This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 06:20, 3 December 2007 (→Proposed remedies: Remedies proposed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:20, 3 December 2007 by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) (→Proposed remedies: Remedies proposed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 10 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 6 votes are a majority.
Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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
Administrators
1) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgment may result in revocation of adminship.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Don't bite the newcomers
2) New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Blocking policy
3) Blocking policy specifically proscribes any use of "cool-down" blocks, and (with the exception of removal of material per the policy on biographies of living people) proscribes the use of blocks in situations where the administrator is in a content dispute with the editor to be blocked.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Blocking of sock puppets
4) Evidence that a user is familiar with Misplaced Pages editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Review and discussion of blocks
5) Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
11) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
12) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
13) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Adam Cuerden
1) Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles in an effort to make the articles adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy on neutral point of view. While this editing is laudable, it makes it clear that Adam Cuerden has specific content goals for these articles in mind.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Edit history of Irreducible complexity
2) The Irreducible complexity article history does not show that the article was subject to repeated edit wars, ongoing content disputes, or heavy editing in the weeks leading up to the block. .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cuerden's statements about Hoffman not borne out by the facts
3) Adam Cuerden's talk page and block log statements made to justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism (more on evidence page). These claims are not borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
72 hour and indefinite blocks of Matthew Hoffman were outside policy
4) Adam Cuerden's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Cuerden was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet
4) There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
User:Chaser
5) Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to familiarize himself with the full facts of the matter before declining the unblock request. In particular, Chaser relied upon discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard without reviewing the evidence himself.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
11) {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.
Adam Cuerden
1) Adam Cuerden's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply only by appeal to this committee.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
MatthewHoffman
2) The block log is to be annotated to show that this committee has found the 72 hour and indefinite blocks of MatthewHoffman to be unjustified.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
13) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {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.
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.