Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - 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:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Penwhale (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 7 May 2007 (→Modification of remedy in []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:55, 7 May 2007 by Penwhale (talk | contribs) (→Modification of remedy in [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Request for policy change certification authorizing use of the ISA

Initiated by —Remember the dot at 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

All those who have participated in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

We have had a broad community discussion and a straw poll at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol.

Statement by Remember the dot

In over 100 KB of discussion, we have heard many opinions. The general opinion is that we should be able to use the internationally recognized wheelchair symbol, the International Symbol of Access, to designate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates. This means that an exception to the non-free content policy would have to be made. However, a small number of very vocal users have continued to oppose this change.

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to place their stamp of approval on the change. Jimbo has suggested this as a possible way of certifying changes in policy, since Misplaced Pages has now grown so large that it is difficult for everyone to agree on changes. I hope that having the ArbCom's approval will avert an edit war on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. —Remember the dot 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, fair use is not a concern here. The ISA's copyright holder, the ICTA, encourages use of the symbol to indicate handicapped accessibility. The question is whether or not our policy should permit using the ISA for its intended purpose, and not have it be subject to all of the usual non-free content restrictions. —Remember the dot 06:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: If the ArbCom does not think that this requires arbitration, then that's fine. I'm just not sure how to proceed in such a case as this, where there is great support for a change but a few Wikipedians continue to stubbornly oppose it. —Remember the dot 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by TheDJ

I fully support Remember the dot. A very vocal group is stating that changing the policy to allow this use (most likely Fair Use under USA law) of the image to convey this piece of information in Misplaced Pages, is a can of worms we should not open. Actually, to discuss the merits of such a change is already beyond their willingness, concluding with the argument of "text can convey the same information". I and remember the dot challange this position. NEVER should we allow fear of changing a policy because it's usage is so widespread and important to take precedence over the actual potential merits of a certain piece of information. He and I have strong feelings that this image can convey the information better then anything else, and we stand by that. I personally feel very strong about always seeking the boundaries of the guidelines and policies. The banning of this image through our EDP and most importantly the actual formulation of that EDP at the moment is a case where I feel that we are overstepping the boundaries of a good Encyclopedia by not stepping over the boundaries of our wiki-bureaucratic rules. I understand the need for rules, and I sometimes won't agree and sometimes I will seek the boundaries of any rule to make sure they are clear and useful to people, but mostly i will live by them for the sake of Misplaced Pages.

However this has touched me stronger then anything before: Basically the EDP resolution has left an entire set of Free-use material under a set of very strict wikipedia-fair-use rules. Not that it wasn't before, it's just more clearly defined right now. This undoubtedly includes much copyrighted material in the world, and some of these are international standards such as the ISA logo. In my eyes this shows a problem with the current rules, more then with the intent of the encyclopedia to be free-content. Fact is that much of the information in the world is simply not free-content. Including some material such as the ISA logo which could almost be called a glyph like image. We have a strict Fair-use policy, but this usage of this image would surely pass any court in the world, based on it's free use/no-edit license. The only issue wikipedia has, is that for downstream users of the encyclopedia, this is not GFDL compatible image. But why not mark it as such, instead of insisting the image must be GFDL compliant. It will and can never be. any derivative of it is illegal, and anything that's not a derivative is not as useful as the orginal image. I care about this Free-use/no-edit image a whole lot more than about fair-use images in general (though i'm a supporter of fair-use images in wikipedia as well, i will not deny that). Basically i want answers to the following:

  1. Is the ISA logo less important and useful then any of the Fair use logos in an encyclopedia, and therefore a rightful victim of the policies ?
  2. Is the ISA logo the best way to communicate the information, or is text just as good ?
  3. Is this how far we will go to defend "good as it gets content" as opposed to "GFDL compatible content" ?
  4. Is the community being lazy in not accepting that a policy is not set in stone ?
  5. Are Remember the dot and I within our rights to defend our position on this point ?
  6. Are we sacrificing one image for the common good of free content, even if (by poll) most people seem to think it's the best image to use in wikipedia for this information ?
  7. Does the current policy actually take into account images to communicate information, or only images to illustrate subjects of information?
  8. If it does not, should such policies be set up?
  9. Should the policy change to allow for the ISA wheelchair logo or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
This discussion has now expanded to the non-free euro symbol: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#A_proposed_exception --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I should note that the use of the ISA in Misplaced Pages would not be a 'fair use' claim—we would in fact be using it exactly as its license specifies: to indicate facilities and services which make provisions to improve accessibility for the mobility challenged.

