This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:06, 8 August 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:06, 8 August 2021 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2))(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 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:
- Fred Bauder 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg 16:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- →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.
- Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Researcher99's claims of expertise
1) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years" .
- Support:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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.
- Everything has passed. →Raul654 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. James F. (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Close Fred Bauder 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, close. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Close. Jayjg 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutrality 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)