Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3/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 "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 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, 2 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 5 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 "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] Arbitration rulings

1) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:23, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Revert wars considered harmful

2) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:23, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
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.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:23, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:25, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous arbcom case

1) Rex071404 and his IP address 216.153.214.94 are subject to a previous Arbitration ruling, issued 13 Nov 2004, prohibiting him from reverting articles for 6 months, amongst other remedies.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:27, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Continued reversion

2) Rex071404 and his IP address 216.153.214.94 have disregarded the previous arbitration ruling and has continued to revert articles in an attempt to push a point of view. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  15:29, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. mav 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Self-imposed ban

3) Rex071404 has declared that he has banned himself for six months as of 16:28 15 April 2005.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  22:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 15:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (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] Ban for revert warring and disregard for Arbitration rulings

1) For a demonstrated disregard for Arbitration Committee rulings and continued revert warring in direct contravention of these rulings, Rex071404, 216.153.214.94 and whatever other accounts are associated with this user are banned for a period of one year from editing Wikipedia.

Support:
If you can't listen to the Arbcom, it is the same as failing to listen to the community, which is utterly unacceptable. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  1. Agree with Grunt. mav 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. first choice. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) if six months is not agreed (in either form)
  4. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. first ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. In light of the self-imposed exile... -- Grunt   ҈  23:02, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.1) For a demonstrated disregard for Arbitration Committee rulings and continued revert warring in direct contravention of these rulings, Rex071404, 216.153.214.94 and whatever other accounts are associated with this user are banned for a period of six months from editing Wikipedia.

Support:
If 1) fails to pass. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)</>
  1. second choice. mav 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. second choice. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) either this or the wording of 1.3 is fine, whichever gains most votes
  4. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. second ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. In light of the self-imposed exile... -- Grunt   ҈  23:02, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
Abstain:


1.2) For a demonstrated disregard for Arbitration Committee rulings and continued revert warring in direct contravention of these rulings, Rex071404, 216.153.214.94 and whatever other accounts are associated with this user are banned for a period of three months from editing Wikipedia.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Too short. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. Way too short. mav 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) too short.
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

1.3) Official sanction is given to Rex071404's self-imposed ban, and as a result his account and his IP address (216.153.214.94), as well as whatever other accounts are associated with this user, shall be banned for a period of six months from 16:28 15 April 2005 (ending 16:28 15 October 2005).

Support:
  1. This seems like the most logical move in light of the self-imposed exile. -- Grunt   ҈  23:02, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 15:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 17:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) either this or the wording of 1.1 is fine, whichever gains most votes
  5. David Gerard 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Technical enforcement of blocks to IP address

1) When admins block the IP address in this case, an individual block should not last longer than a month, as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy on static IPs. If Rex071404 moves to a different IP, the IP blocking provision will apply to that IP as needed per blocking policy.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 17:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Amendments to wording welcomed - this is a guideline to enforcement of that provision.
  2. works for me ➥the Epopt 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 21:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt   ҈  23:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 17:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

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. Let's close it up - we're done. -- Grunt   ҈  13:31, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  2. Close -- sannse (talk) (vote valid 13:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC))
  3. David Gerard 10:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (valid 13:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC))
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)