| Revision as of 05:45, 15 November 2006 editSrikeit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,211 edits update majority← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:58, 18 November 2006 edit undoDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits →Proposed findings of fact: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
| == Proposed findings of fact == | == Proposed findings of fact == | ||
| === |
===Alternate accounts=== | ||
| 1) As stated , {{user|AltUser}}, which used open proxies, was an alternate account of {{user|Konstable}}. When that account was blocked, he subsequently created {{user|AlternativeAccountK}}. He now edits from {{user|Konstable II}}, which is not blocked, for the purposes of this case. | |||
| 1) {text of proposed finding of fact} | |||
| :Support: | :Support: | ||
| Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
| :# | :# | ||
| === |
===Ryushort=== | ||
| 2) A CheckUser performed on the account AltUser showed that while it was on open proxies and could not be connected to a main acount through IP evidence, the attack account {{user|Ryushort}}, created with the same proxies, was probably created by the same person. Konstable was in conflict with {{user|Ryulong}} at the time. | |||
| 1) {text of proposed finding of fact} | |||
| :Support: | :Support: | ||
| Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
| :# | :# | ||
| ===Konstable unblocked his own account=== | |||
| ===Template=== | |||
| 3) On November 12, 2006, after his account AlternativeAccountK was blocked, Konstable unblocked it himself, and then unblocked it himself again after he was reversed. | |||
| 1) {text of proposed finding of fact} | |||
| :Support: | :Support: | ||
Revision as of 20:58, 18 November 2006
all proposed
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.
- 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 6 are inactive, so 5 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.
Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Alternate accounts
1) As stated here, AltUser (talk · contribs), which used open proxies, was an alternate account of Konstable (talk · contribs). When that account was blocked, he subsequently created AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs). He now edits from Konstable II (talk · contribs), which is not blocked, for the purposes of this case.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Ryushort
2) A CheckUser performed on the account AltUser showed that while it was on open proxies and could not be connected to a main acount through IP evidence, the attack account Ryushort (talk · contribs), created with the same proxies, was probably created by the same person. Konstable was in conflict with Ryulong (talk · contribs) at the time.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Konstable unblocked his own account
3) On November 12, 2006, after his account AlternativeAccountK was blocked, Konstable unblocked it himself, and then unblocked it himself again after he was reversed.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
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.
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.