Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if 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 enacted.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators is/are recused and 1 is away/inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] No personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:24, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:24, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

3) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:24, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

4) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:33, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 15:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Don't like the way this can be interperted. Osama bin Laden's point-of-view of Jews, for example is significant (it being shared by many). This doesn't mean that bin Laden's view should be given equal space in the Jew article. Neutralitytalk 21:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Personal attacks

1) JonGwynne has engaged in personal attacks [1].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt   ҈  14:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Incivility

2) JonGwynne has at times resorted to comments which, although not necessarily rising to the level of personal attacks, can be considered incivil [2].

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:33, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


[edit] Revert warring

3) JonGwynne has refused to accept consensus on articles related to global warming and has continued to revert war in order to promote a particular point of view despite being blocked numerous times for violation of the three revert rule [3], [4], [5], [6].

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:33, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
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] POV parole

1) JonGwynne is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

Aye:
Grunt   ҈  21:46, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  1. Ambi 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) I will always oppose a remedy which gives the majority of those editing an article the ability to block another user on the basis of addition or removal of content.
  2. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) Don't think this is a good idea.
  3. This does need to be addressed, but in different fashion. See 3) below. -- Grunt   ҈  16:16, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Fred has a point; gonna have to think about it ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack parole

2) JonGwynne is placed on standard personal attack parole for three months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Aye:
  1. I've seen enough incivility here to warrant this, I think. -- Grunt   ҈  21:46, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 14:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 15:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 15:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 23:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert limitation

3) JonGwynne is limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule..

Aye:
  1. I propose this as an alternate way to curb revert warring and POV-pushing. Grunt   ҈  16:14, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
  2. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 04:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 05:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 15:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:49, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. I move to close now that the new revert remedy has passed along with everything else. -- Grunt   ҈  19:55, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  2. Aye ➥the Epopt 20:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. fine by me Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)