This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Epopt (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 21 December 2005 (→Proposed remedies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:09, 21 December 2005 by The Epopt (talk | contribs) (→Proposed remedies)(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, 2 Arbitrators is recused and 2 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
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
No personal attacks
1) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks requires users to refrain from personal attacks. There is no exception for instances when a user may be provoked by inappropriate behavior.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Raul654 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - while provocation does not excuse making personal attacks, it can bee seen as a mitigating factor.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Neutral point of view
2) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic. This foundational policy of Misplaced Pages rules out gaming of Misplaced Pages' consensus process by masking point of view editing as demands for sources which, when provided, are then deleted together with the information they support.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Use reliable sources
3) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources requires that a cited source contain the information for which it is the cited source.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Scrutiny is part of parole
4) A user on parole must expect that his or her actions will be subject to closer-than-normal scrutiny. Such attention is an innate aspect of parole.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Divine Intervention (film)
1) One issue raised by Snowspinner is Xed's editing and comments relating to Divine Intervention (film) which concerns a man who lives in East Jersusalem. His girlfriend lives in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The viewpoint presented is of life under Israeli occupation.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Editing issues
1.1) An early issue was whether the word occupation could be used in the article with 209.212.72.19 inserting the word and removed by Jayjg and A second issue concerned the movie not being considered for an Academy Award , information by 209.212.72.19, removed by Jayjg with the comment "rv massive unsource POVing"; Xed reverted with the comment "rv bizarre censorship".
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sources demanded
2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.
- Oppose:
- (A) We shouldn't be deciding content, and (B) the methedology of this is flatly wrong. Googling for "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" gets 123,000 hits - that doesn't mean they are real. Jay was simply demanding sourcing from people who were adding Zionist conspiracy nonsense into the article. Raul654 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Personal attack by Xed
3) Xed then reverted with the comment, "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Jayjg insists
4) Again Jayjg insists on a specific reference with the comment "if there are "many observers", then please provide evidence of it. So far you have one non-notable (see talk), also, please don't remove requers for citation, instead provide citations".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Revert warring by Xed
5) Rather than supplying a reference Xed reverted with the comment "rv weasel"
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Viriditas joins the edit war
6) Viriditas then joined the edit war with the comment "Reverted edits by Xed to last version by Jayjg. Please do not remove citation requests."
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed continues with personal attacks
7) Xed then reverted with the comment "rv weasel tag-team".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed provides references
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
References and content removed by Viriditas
9) Viriditas removes content and references with the comment "After reviewing your citations and observing that they do not claim what you say they claim, I have removed the citation request as well as the disputed content; rm superfluous content and links" and "rm opinion by "Tariq Shadid". If he's not a film critic, I fail to see the relevance of a MD."
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed makes another personal attack
10) Xed restores with the comment "you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!" (actually 9 minutes had elapsed between the sources being provided and being removed.)
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Jayjg makes a valid point
11) Addressing the matter of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie" Jayjg points out the inadequacy of the cited source with the comment 'link does not refer to any "vigorous campaign" or any "zionist activists"'.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Further work by Viriditas
12) Veriditas has continued to work with the article and has substantially improved it while maintaining a reasonably courteous relationship with Xed. See edits of 19 Dec and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Dog_with_a_bone.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed has left Misplaced Pages
13) In an e-mail message to Fred Bauder, Xed has stated that he has left Misplaced Pages.
- 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:
Xed warned regarding personal attacks
1) Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed warned regarding citing unreliable sources
2) Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of.
- Support:
- A source must explicitly set information forth, not be something which if read between the lines, might support a contention. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV
3) Viriditas (talk · contribs) and Jayjg (talk · contribs) are reminded that Misplaced Pages is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate.
- Oppose:
- Jay and Viriditas should be commended for their work keeping "Zionists are evil!" conpiracy theories out of our articles. Raul654 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Viriditas commended
3.1) Veriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Snowspinner reminded
4.1) Considering the triviality of Xed's offenses when considered in context, Snowspinner (talk · contribs) is reminded to carefully investigate the context in which offenses occur before making a decision to act as a prosecutor with respect to actions of one user to the exclusion of the others involved in a conflict.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - Concur with Epopt
- Abstain:
Snowspinner commended
4.2) Considering Xed's current parole status, Snowspinner's actions were appropriate.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Xed banned
5) Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- 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.