Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/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 they 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, no arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 6 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] Courtesy

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Single-purpose accounts

3) Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Community bans

4) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring or other unduly aggressive activities may be banned. Users indefinitely blocked for egregious behavior may be considered banned by the community if no one is willing to reverse the block, or when there is consensus in favor of the block.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] ParalelUni is uncivil

1) ParalelUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in exceedingly offensive personal attacks and incivility, even revelling in the death of another user's sister. (evidence)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] ParalelUni edit wars

2) ParalelUni has engaged in edit warring on St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine, leading to his first block. [1], [2]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] ParalelUni banned by the community

3) On August 11, ParalelUni was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and harassment. [3] The block has not been overturned and appears to have strong support. ParalelUni can fairly be considered banned by the community.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Other accounts

4) Various other users have appeared for the sole purpose of editing pages related to this dispute. These users include Gabrielwerder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Vtak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bts4202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and various IPs. (evidence)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 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] ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed

1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's ban of ParalelUni.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Single-purpose accounts restrained

2) Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned above, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Page bans shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week for repeated violations. After five such blocks, the maximum block length increases to a year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
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.

  • The majority for this case is 6.
  • Everything passes 7-0.

[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 passes. Close. James F. (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Dmcdevit·t 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close ➥the Epopt 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)