Also worth noting is that – despite being copyrighted – our use of the image in this manner is unlikely to interfere with the use of Misplaced Pages articles and materials that are incorporated into derived free (gratis or libre) or commercial works. I further foresee no circumstance where the ISA's terms of use would interfere with our creation of a 💕. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

While those who wish to use the image don't see any "harm" in using the image, and have their hearts in the right place, the change it would require is needless. The absurd claim has been brought forth that only the ISA can do "the job" because it is internationally recognized, regardless of the fact that we don't require something internationally recognized, we only require text. Icons are nice, but are not even close to being required. There is no need for using only the ISA image, and those supporting its use (in things like infoboxes for Disneyland rides) have failed to show a real need and have only come up with blind speculation. A large change is being asked for a very minor convenience factor.

Misplaced Pages doesn't even allow Misplaced Pages-only licenses, why would we allow something like this? This isn't about what is legally open to us, or what the copyright holder allows, the simple matter is the image is under a non-free license.

I've lived with a disabled person my entire life, and I find the attitude and logic behind the pro-ISA image to be well intended, but ignorant. Originally some of them even suggested that not using the ISA image would even be offensive. Just because people think it's for a good cause should not make this situation any different from others we face. This is a misguided effort based on speculation and nothing more.

I'd like to ask the arbitration comity to reject this case, or in the very least make it clear that such a change is inappropriate for this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also note there is even a unicode character for the ISA image, "♿" (normally requires an additional font, such as the free DejaVu fonts). Yet another alternative that makes a policy change needless. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by NE2

I figure I'm probably involved, since I made the free replacement: Disabled access. I believe that it makes sense to allow use of the international standard through an amendment to our fair use policy, since, well, it is an international standard, and it's pretty much pure stubbornness avoid it for "freedom" reasons. The ICTA probably has a good reason for keeping it copyrighted and unfree and is unlikely to change. I doubt they care if we use it or not; it is our policies that are preventing us from using it, and they have nothing to gain by freely licensing it for our use. However, I also think Wikimedia's lawyer should offer an opinion on whether using it would place us at risk, if someone labels something that's not accessible with it. --NE2 01:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I am one of these vocal users, who opposed the creation of any such exception then and oppose it now. This is replaceable fair use, plainly put. Free alternatives, such as text ("wheelchair accessible") or user-created graphics, such as that created by NE2, are available. While the icon's fair use is and should be allowed in the article which is specifically about it, use anywhere else while free alternatives are available is a decorative and replaceable purpose. We've never allowed copyrighted and non-free licensed images to be used in such situations, and we shouldn't start now. Seraphimblade 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy by ElC

I agree with the arbitrators: it isn't the role of the committee to force the Wikimedia foundation to license their thingies under the GFDL. What? El_C 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for clarification in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

One of the Committee's findings of fact was that Freedom skies had "used sockpuppets during the Arbitration case".

He used his sockpuppets to, among other things, accuse other editors of sockpuppetry.

Since the recent closing of the Arbitration, Freedom skies left me a comment to the effect that, because he edited certain articles using his sockpuppets, he now WP:OWNs them and threatened to report me to this Committee: "I have to ask you to stop appearing on topics that you have not edited on...You have been appearing in articles where you have never appeared before and reverting changes made by my alternative accounts ...this conduct will be reported if it persists."

