From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 choose. 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.

For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 7 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.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Stalking 3.1.2 Courtesy 3.1.3 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Incivil behavior 3.2.2 Stalking 3.2.3 Problems with other editors 3.2.4 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 WLU 3.3.2 Mystar 3.3.3 Previously problematic articles 3.3.4 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 3.5 Discussion by Arbitrators 3.5.1 General 3.6 Motion to close 3.6.1 Implementation notes 3.6.2 Vote

[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] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Stalking

1) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Way too strong. We have an ongoing problem with baseless accusations of stalking.

Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Stalking

2) Both parties accuse the other of stalking. Both are correct to some degree.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) per principle above.

Abstain:

[edit] Problems with other editors

3) Neither party seems to have any serious history of problems or issues with other editors.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. On the workshop page User:NeoFreak, claims otherwise. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did look in the direction pointed by NeoFreak and was unconvinced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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] WLU

1) WLU shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Mystar, on any page in Wikipedia. Should WLU do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (note slight change of "he" to "WLU" to make clear who this remedy is referring to.)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Mystar

2) Mystar shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, WLU, on any page in Wikipedia. Should Mystar do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (see note in previous remedy)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Previously problematic articles

3) For the purpose of the above remedies, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[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.

Majority in this case is 7. As of now, all principles, findings and remedies pass 8-0 or 7-1. Thatcher131 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[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. Close, looks like we're done here. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Close. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Close. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   • Keep open for a moment. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties; I think if WLU would agree to these terms, we don't need to be as draconian in banning both of them from both classes of articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
     • No agreement is forthcoming. Back to "close". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)