This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Korn (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 14 August 2006 (→Proposed final decision: votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:50, 14 August 2006 by Sam Korn (talk | contribs) (→Proposed final decision: votes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 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 3 are inactive, so 6 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
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Bans for disruption
1) Users who disrupt articles or sets of articles by edit warring or otherwise may be banned from editing in that area, in extreme cases from the site.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Euphemistic language
2) Misplaced Pages is not censored. The words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Misplaced Pages.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is edits by Intangible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to articles which relate to nationalist or right wing European political parties. It is alleged that Intangible engages in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of such parties. Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other have taken an opposing view.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Tendentious editing by Intangible
2) Intangible has engaged in tendentious editing , , and , and . There are many more examples on the evidence page. Many of these involve squeamishness about using the ordinary English words used to designate fascism .
- 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:
Intangible placed on probation
1) Intangible is placed on probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Enforcement by block
1) Should Intangible violate any ban imposed under this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
- 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.