Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Proposed decision

A 3 month-ban? The ArbCom should bear in mind that this editor has long since given up trying to edit constructively to Wikipedia [1]. OK, she could have been handled better when she first came here, but I struggle to believe that we'll ever get a useful edit out of her, jguk 19:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not reading all of the proposed bans... if everything currently proposed passes, that account for seven months. Also don't forget that the current proposals are not necessarily all proposals that will be proposed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:49, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

There's nothing to say the currently proposed bans are consecutive rather than concurrent. Clarification on this would be welcome as I'd expect the default position would be the least harsh (ie concurrent). My comment was very much in the hope that there would be further developments under the remedies section. It is very disappointing where we have got to a stage that a user has effectively decided to stop editing constructively, but (at least for the recent past) continued to edit disruptively. Lamentably, I feel this is where we are with CheeseDreams.

Also, if the ArbCom is only going to allow CheeseDreams to edit from the CheeseDreams account, they should specify how she is going to get access to it as she doesn't have the password. I do, but am happy to divulge it to a member of the ArbCom if requested - but presumably she'd then need to prove who she is. I imagine this is best done by making the temporary injunction a more permanent injunction, jguk 20:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Just for clarification to the ArbCom... The decision is only for the English Wikipedia, and any misbehavior on any other language Wikipedia or Wikimedia project will be up to the other project(s) to decide how to deal with this user, correct? -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct. We may look at behaviour elsewhere to help us understand the situation and the people involved, but any ruling only relates to the English Wikipedia. -- sannse (talk) 00:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prior ArbCom ruling

Also, exactly how does the prior ArbCom ruling play into this ruling? Like, is the clock reset because of the violations? -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

we'll need to look at that I think -- sannse (talk) 00:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFCs and RFArs

Why can't we have a "vexation litigant" ruling like the one suggested by mav? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's being considered as part of the remedies - see 5 and 5.1 -- sannse (talk) 00:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not in the form that Mav suggested. See the original complaint where I outlined my thoughts on this. Take it as you will: I'd just hate for CD to get around this. 5.1 as it stands is full of holes and will lead to nothing but controversy (if CD ever gets her account back). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets / Impersonators

user:CheezeDreams has now appeared. Thryduulf 02:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of language of the nature "CheeseDreams (under whatever account)"... What if CheeseDreams itself is a sockpuppet account? CD has intimated before that the CD account is merely an account that she uses to protect her "upstanding" account. Let's say, for the sake of argument that CD is really a sockpuppet of someone else. Would the rulings here apply to the "main" account? I'm just trying to understand what would happen should a developer undertake the necessary steps to fish the IP logs and see if CD was, perhaps, really just a sockpuppet herself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Based only on my of course imperfect feel for human nature and how people behave, I really don't see how there could be a "rational" account for someone who so obviously edits on crack to the degree CD does. I could of course be wrong - David Gerard 01:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consecutive bans

I know I've advocated a hard ban for CD, but I think it's quite strange how the ArbCom are passing a 33 month ban on her.

The "all bans are consecutive" rule when applied to the "Ban for disregard of previous rulings" is quite funny. Arbs vote against 1 month, for 3, 6 and 12 months - total ban = 21 months. Is this intended, or just another example of the Arbs not reading what they're passing - which gave rise to the unfortunate Everyking clarification fiasco?

I know I'm being blunt here, but it would help a lot if Arbs were to re-read what they are passing and ask themselves sincerely if that is what they really mean. Kind regards, jguk 23:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are not voting for 3, 6 and 12 months here - we are voting for 3, 6, or 12 months. Only the length with majority support in each section will be passed. If we consider 3 or 6 to be acceptable, then we vote for both - but it's only one of those that will be carried in each case (which is why you will often see conditional votes and a small flurry of vote changes near the end of a case). In the section you mention, only 6 months has majority support and only that will pass. If Delirium or I wanted to, we could vote against closing to see if we could get more votes for 3 months or persuade others to change their vote, but given the comments and conditional votes involved, that doesn't seem the right thing here).

The consecutive bans applies once we have decided the ban length for each section - there will only be one length passed for each. Because there were a lot of smaller issues adding up to one big mess, we chose to give bans for each of those issues, combining to give a ban suitable for the overall situation. The maximum ban will still be a year - we are capped at that point. -- sannse (talk) 12:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)