Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision

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 she/he 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, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 1 is 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

[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 and the three-revert rule

1) The three-revert rule prohibits editors from reverting an article more than three times in any 24-hour period, except in cases of simple vandalism. This rule should not be construed as an entitlement to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

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

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

3) Wikipedia's processes work by consensus, rather than voting. Because of this, though it is not required, it is requested that editors provide reasoning for positions they have taken, such as support or opposition on Requests for adminship, so that those judging the outcome may better make informed decisions.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

4) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.)

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. In my book this applies to just about any conscious disruption. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Though I am not sure exactly what point he was making. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Disruption, sure, but I've not been convinced it was disruption to prove a point. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Surely that would apply to the FoF? James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Ban for disruption

5) A user who disrupts editing of an article may be banned from editing that article, In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)]
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Alienation

6) Users who are alienated from Wikipedia and express general opposition to fundamental Wikipedia policies such as the practice of having Wikipedia:Administrators or Wikipedia:Resolving disputes may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. I disagree with the below; if people come along and advertise that they have no intention of following policy, etc., I fail to see why we should wait for them to demostrate said disruption. We shouldn't be process-bound on such matters of common sense. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No, should be based on behavior. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. We can afford a robust self-confidence towards simple nay-saying. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. From WP:RAUL: "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Participation in dispute resolution in good faith

7) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Productive editors

8) Users who are competent and productive editors may be forgiven a negative attitude or their occasional lapses from compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Qualified support for a forgiving system. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No. But they wouldn't be "competent and productive" if most of their contributions were not good ones. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. So obvious it doesn't need saying, and people could twist our words here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative fiat

9) If an otherwise productive editor is unwilling or unable to effectively participate in dispute resolution, a resolution may be imposed by administrative decision. This may include a decision by an administrator regarding which alternative shall be chosen and sufficient enforcement measures necessary to enforce the decision. This procedure shall not be invoked independently of a decision by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This is the sort of thing that gets taken to arbcom. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. I worry that such delegation is premature given the culture, as with Charles. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Possible remedy for asocial editors. I can imagine cases where delegating to 'admin decision' could seem harsh. Charles Matthews 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Boothy443

[edit] ...is a skilled and productive editor

1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) is a skilled and productive editor.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. To quibble: I usually consider "skilled and productive" to mean someone who can handle disputes reasonably. "Has made many valuable contributions to the article namespace" is more what I'm thinking. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... makes many valuable contributions

1.1) Boothy443 (talk · contribs) makes a large number of good contributions to articles.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption by Boothy443

2) Boothy443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been involved in edit warring, violations of 3RR.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Boothy443's attitude of alienation

3) Boothy443 has in a number of ways displayed his alienation with Wikipedia's administrative structure and dispute resolution procedures, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Disruption_of_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Redirection_to_Sheep_vote, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Boothy443.27s_attitude_about_administrators, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop#Failure_of_Boothy443_to_participate_in_dispute_resolution_in_good_faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Failure of Boothy443 to participate in dispute resolution in good faith

4) When a request for mediation was made in a matter involving him Boothy443, not only did not join in the request or participate but removed his name as one of the parties involved in the dispute [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 12 March 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] Personal attack parole

[edit] ... with year-ban after 5 blocks

1) Boothy443 is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. This would too rapidly become a ban, I fear. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. The case should come back to us before a lengthy ban is imposed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... without

2) Boothy443 is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. second choice ➥the Epopt 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert parole

3) Boothy443 shall for one year be limited to one revert on Pennsylvania-related articles excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Boothy443 placed on Probation

[edit] ... with area-related bans, too

4) Boothy443 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as Pennsylvania. Boothy443 must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... merely vanilla

5) Boothy443 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Boothy443 must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. No, the area-addition is worthwhile in this area. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. No objection, but the other one is better. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boothy443 placed on general probation

6) Boothy443 is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Too much, and too many enemies to be worthwhile. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Boothy443 banned

7) Based on his alienation from Wikipedia and its organization and policies, and his refusal or inability to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith Boothy443 is banned from Wikipedia.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] No action

8) In consideration of his excellent and competent editing, no action shall be taken regarding Boothy443's attitude and occasional lapses in the past from compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't think we should over-ride our own thoughts, above. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. I consider our comments above actions in themselves. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Procedure should Boothy443 become involved in a dispute

9) Should Boothy443 become involved in a dispute of any kind which comes to the attention of any administrator it may be resolved by administrative fiat and enforced by whatever measures are required to enforce compliance.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seems necessary. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Aren't we rejecting this principle? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    I opposed the other one because I was supporting this one. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Boothy443 violate any ban imposed under the remedies in this decision, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement of decisions made by administrative fiat

2) In the event decisions are made by administrative fiat under this decision, such actions as are necessary including blocks of up to a month may be imposed to enforce the fiat.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I'd want them back here as clarifications, unless it was all more urgent than has been in the past. Charles Matthews 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Charles. James F. (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Disagree with Charles and James, but we don't need to repeat this again. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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.

Remedies passed:

  • 2 Boothy443 personal attack parole without year-ban after 5 blocks
  • 3 Boothy443 one-year revert parole on Pennsylvania-related articles


Last updated: Splashtalk 00:29, 20 March 2006 (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. Everything that seems likely to pass now has a majority. Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close ➥the Epopt 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)