This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the set of articles which involve the question of the contested sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Contestants

2) Contestants are Ecemaml (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gibraltarian advocates the viewpoint of the citizens of Gibraltar; Ecemaml that of the Spanish government. Ecemaml is an administrator of the Spanish Wikipedia. Gibraltarian has been active on that wiki, and has been the object of discussion. He is sometimes blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Anything untrue? Fred Bauder 17:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. Gibraltarian is not, yet, indefinitelly banned in the Spanish Wikipedia. At the moment, he's been temporarily blocked by other administrator (see log). Several different administrators has temporarily blocked him (in fact, my only blocking to Gibraltarian was for a day, see log). The IP address range of his ISP is blocked on a week-by-week basis (mind that the Spanish wikipedia hasn't voted yet for implementing the semiprotection feature). The procedure has been blocking for a week and determining whether further vandalizing comes from the range once the blocking expires. His case was extensively discussed in the es: mailing list, where the option of blocking the whole IP range was the one that got greater consensus. Finally, Gibraltarian, apart from advocating the "viewpoint of the citizens of Gibraltar" also refuses to recognize that there is even a dispute and therefore, attempt to remove other points of view. --Ecemaml 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Point of view editing by Gibraltrian

3) Gibraltrian has engaged in point of view editing [1] and sterile edit warring, often over Template:Disputed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence#First_assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Gibraltarian

4) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently made personal attacks, see User_talk:Ecemaml#Drop_your_obsession, [2], [3], and many examples at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence#Second_assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely

5) From the block log: 20:43, December 16, 2005 Woohookitty blocked "User:Gibraltarian" with an expiry time of indefinite (for continued personal attacks, disruption and incivility. he is now using sockpuppets to violate the 3RR literally daily)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. No reason to lift this but remedy needs to be fashioned for sockpuppets. Fred Bauder 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

6) Following his block Gibraltarian has used sockpuppets such as Gibo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Yanito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gibo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gibo2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gibo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gibo4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been created as sleeper accounts to defeat semi-protection.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Bad coding Fred Bauder 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Affected articles

7) Disputed status of Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, and Gibraltar are the most affected pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Gibraltarian is kept to 0RR

1) Gibraltarian cannot revert any articles to past edits. A block of one week will occur if he does.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I saw him pull a 12RR on day on WP:AN/3RR. That must be a record. Anyone who reverts that much(apparently that's just the tip of the iceberg) can't be allowed to revert at all. karmafist 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian banned

1) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs) is banned for one month for personal attacks and disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. This is way too weak - Gibraltarian has shown no signs of changing his beliefs or attitude toward Ecemaml. --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longer ban

1.1) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs) is banned for one year for personal attacks and disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Gibraltarian's continued disruptive behavior warrants a long ban like this one. Also note that his original account has already been banned indefinitely, as has his registered sockpuppet Yanito (talk · contribs). --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    His behavior since those proposals makes me agree. He has been blocked indefinitely and is now coming back as an anon to vandalize user pages. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses banned

2) All IP addresses in the 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255 range are banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The blocking of Gibraltar is inappropriate. If necessary we can semi-protect the relevant articles and ban Gibraltarian. Fred Bauder 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Another thing to try is contacting Gibraltar NYNEX Communications Ltd; blocking the range may be a tactic is establishing effective communication. Fred Bauder 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gibraltarian Discussion
Comment by parties:
  1. I completely agree. As far as we can tell, no other edits have come from this range. Otherwise, it's impossible to stop this man. He's vowed to continue this for months and months and I believe him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Btw, Here is the page where all of the socks and such of G are listed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. I think this is appropriate given the fact that Gibraltarian's IPs all fall within this range (the range of his ISP), these IPs are dynamic, and no other edits have come from any IPs in this range. --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't really agree. Although an administrator in es: I'm not able to know the real IP address of registered wikipedians (is it possible?). However, I'd dare to say that other Gibraltarian wikipedians such as Gibnews access from the same IP address range, so that there would be collateral damages (the situation in es: is slightly different since no user from Gibraltar but Gibraltarian is accessing from such ISP. --Ecemaml 07:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian banned from Gibraltar-related subjects and talk pages indefinitely

3) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing any article or talk page related to Gibraltar. "Related to Gibraltar" shall be interpreted broadly, and the titular subject of the article is irrelevant; if the edit is deemed "related to Gibraltar", Gibraltarian is in violation of this decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Indeed - this is what should be done with "obsessions" with specific topics/articles. --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar placed on personal attack parole

4) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on personal attack parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Modified to the usual language Fred Bauder 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Too light - see above. --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian placed on general probation

5) Gibraltarian is placed on indefinite 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/Gibraltarian. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed Gibraltarian's probation shall automatically end.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Yes, I'd agree. Btw, the range block I did yesterday has stopped him. So now, I am receiving 50 emails at once from him that just say "UNBLOCK ME NOW!!!". And I'm not exaggerating. It's 50+. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Gibraltarian's unrepentant behavior deserves a longer enforcement period. --TML1988 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of new blocking policies

1) As long as there is no way of preventing the user Gibraltarian from accessing from any IP address from the range of ISP, I think that a new blocking tool should be implemented. It would be used to prevent anonymous editions from a given IP range. On the one hand, it would allow blocking Gibraltarian. On the other, it would not affect the rest of legitimate wikipedians from such a range. --Ecemaml 13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed Fred Bauder 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Enforcement by block

1) If Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates any probation or parole remedy he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The usual language Fred Bauder 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


More