From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, 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 Edit warring 3.1.2 No personal attacks 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Alienus edit wars 3.2.2 Alienus makes personal attacks 3.2.3 Alienus is obstinate 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Alienus banned 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 4 Discussion by Arbitrators 4.1 General 4.2 Motion to close 4.2.1 Implementation notes 4.2.2 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] Edit warring

1) Edit warring is considered 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 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks. Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Alienus edit wars

1) Alienus has an extensive history of edit warring. At present he has eight blocks for edit warring since February, 2006. [1]. In addition, he has received numerous warnings which have not had any visible effect upon his behavior. (evidence)

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Alienus makes personal attacks

2) Alienus also has a very extensive history of incivility, including personal attacks, unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, and ad hominem arguments, for which he has been blocked, at present, seven distinct times. [2] [3] Nandesuka's evidence and Jossi's evidence. In addition, he has received numerous warnings which have not had any visible effect upon his behavior. (evidence)

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Alienus is obstinate

3) Alienus has frequently responded to blocks with further incivility. It has become clear due to Alienus' extensive history of warnings and blocks that he is not likely ever to modify his behavior.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 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] Alienus banned

1) For edit warring, personal attacks, and incorrigibility, Alienus is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

[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. All done here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Close. - SimonP 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Close ➥the Epopt 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Close. Charles Matthews 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)