Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks:

Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Stephen Bain (Talk

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Sceptre be named as an involved party

1) Due to interaction (and revert warring) with User:Miami33139 at Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pisg which both relates to this case, Sceptre is hereby named as an involved party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm leaning towards not adding him. He should've been a bit more careful given the arbcom case was going on at the time, but since his involvement seems to be limited to the bit of revert warring above, and no evidence involving him elsewhere, it may be better that another is not dragged it. Wizardman 00:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If Sceptre thinks it is acceptable to edit war to restore personal attacks against his fellow editors maybe he should be added. His behavior was atrocious and contributed towards the abuse, instead of protecting other editors from abuse. Miami33139 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support i had originally thought sceptre was an admin, but it turns out that this is no longer the case. regardless, he is an experienced editor who knew there was an arbcom case going on, and who knew there were outing concerns. the fact that he involved himself, and edit warred to include an attempted outing, completely undermines common sense, civility, wp:outing and other wikipedia policies. i hope that sceptre, at the very least, can be explained, sternly, why this type of behavior is unacceptable, especially when his actions completely undermine a current arbcom case and involve attempted outing concerns. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Only makes sense as both revert wars relate Miami3339 and Tothwolf. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re comments below: See the other proposed motion. There's a reason why clerks are there; things like this should be brought to their attention instead of revert warred over. Reminder that being an involved party does not necessary means that they would be sanctioned; this motion merely states the fact that something related to the case was edit-warred over, thus, involvement. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ncmvocalist: In *rare* cases (which has happened according to NewyorkBrad) there has been cases where an FoF/remedy explicitly named a non-party. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the only reason I reverted Miami33139 is because he was removing another user's comments. Even when they contain personal attacks, it's discouraged; when they don't, it's

vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re Miami: if you believe you are being personally attacked, the community accepted response is to let someone else intervene. It's discouraged to take it upon yourself to deal with personal attacks against you. Short of the contributions alleging you to have committed a criminal offence, or other cases of indisputable (key word) libel, arbitrarily removing another user's comments is considered

vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sceptre is somewhat correct on this point - someone else should've been left to intervene, regardless of whether Tothwolf's comment should've stayed as is, or the part Miami wanted removed should've been removed. While the number of reverts was concerning (Sceptre, take note of this now), at the end of the day, it's hard to ignore the obvious issue. If there was outing, one needs to go through the proper channels to have it removed by someone else - unless Miami was given clearance to make the edits, I'm not inclined to support this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very grey line. There is nothing preventing the introduction of the evidence itself (as it already ties Tothwolf's comments with Miami's removal) - and there is no doubt Miami edit-warred to alter another's comments. The issue of having to introduce Sceptre as a party only arises if someone finds a need to present particular evidence against Sceptre or his conduct (if it needs to be arbitrated in this case), or if he is to be explicitly mentioned in Fofs or remedies - unless there's something more than the reverts on both pages, I still don't see the need for either in order to bring this case to a close (correct me if I'm mistaken or I've missed something). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Penwhale: In ancient history or recent times? The only time I've seen that happen in recent times was for statistical Fof's (which in the scheme of things, was not significant). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction against revert war on any discussion related to the case

2) For the duration of the case, an involved party may not revert any comment related to the case on any page by any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to prevent reverts like this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Miami33139

Proposed principles

Article ownership

1) (a) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: The spirit of this proposal is generally true. Whether it is applicable or appropriate to the consideration at hand is another matter.
—Amelioration 18:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Be Bold

2) a) Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold in editing pages, and cautions editors that their writing may be edited mercilessly. b) Wikipedia is collaborative. Participation in consensus discussions, including deletion, is highly encouraged to get as many opinions as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: Again, this is a fair interpretation of current policy. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure the efficacy of measures consistent with this.
—Amelioration 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Conflict of Interest

3) Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization._{Bolding by Miami33139}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