Please clarify: is undoing the changes Freedom skies made under the false pretenses of sockpuppetry in some way a violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision?
JFD 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The postualtes of WP:Sock clearly states that A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. My edits were being flagged for revert by JFD, and his cabal and now he has gone on to vandalize article so that the section began with "One this basis he suggested that the machine in question was a noria and that it was the first water powered prime mover" without any lead or explainations (). My editing privilages are limited and I have been facing both verbal and editorial abuse by JFD; He has notified editors not connected to him in any manner in the past that my edits need to reverted and has been calling me the Indian nationalist editor. Between 03:32, 5 May 2007 and 00:41, 6 May 2007 he had nothing to do on wikipedia but to flag my articles for revert. He personally placed banned tags on my accounts and even created a template for using aginst me .
I take the arbcom's decision to heart and will try to stick with it; JFD on the other hand is doing his best to trap me into a complete ban through provacation like this.
JFD has also misrepresented the staement in which he said that Most egregiously, Freedom skies used his sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for his position in a Request for comment where his sockpuppets were the only editors arguing for that position. That article has nothing to do with JFD's current edits and his manner of speaking makes it look like that article is under question; the articles (water mill, water wheel and pasta) have not had to face any such situation and I have already responded to this claim here and am facing arbcom penalty for all my past actions.
Does the arbcom get to enforce the penalty or has JFD secured the right to drag my name through mud while I serve my sentence as read to me by the arbitrators of this encyclopedia? Do JFD's actions, right after my sentence was read to me, not amount to undue provocation and deleting sourced text in an atempt to have me trapped and get rid of me? Why does JFD announce that I'm serving a sentence to everyone; only to have his announcements answered as Thanks for your note re User:Moerou_toukon and Gunpowder / Black powder. The British references that he uses, e.g. Buchanan (2006), Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: a Technological History and Elliott (1875), The History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume VI, are valid; and I have copies.
Why do this? Why not let me edit in peace and isolation like I intended to using my alternate accounts (save for one incident mentioned here; other than that I pushed articles to GA and found universal praise. If that case would have been dealt with on a stand alone basis than it would not have resulted even in a ban but a warning, as is my personal inference given the extraordinary circumstances described here)? Does JFD not have anything better to do on this encyclopedia then ruin my peace of mind by consistently targetting me since 21:00, 15 March 2007. I was in the process of elevating the Gatka article to GA class from this version to this version and have been notifying people dutifully of my edits here and here so that they, not someone who is biased agianst me, get to judge my edits and so that I can actually use the sources and energy at my disposal to do some good work around here.
Unfortunately, both my peace of mind and personal standing on this encyclopedia have taken a beating thanks to JFD's actions of consistent revert warring, targetting me with an agenda, and working here not to contribute, but to take care and get rid of me once and for all.
He also misrepresented my statement; I'll provide a copy here. I'm sorry for the tone or the errors in this staement.
Freedom skies| talk  07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies used his sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for his position in a Request for comment where his sockpuppets were the only editors arguing that position, an unambiguously illegitimate use of multiple accounts.

Moreover, Freedom skies used these socks during the Arbitration, obscuring the full scope of Freedom skies' conduct from the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, another use of sockpuppets forbidden by WP:SOCK.

In addition, Freedom skies listed one of his socks under "Japanese Wikipedians" and named the other "Phillip Rosenthal" in order to obscure the nationalist nature of his editing, which would really be neither here nor there had Freedom skies not threatened a fellow Wikipedian "editors who alter their very ethnicity to gain leverage in long standing disputes surely ought to be punished."

It is not a violation of wiki policy to undo changes made by abusive sockpuppets.
Even the clarification immediately below reflects that.
JFD 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Freedom skies" case does not provide justification for the blanket revertion of Freedom skies' edits. Doing so would be a blatant violation of appropriate editorial practice. An edit should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of who made it. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I will make a Request for comment detailing which sockpuppet edits should be reverted and on what grounds of justification. JFD 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator (because this isn't really about the meaning of the arbitration case per se any more), I would say that you can proceed as you think best, but couldn't this be addressed in the normal editing process? Good edits should stay, bad edits should be reverted or improved. An RfC to discuss the matter further wouldn't seem necessary unless a specific problem arises, particularly since Freedom skies knows he can no longer engage in any edit-warring on the articles. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this? I will explain fully the justification for the reversion of any particular edit on an article's Talk page. That's reasonable. JFD 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for additional remedy in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ChrisGriswold

