caused. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) If a mentorship is established this ban might be reduced. Fred Bauder 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Just to be clear, I understand this is a year long block from when this case closes, not from when he was first banned in April. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. concur with SimonP ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC) As with Simon.[reply]
6. What positive contributions he has made do not outweigh the negatives. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Blu Aardvark is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith.

Support:

1. These three in case 1 fails. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Blu Aardvark is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Blu Aardvark is placed on general probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from editing Wikipedia. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue a block war. Raul654 in particular is warned not to repeatedly unblock when he is reversed.

Support:

1. Common sense. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Though as I read the block log Mark only reunblocked once, so the wording here might be a bit too severe. - SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Following any ban, Blu Aardvark is placed under mentorship for the duration of his Probation.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Still not worth the disruption, in my mind. Dmcdevit·t 18:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Offered Fred Bauder 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) For violations of his parole or Probation, using username or account, Blu Aardvark may be blocked for a short time, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

The majority vote is 6.

• Everything passes 6-0 except:
  • 6) Following any ban, Blu Aardvark is placed under mentorship for the duration of his Probation. Fails (0-5 with 1 abstention)

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. No disagreement here; close. Dmcdevit·t 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. - SimonP 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close Fred Bauder 00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]