Tothwolf has emotionally invested in articles about IRC. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That's too broad, many people have "high level of commitment" to involvement with, or dependence upon their countries and their religions. Sole Soul (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already the wording of the WP:COI guideline. It was taken directly from that page. The COI by itself is not the issue, it is the ability to edit dispassionately in areas where the COI exists. Miami33139 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelioration Recommendation: Not necessary and overly broad. If specific formulations of COI policy are germane, they can be cited more appropriately.
—Amelioration 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Decorum

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

Tothwolf has repeatedly attacked out of context, made personal attacks using insulting Wikipedia specific terminology, and fails to assume good faith. False claims of harassment are not reasonable and clam approaches to dispute resolution. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: Good. Perhaps as a principle, saying "is not in accord with the purposes of Wikipedia" would be better than "is prohibited... or is also unacceptable".
—Amelioration 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Specialized lingo

5) Wikipedia has developed its own specialized lingo. In this environment, terms like "stalker", "meatpuppet", and "duck" (although I am not sure what this means, Tothwolf uses it repeatedly to dismiss those he is done talking to) are insults and their usage would be found insulting by most regular Wikipedia editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

These are the words Tothwolf uses to attack and it is very clear in context that he means them as attacks on contributors, not content. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: Not particularly necessary. Further, specific points regarding editors are inappropriate for proposed principles.
—Amelioration 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It should be noted that those words also
boy 00 @196, i.e. 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Open and transparent project

6) Wikipedia is an open and transparent project. Users contributions are not private. All user and administrative actions are logged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

Tothwolf has repeatedly claimed people are digging things out of his contributions history in order to harass him, even when the intersection of his edits are minor and topic segregated. Tothwolf confuses normal use of a users contribution history with harassment and stalking. Tothwolf assumes that his harassers use his contributions, rather than watchlists, categories, wikiprojects, and organized lists to find articles to work on. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: Not necessary.
—Amelioration 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Meat puppet

7) The recruitment of editors for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

Tothwolf makes this claim, whether it is right or wrong it is a principle to address. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: Generally true - should be phrased differently.
—Amelioration 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Community owns userspace

8) (a) Pages in userspace belong to the community.

WP:FAKEARTICLE

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:'

Tothwolf claims ownership, sole editing rights, and the right to ban users from deleted articles that have been moved to his userspace. Miami33139 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Amelioration Recommendation: This would require further consideration. It is not immediately clear that users do not have the right to request other editors to stay out of their user space.
—Amelioration 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed findings of fact

Tothwolf's actions assume his ownership

1) Tothwolf repeatedly accuses editors, who make edits he dislikes, on articles he has worked on, as harassing him regardless of whether the editors addressed him or even worked on the same parts of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This trend was clear in Mikaey's evidence document before I ever ran into Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tagging, proposing, deleting

2) Tagging articles with cleanup templates or proposing articles for deletion is a normal BOLD part of the collaborative editing process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As a result of his OWNership of articles, and because his COI results in emotional attachment, Tothwolf claims he is being harassed, which interferes with BOLD editing by anyone else around him. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a principle, not a FoF. --

boy00 @199, i.e. 03:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Participation

3) Tothwolf has repeatedly accused editors who participate in deletion discussions of bad faith, meatpuppetry, and "duck" (whatever that means). Tothwolf's requests to administrators often ask for topic bans on users regarding deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The evidence is clear that Tothwolf has disrupted multiple AfD and DRV discussions with his outbursts, oftentimes without even trying to address the article being discussed. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

4) Tothwolf is emotionally attached to articles on the subject of IRC/Chat, and to a lesser extent, software in general. Tothwolf cannot separate his interests from that of Wikipedia, and cannot edit these articles in a neutral manner which has resulted in edit wars, disputes, and personal attacks on other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Some editors can't keep their religious or nationalist issues to the side. Tothwolf has incorporated this subject matter into his personal ego Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Duck, meatpuppet, stalker, and repeated false accusations are personal attacks

4)

(a) Tothwolf has repeatedly used the terms "duck", "meatpuppet" and "stalker" in his off-topic comments. These violate NPA.

