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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Decorum 3.1.2 Editorial process 3.1.3 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Locus of dispute 3.2.2 TDC and Xenophrenic 3.2.3 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 TDC restricted 3.3.2 Xenophrenic restricted 3.3.3 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Enforcement by block 3.4.1.1 Enforcement by block 3.4.2 Template 3.5 Discussion by Arbitrators 3.5.1 General 3.6 Motion to close 3.6.1 Implementation notes 3.6.2 Vote

[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] Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Editorial process

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 editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The dispute centers around the Winter Soldier Investigation and related topics.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] TDC and Xenophrenic

2) TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) have engaged in sustained edit-warring on topics involved in this dispute ([1]).

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {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] TDC restricted

1) TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted. Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Xenophrenic restricted

2) Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted. Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 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/Winter Soldier 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I do not agree with limiting blocks to a maximum of one month. Our admins need to be able to use their judgment and block for longer than a month if the editing restrictions are ignored over and over again. FloNight (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by block

1.1) 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 year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. We need to give our admins the tools to stop the disruptive edits without repeated cycles of disruption. Plus I think that some users are willing to risk an one month block in order to get their edits in the article but would be less likely to risk an one year block in order to edit them. FloNight (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Kirill 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 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.

• Straightforward implementation; everything passes (except that enforcement 1.1 passes in lieu of 1). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 8 December 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. FloNight (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Close. Kirill 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Close Paul August ☎ 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Close. James F. (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)