| Revision as of 21:39, 31 August 2009 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits active number, no change in majority← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:18, 31 August 2009 edit undoVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Vote: oppose closeNext edit → | ||
| Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
| :;Oppose | :;Oppose | ||
| ::# The voting hasn't even been open 48 hours. Carcharoth also raises some valid concerns. Let's take enough time to allow all the arbs an opportunity to review and comment, as well as consider any further evidence in light of the aforementioned concerns. --] (]) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# | |||
| :;Comment | :;Comment | ||
Revision as of 22:18, 31 August 2009
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
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 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
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
Decorum
1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Talk pages
2) The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views or soapboxing.
- Support:
- Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nor should it be a place for general discussion of the subject article. Risker (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Single purpose accounts
3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
- Support:
- Not quite as relevant, since after a while 194x edited elsewhere, but still noting. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per Wizardman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may not match exactly the current case, but it influences how an editor's contributions are evaluated globally. — Coren 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Edit warring
4) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
194x144x90x118
1)194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor since April 2009, has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages, personal attacks, edit warring,,, and a lack of a desire to abide by policy. The first attacks and soapboxing took place on DreamHost and its talkpage, but similar behavior has subsequently occurred on other subjects.
- Support:
- Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Copyedited the second sentence; Wizardman please check and make sure you concur. Many more instances of personal attacks and severe incivility could be added, only some of which are captured on the evidence page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {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.
194x144x90x118 banned
1) 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.
- Support:
- Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The block log reflects only a 24-hour block in May, so normally this would be quite an escalation, but the history of dispute resolution attempts culminating in this arbitration, and the user's comments, demonstrate that 194x144x90x118 has failed to modify his behavior despite knowing that it was widely considered problematic and that he was at risk of severe sanctions. Also, that the problematic behavior has continued even during the arbitration case itself, and that there has been no meaningful suggestion by 194... that he is prepared to change his approach to editing and to his fellow contributors, suggests that a lesser sanction is unlikely to be effective. It might be worth adding a provision to the decision imposing some form of civility restriction or the like should 194... resume editing following the ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- User had a substantial warning when the DreamHost case was narrowly rejected, and he had another chance to consider his behavior at RFC. Finally, he could have altered it in the course of this case. He did not. This remedy is overdue. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that this editor has shown unwillingness to behave collegiately. — Coren 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
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.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
- Oppose
-
- The voting hasn't even been open 48 hours. Carcharoth also raises some valid concerns. Let's take enough time to allow all the arbs an opportunity to review and comment, as well as consider any further evidence in light of the aforementioned concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment
-