Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 7 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 4 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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] Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] MichaelCPrice

1) MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([1]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {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] MichaelCPrice restricted

1) MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. MichaelCPrice is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should MichaelCPrice exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, MichaelCPrice may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {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.

  • Passing at this time are:
    • All proposed principles (1);
    • All proposed findings of fact (1);
    • All proposed remedies (1);
    • All proposed enforcement (1). Cbrown1023 talk 23:02, 8 November 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. Paul August ☎ 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. Kirill 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)