Revision as of 18:40, 16 March 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Karmafist banned from "political" welcoming

1.1) Until the conclusion of this case, Karmafist is banned from giving welcome messages to new accounts that contain content or links to content (excepting typical linkages to his user and user talk pages from his signature) espousing specific points of view regarding Misplaced Pages's politics, organization, or similar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is what I came up with while editing at the same time as SCZenz. The only substantive difference might be singling out the signature links. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in passing an injunction that Karmafist has explicitly said "would mean nothing since they have no laws to stand upon that." I have personally replaced all of his most recent newbie welcomes, and suggest that such actions are sufficient in the short term to deal with any resumption by Karmafist. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing against replacing his greeting (I guess -- although I can also see it just being confusing to the newbie), replacing them does nothing if the new user sees and explores Karmafist's links before they are replaced: that's where the damage is done. An injunction would make it clear that this behavior is blockable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. An injunction would at least make continued action of this kind by Karmafist blockable. I'm very disappointed by the extremely inflammatory language used by Deryck Chan on the evidence page and I don't want to have to continue doing the replacement if it can be described by any other editor, with a straight face, as "flame bait". --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I withdraw my wording. I think Bunchofgrape's is better, and the idea is the same in any case. -- SCZenz 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. To be fair, I propose a ban an action preventing Tony Sidaway anybody from mass-reverting Karmafist's messages even if they're incorrect, in order to reduce confusion done to newbies. Tony Sidaway's previous act is too flamebaiting and should be stopped. --Deryck C. 15:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   Edit 15:33 - Okay, I'm not a good user of language. Please don't criticize me for using an inappropriate tone. I reckon that anybody doing this would be kind of provocative act. I shouldn't have accused this specifically to anybody.

3. Be aware, Karmafist has already resumed welcomes with (what appears to be) the standard template...and has simply move his link to the Manifesto to his signature. I had thought of suggesting a temporary injunction against Karmafist initiating welcoming contact with any new users, but that's just a club over the head. At this point, I don't think any injunction is warranted, until the case is complete. This isn't just about Karmafist's behavior, but how he expresses his meta-wiki opinions. And I think it's clear from the discussions on AN/I and elsewhere, it'll be an all-or-nothing case. I hope I'm wrong. InkSplotch 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia

1) Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and the Misplaced Pages community exists to serve that end.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Let's start out with the obvious... -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy-making on Misplaced Pages differs from real-world politics

2) Policies are made and changed on Misplaced Pages by discussion and consensus, not by voting, mass-campaigning, or other manuvers typical of real-world politics. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground or a democracy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

New users and policy-making

3) Although all users are welcome to voice their views on Misplaced Pages administration and policy in appropriate forums, the ability to make substantial contributions to Misplaced Pages policy typically depends on a good understanding of existing policies, experience with consensus-based decision-making, and an appreciation of Misplaced Pages's core mission. As such, new users should be encouraged to edit articles rather than to devote themselves to policy and other "meta" matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly could be made less wordy, although I did want to get all the key ideas in. -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

4) Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Misplaced Pages. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal "spamming". Such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I added a sentence (the one about spamming). I agree that the case very nearly begins and ends with this principal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the core of this entire case. The facts aren't in dispute, so it just depends on whether ArbCom agrees with this principle—personally, I think it follows clearly from the above principles. -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: