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.

On this case, 8 Arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 5 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 Conflict of interest 3.1.2 Ban for disruption 3.1.3 Who's who 3.1.4 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Yoshiaki Omura 3.2.2 Richardmalter 3.2.3 Disruptive editing 3.2.4 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Ban for disruption 3.3.2 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Enforcement by block 3.4.2 Alternative titles 3.4.3 Enforcement by reversion 3.4.4 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] Conflict of interest

1) Edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Ban for disruption

2) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally invested in a subject from editing the article about it. However, such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive. In such cases a user with a conflict of interest may be banned from editing the affected article.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Who's who

3) In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

1) Yoshiaki Omura is the inventor of a patented medical diagnostic technique, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT). Information regarding Yoshiaki Omura and the technique is consolidated in Yoshiaki Omura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Richardmalter

2) Richardmalter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), a single purpose account, identifies himself as an Australian practitioner of alternative medicine using the BDORT technique click "cancel" twice to access.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Disruptive editing

3) Richardmalter, other accounts, and anonymous IPs with the same editing pattern have edited Yoshiaki Omura in an aggressive, biased manner.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[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] Ban for disruption

1) Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IP with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. Alternative accounts and anonymous IPs, as identified, to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura#Log of blocks and bans. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Alternative titles

2) The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) or (PMRT) under any title.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by reversion

3) Disruptive edits to Yoshiaki Omura made by Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern may be reverted without limit.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (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.

• At present, the majority is 5 and all pass 5-0. Thatcher131 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Note that this is now all passing 6-0. James F. (talk) 21:49, 1 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. Move to close. Charles Matthews 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Close.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Close FloNight 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)