After ChrisGriswold's voluntary desysopping, Thatcher131 removed the request for arbitration of ChrisGriswold's disruptive sockpuppetry initiated by John254 here. As one of the parties ChrisGriswold's sockpuppetry injured, I suggested here and here that, in the case of Taylor Allderdice High School, he could easily reverse the damage he did by reverting his sockpuppet's edits along with explaining and apologizing in an unreserved manner at the talk page. Despite continuing to contribute to WP, ChrisGriswold has not availed himself of the opportunity to remedy the damage he did via his sockpuppet, Superburgh.

While I fully appreciate ArbCom's swiftness and efficiency in dispatching this case, I confess my level of WP experience retards my comprehending the justice ArbCom meted out, particulary since ChrisGriswold has done nothing but declare the correctness of the actions I reported--despite being told they were deemed disruptive, or else the checkuser would have been denied. ChrisGriswold has shown no remorse for his disruptions, only apologizing to his former fellow admins for inconveniencing them. He still shows no regard for those he hurt, and does not make the restitution that remains in his power to easily make.

I request ChrisGriswold be required to further correctively act by 1) performing the simple remedy of reverting his sockpuppet Superburgh's disruptive deletions which contradicted the consensus ChrisGriswold endorsed months previously; and 2) unconditionally apologizing and explaining on Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. Such corrective actions would go far to clear the atmosphere in which another editor, Steve_block--with whom ChrisGriswold believes he works in tandem--and I were just beginning the next step to resolve a longstanding dispute when ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet intruded. ChrisGriswold's allocution would demonstrate that WP doesn't encourage fiefdoms where turf is defended and allies cultivated.

It would also relieve the chill ChrisGriswold tried to establish when his sockpuppet Superburgh wikistalked me here and here. Despite the praise ChrisGriswold expressed for the consensus of which those two page I had created were a part, he used his sockpuppet four months later to tag the pages for speedy deletion. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since any editor can revert edits needing to be reverted, the Arbitration Committee does not need to mandate reverts. Also since apologies, to have value, should be voluntary, the Arbitration Committee does not mandate apologies. However I would strongly encourage ChrisGriswold to take any action he can to help remediate any negative consequences of his past actions. Whatever he does or doesn't do in this regard may be taken into consideration during future cases, or requests for adminship. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Because remedial action has not been forthcoming from ChrisGriswold, I have now reverted his disruptions to Taylor Allderdice High School myself. I am concerned, however, that the sockpuppet he used to disrupt, Superburgh, no longer indicates that it is ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet. Is Superburgh still blocked? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that account is still blocked. You can check the block status of any user by clicking on "user contributions" and then on "block log." Newyorkbrad 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see. I guess I meant the sockpuppet tag on Superburgh's user page, not a block, but I now see the contention going on with that page. I request Superburgh's sockpuppet tag be left intact longer because I refer to Superburgh's page in my justification for reverting him at Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for modification of remedy in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