(b) Tothwolf has repeatedly accused people of bad faith and stalking when this is not apparent from his evidence. Repeated false accusations violate NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Expectation of contribution privacy

5) Tothwolf has a false expectation that his contribution history is private. He has accused editors who edit things from his history (months afterwards) of harassment. This has created a hostile editing environment because nobody can avoid every edit he ever made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He claimed making a minor edit to a separate article section separated by EIGHT MONTHS was dug out of his contribs to harass him. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry

5) JBsupreme, Miami33139, theserialcomma, Joe Chill are not meatpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Users who follow the same lists and categories to find discussions of interest are bound to have overlapping contributions. This is not evidence of collusion or meatpuppetry. Outside of software/corporation discussions, JBsupreme and I don't even !vote similarly. I have no interaction with these other users outside of the general topic area of AfD/DRV/etc. Tothwolf's huge table violates the KISS principle in a bad way. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Userspace

6) Tothwolf has claimed ownership of

deleted articles in his userspace

and inappropriately restored content that does not belong on user articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Policy based changes to userpages should not be reverted just because the hosting user hates the person who makes an edit. Miami33139 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Tothwolf

Proposed findings of fact

Conflict of interest

1) Miami33139 has a clear conflict of interest with computing and technology topics such as articles about computer hardware and software.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not, and there is no evidence for this. Miami33139 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

You need links for stuff like this Shii (tock) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review website

2) Miami33139 operates and administrates a website dedicated to reviewing computer hardware and software.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False. I don't know what off-wiki evidence you think you have gathered, but I do not run a review website. Miami33139 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What website?

boy00 @204, i.e. 03:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Banner advertising

3) Miami33139's website runs sponsored banner advertising for computer hardware and software companies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a commercial website to run banner ads on. Miami33139 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sponsorship

4) Miami33139 is provided with free computer hardware and software for "review" purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a review website and am not provided free hardware and software to review. You are clearly confused. Miami33139 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Abuse of Criteria for speedy deletion

5) Miami33139 has abused the speedy deletion process, including intentionally mistagging articles as G4 (and other criteria) that were not eligible for CSD and tagging templates which are still in use as G8.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this being intentional? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common problem at AfD that articles on products are not eligible for speedy A7 but articles on companies that make products are. This isn't abusive, it is common. After deletion of an article.I regularly tag all undeleted "associated" pages with g8 as housekeeping. I have made mistakes with this, but only because there are

verifiability policy. Mistakes aren't abuse, and neither is forward looking deletion. Proposing a template for housekeeping deletion when the links to it should be removed is part of the wording for when it should be used. Miami33139 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Abuse of Proposed deletion

6) Miami33139 has abused the proposed deletion process, including tagging articles that had already previously been proposed for deletion or kept after the articles for deletion process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not believe I have done this intentionally nor is there evidence of that. Miami33139 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Abuse of other deletion processes

7) Miami33139 has abused other deletion processes such as MfD, TfD, RfD, CFD, DRV, etc in further attempts to game the system in using these processes for revenge and harassment purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this being 'abusive' and used for revenge or harassment purposes? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not abusive to use the deletion processes. Where editors create many articles that all fail our inclusion policies it is common to nominate many articles from the same user as they are found. Revenge and harassment are Tothwolf's persecution delusion. Miami33139 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

8) Miami33139 has engaged in

sockpuppetry

in order to "win" in deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

which socks did he employ? where is the checkuser evidence? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Miami33139 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry

9) Miami33139 has engaged in

meatpuppetry

and has colluded with several other editors in their deletion and harassment efforts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? where did the off-wiki collusion take place? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no off-wiki communication with other editors about deletion. I have engaged in email with TSC about this arbitration case after it started, the contents of which is just common griping and not "collusion." Notably, I do not engage in IRC, where Tothwolf has recruited people to help him. Miami33139 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Multimedia software articles

10) Miami33139 primarily targeted multimedia software articles until approximately September 2009, when they began targeting IRC-related articles for retaliation purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence that nominating non notable irc articles is anything but good editing? where is the evidence that this was done for retaliation purposes? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikihounding

11) Miami33139 has followed the contributions of multiple editors, particularly editors who have worked together to improve IRC-related articles, and has targeted articles they have edited for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, actually I use the categories and navigation templates. Typically I open a category or template, open each article listed, and tag appropriately. If there is commonality between articles and article creators this is superficial to how I came upon the article. Poor article sourcing is my primary criteria and article authors who make claims that "[1] It doesn't need any sources" are likely to have many articles deleted. This is not targeting it is a natural consequence of poor article writing. Miami33139 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Superficial project involvement

12) Since September 2009, Miami33139 has attempted to become superficially involved in computing-related WikiProjects, deletion discussions, and other related discussions in an attempt to hide their harassment and disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this being superficial? isn't this an assumption of bad faith? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is either bad faith or evidence of a persecution complex. Miami33139 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Attempt to rewrite the notability guideline

13) Miami33139 has attempted to "rewrite" the notability guideline for computer software (Wikipedia:Notability (software), currently an essay which was drafted over the top of a different essay and proposal) (history diff), which as currently written is in conflict with many existing policies and guidelines, and seems to violate the neutral point of view policy. (Use of this essay as a "guideline" was attempted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analog (program).)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:NSOFT has never been a guideline, so I didn't write anything on top of it. It was a previous failed proposal. I have asked editors to help me re-write it since February. User:Ihcoyc did most of the current re-writing, and is also the one that referenced it in an AfD. Note in the editing history of NSOFT I made sure it was marked as an essay and not marked as a guideline. There isn't a problem with citing essays, even those without consensus, in AfD if those essays present your views. I haven't done so, Ihcoyc did. Tothwolf seems to be confusing the identities of separate people. Miami33139 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing and POV pushing

14) Miami33139 has engaged in tendentious editing and POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion not based on evidence. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

15) Miami33139 has engaged in disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disruptive to those who wish to keep unverified, unsourced articles around. Unfortunately for those disrupted, that is why Wikipedia has deletion policies for unverified information. Miami33139 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment campaign

16) Miami33139 has attempted to drive away both long-term Wikipedia contributors as well as new editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for this? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are frustrated when their contributions are edited mercilessly may decide to leave. It is wrong to blame me for fixing broken article content. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia philosophy. Tothwolf has an article ownership problem, which is why this frustrates him. Miami33139 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Violation of the Bot policy

17) Miami33139 has used various scripts or programs to bulk-remove other editors' contributions and otherwise make large numbers of edits which affect the site in violation of the bot policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

where is the evidence for him using a bot? is it a script or a bot? are his edits really in violation of bot policy? Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit with a bot. I do not use external scripts. I use Twinkle, Huggle, WikEd, and Friendly, which any logged-in editor can turn on in the user preferences. I don't even use an external editor, as Tothwolf does. All of the edits that Tothwolf complains about were articles opened in Firefox tabs and edited manually in the default editor. Miami33139 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit

Proposed findings of fact

Miami33139's participation in deletions

1) Miami33139 sees deletion-related activities as an

editing policy

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.

ping 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Miami33139's contributions to Wikipedia

2) Miami33139 is a

scope of the notability guideline

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.

ping 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Added the last sentence (additional evidence).

ping 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

Miami33139 topic banned

1) Miami33139 is banned for one year from engaging in all

deletion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~First choice.~~

ping 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Second choice, now. Amended with topic ban on editing software articles given the nature article of his article space edits.

ping 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Miami33139 site banned

2) Miami33139 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Second choice~~.

ping 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Made this my first choice, given the dearth of article-space edits that contribute significant material.

ping 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.