This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 14 March 2009 (→Template: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:24, 14 March 2009 by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) (→Template: +)(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 9 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 6 who are inactive), so 5 votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
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
Purpose of Misplaced Pages
1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Neutrality and conflicts of interest
2) Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests". Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Misplaced Pages only if they comply with Misplaced Pages's key policies.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sources
3) Misplaced Pages articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Use of accounts
4) Creating or coordinating accounts to manipulate consensus, to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to evade topic bans or blocks, or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Decorum
5) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. It is also unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation.
- 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:
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of dispute
1) This dispute is focused on Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and approximately 430 related articles, mostly within the Scientology portal, and has spilled over into various associated article-related processes (for example: WP:BLP/N; WP:RS/N; WP:AfD etc).
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Background
2) The dispute is longstanding: this is the fourth Scientology-related arbitration case in four years. Prior cases are: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005), Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006) and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007). More recently, the dispute become low-key but corrosive involving persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources. The corrosive atmosphere has resulted in normally neutral editors adopting polarized positions in countless minor sub-feuds (cf. Evidence presented by Durova). The topic has become a magnet for single purpose accounts; sockpuppetry is rife (examples: , ).
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cirt
4) From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have engaged in violations of policy on biographies of living people nor in other serious problematic editing.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
GoodDamon
5) After careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee finds that GoodDamon (talk · contribs) does not appear to have engaged in serious problematic editing.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Jossi
6) During the course of this proceeding, Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) voluntarily resigned his adminship on 23 December 2008 by email to the Arbitration Committee, when he stated he was retiring from Misplaced Pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
John254
7) During the course of this proceeding, John254 (talk · contribs) was banned by the community for sockpuppetry.
- 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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- 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.
The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.