In this arbitration case, I was placed on general probation. Initially highly upset at the remedy, I left Misplaced Pages for several months. I have since returned, and for the most part, the probation was not a serious problem. Today, however, it happened to come up in a discussion on a completely unrelated issue. I feel that the subsequent results were unproductive. I don't want to have a general probation hanging over my head forever to be brought up by someone any and every time I am involved in a discussion over Misplaced Pages policy or user conduct. I would like to learn what I need to do for the ArbCom to lift the probation. Obviously, if the arbitrators are willing to do so at this time, it would be most appreciated; but, if they feel that such a modification would not currently be appropriate for whatever reason, I would like some advice as to what specific action(s) I need to take in order to regain community trust and have this punishment removed. --Crotalus horridus 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What was the context in which the probation was brought up? You've been on probation for a year now; that seems a long time to me, and the whole "userbox" fuss seems quite over. --jpgordon 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
See this ANI thread. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, Newyorkbrad was very helpful as an ad hoc mediator during the AN/I incident, and he deserves commendation for keeping a cool head, assuming good faith on all sides, and helping to defuse a volatile situation. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope the arbitration committee will take this seriously. Notwithstanding my reaction to a recent edit by Crotalus on an admin page, I've no idea whether his formerly problematic behavior continues to be a serious risk. Crotalus horridus has apologised gracefully and I consider the matter closed.
I've not interacted with Crotalus, to my recollection, in over a year, but looking at his talk page I notice this warning from RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), just over a month ago, about Crotalus' creation of an article (now deleted) apparently called Brian Peppers in popular culture. After a year of almost complete inactivity on Misplaced Pages, Crotalus had resumed regular editing one week before. One of his first edits was this Brian Peppers-related edit. It's entirely possible that he didn't fully recollect the Brian Peppers situation. He doesn't seem to have pursued the matter after receiving RHaworth's warning. The block log also indicates a single recent block, under the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule, apparently for edit warring on Racism. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your statement, Tony. Your summary of my recent activity is accurate, although I would also appreciate if the ArbCom would take note of the work I have done on articles such as Silver center cent (a current GA nominee), and 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, as well as on various other articles (most of them uncontroversial). As for the 3RR block, I allowed myself to get sucked into a nasty edit war, and that was clearly a mistake. I've decided to keep a distance from such controversial articles for a while, to avoid a recurrance. User:Crotalus horridus 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we assume good faith here? The editor has been on probation for a year, but in his own words he has been away for much of it. In the time he's been here, he's been mucking about with Brian Peppers - a subject that has been a magnet for much disruption and trolling. Maybe he knew nothing of the debate and contention there and spontaneously, innocently and coincidentally decided to add stuff about Peppers, or maybe he was engaging the the same deliberately provocative behaviour that got him put on probation in the first place. Fortunately, arbcom and not I get to make that call.--Doc 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Doc, the primary reason I created the article is that I wanted to examine current community consensus and to determine whether it was possible to mention the subject in any encyclopedic context in a way that would be acceptable to the community. It was deleted, I posted to DRV, and the motion was rejected; the community has made its wishes clear that Peppers not be mentioned, and I have no intention of revisiting the issue in the future. I do not believe my behavior in this matter was disruptive; it was not intended to be so and no disruption took place, just a normal discussion on DRV. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is more normal to discern community consensus by discussion, not by conducting two breeching experiments.--Doc 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that Crotalus has taken almost a year off (very few edits between April 2006 and March 2007). I suggest a similar motion to the one recently approved for SPUI in the Highways case, allowing the probation to expire 6 months from Crotalus' return to active editing (i.e. now) or 6 months from the last enforcement action under the probation, whichever is later. Thatcher131 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I have no intention of starting any trouble. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Having Crotalus contributing properly can only be a win. Redemption should always be on offer.--Doc 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If one of you (Thatcher131?) would draft such a motion, I'll put it in the "motions" section below. --jpgordon 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this: Since Crotalus horridus has indicated a desire to return to productive editing, as an encouragement, his probation shall terminate six months from now, or from the last enforcement action, whichever is the later. --Doc 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That could be read to inadvertently imply a finding that his recent editing has not been productive. I suggest simply "Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later." Newyorkbrad 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not implying that - I'm stating it. But since the effect of your wording is the same, i've no objections.--Doc 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the arbitrators will need or want to get into the middle of whether characterizing the quality of Crotalus's editing over the past month as disruptive or not. Suffice it to say to Crotalus that, as he seems now to realize, it would be best for him to steer clear of edits that could raise such an issue. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Modification of remedy in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later.

Clerk note: There are presently 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support:

  1. So moved. See above for discussion. --jpgordon 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support after reading the above discussion. Good luck, Crotalus horridus. Hope the next six months are uneventful and you are off probation then. FloNight 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Fred Bauder 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Clerk note: The motion is adopted. I have advised Crotalus horridus, and will archive this section to the case talkpage in a day or two. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Categories: