Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Polygamy Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:59, 9 November 2005 editThe Epopt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,330 edits →Proposed final decision← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:06, 8 August 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
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. 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 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority. On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.


;For all items: ;For all items:
Line 16: Line 16:


==Motions and requests by the parties== ==Motions and requests by the parties==
Place those on ]. Place those on ].


==Proposed temporary injunctions== ==Proposed temporary injunctions==
Line 45: Line 45:


===Obsessional point of view=== ===Obsessional point of view===
1) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. 1) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.


:Support: :Support:
Line 51: Line 51:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) - added the "if it becomes problematic" phrase at the end; obsessional editing of a certain article is not per se cause for banning until and unless it has negative side effects.
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#Concur with Raul. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 65: Line 69:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 73: Line 81:


===Assume good faith=== ===Assume good faith===
3) Misplaced Pages editors as a part of ] are expected to ], simply to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors. 3) Misplaced Pages editors as a part of ] are expected to ], simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.


:Support: :Support:
Line 79: Line 87:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 95: Line 107:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 109: Line 125:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 123: Line 143:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 140: Line 164:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 156: Line 184:
:# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] ] 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) :# ] 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:Oppose: :Oppose:
Line 170: Line 202:
<small>24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. </small> <small>24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. </small>


:# Everything has passed. ] 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:#
:# Indeed. ] ] 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:# Close ] 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:# Agreed, close. ] (]) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:# Close. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
:#]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}}

Latest revision as of 11:06, 8 August 2021

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 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 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:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Obsessional point of view

1) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) - added the "if it becomes problematic" phrase at the end; obsessional editing of a certain article is not per se cause for banning until and unless it has negative side effects.
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Concur with Raul. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy

2) Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not provides that Misplaced Pages is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith

3) Misplaced Pages editors as a part of Misplaced Pages:Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Researcher99's claims of expertise

1) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years" .

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Researcher99's scope of editing

2) Researcher99 (talk · contribs)'s editing at Misplaced Pages has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Opponents

3) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics" . See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop#Gangs_of_Sneaky_Vandals, especially comments by others.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
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.

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles

1) Researcher99 is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to polygamy

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by ban

1) Should Researcher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit any article which relates to Polygamy they may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After the 5th ban, the limit on the length of a ban shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 21:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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. Everything has passed. →Raul654 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. James F. (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, close. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Close. Jayjg 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)