→Proposed remedies: ; votes |
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) update majority, per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision and FayssalF's inactive status |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
After considering [[../Evidence|/Evidence]] and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at [[../Workshop|/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. |
After considering [[../Evidence|/Evidence]] and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at [[../Workshop|/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 |
For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority. |
||
==Proposed motions== |
==Proposed motions== |
Revision as of 17:56, 17 May 2008
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 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.
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
Biographies of living persons
1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Compliance
4) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Novel approaches
5) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Problems with biographies of living persons
1) There continue to be significant and numerous problems with the implementation of the biographies of living persons policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases. There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear.
- Support:
- Kirill (prof) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. The instability of Wikipedia policy pages means that on any given day our written pages may be in conflict with each other. This makes enforcing policy much more difficult for administrators that are not policy wonks who keep all policy pages on their watch list. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Use of quotes in footnotes
2) The question of what material—such as quotes—should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Alansohn
3) Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {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.
Special enforcement on biographies of living persons
1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.
Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.
This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.
- Appeals
Administrative actions taken under this provision can be appealed in two ways:
- Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
- Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.
- Involvement
Administrators with direct involvement in an article may not take action regarding it under this provision. Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.
- Logging
All actions taken under this provision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. All logged sanctions should be accompanied with evidence of the sanctioned editor being counselled and warned, as per the above. Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Alansohn restricted
2) Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks and bans.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {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.