Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/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 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 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] Courtesy

1) 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. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

2) 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 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Compliance

3) Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to comply with policy.

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The original dispute revolves around {{Infobox NFLactive}}, and particularly focuses on how certain fields in this template should be formatted.

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Chrisjnelson

2) Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and incivility ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors ([13], [14], [15]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jmfangio

3) Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) and incivility ([25]), and has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors ([26], [27], [28], [29]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Irrelevant now. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

4) Jmfangio is a checkuser-verified sockpuppet of the banned User:Tecmobowl.

Support:
  1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {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] Chrisjnelson restricted

1) Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction. He 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. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (Moved block duration into enforcement section. Kirill 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Given that the problems were almost entirely restricted to a single place, I think this is overly strong. Perhaps a time-limited joint form? James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Overly strong. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Prefer the 6 month restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Abstain:

[edit] Jmfangio restricted

2) Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction. He 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. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (Moved block duration into enforcement section. Kirill 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
  2. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Given that the problems were almost entirely restricted to a single place, I think this is overly strong. Perhaps a time-limited joint form? James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not necessary anymore. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Chrisjnelson and Jmfangio restricted for six months

3) Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. They are each limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If either exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. Kirill 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Chrisjnelson restricted for six months

3.1) Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. He 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. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. This seems fair to him and the community given all the factors in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they 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/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Generalized to include civility restriction. Kirill 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:11, 24 September 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 are proposed principles 1-3, proposed findings 1-4, proposed remedy 3.1, and proposed enforcement 1. Straightforward implementation; appears ready to close. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 24 September 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 ☎ 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. Kirill 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC
  4. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)