Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties, and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 5 are away or inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (9 active arbitrators).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Revert paroles

1) Enacted on 05:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Until the conclusion of this case, Rex Gemanus and Ulritz may not make more than one content revert per article per day.

Support:
  1. Still edit warring, and at least three pages are directly protected because of them right now. Dmcdevit·t 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 09:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 13:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Edit warring is harmful

1) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Ulritz edit wars

1) Ulritz (talk • contribs) has a history of edit warring, and has received numerous blocks for 3RR violations.[1] He continued edit warring despite the temporary injunction imposed in this case.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rex Germanus edit wars

2) Rex Germanus (talk • contribs) has a history of edit warring, and has received numerous blocks for 3RR violations.Germanus He continued edit warring despite the temporary injunction imposed in this case.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] 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.

[edit] Ulritz placed on revert parole

1) Ulritz is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rex Germanus placed on revert parole

2) Rex Germanus is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Ulritz placed on Probation

3) Ulritz is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rex Germanus placed on Probation

4) Rex Germanus is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Subsequent motion: Anonymous editor Ulritz

5) The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Violations of any bans or paroles imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

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.

[edit] Vote

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. move to close ➥the Epopt 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Everything has passed. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Ulritz_Proposed_decision_f76a.html"