Neutrality (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
:Abstain: |
:Abstain: |
||
:# |
:# |
||
===Matters must be brought to the ArbCom timeously=== |
|||
The issues brought to the ArbCom must be substantial and on-going and not issues are no longer current or which are minor. |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
== Proposed findings of fact == |
== Proposed findings of fact == |
Revision as of 10:23, 14 May 2005
all proposed
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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
- For all items
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.
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.
Prohibition from editing Artificial consciousness
Enacted. 1) Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell (Psb777) are prohibted from editing Artificial consciousness for the duration of this case.
- Support:
- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- Ambi 13:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) They can still edit the talk page, I assume, and try to convince others of their case.
- ➥the Epopt 17:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
No personal attacks
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Civility
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary
3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
No original research
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cite sources
5) Cite sources. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources." This particularly applies to controversial additions.
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:02, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Terse version here.
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Neutral point of view
6) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note 5, of course.
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruption
7) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
- Support:
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:01, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- Ambi 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sockpuppets
8) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
- Support:
- Ambi 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Anonymous users are allowed to edit Wikipedia
9) While some Wikipedians consider anonymous editors less credible than logged-in editors, anonymous users have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and the community has consistently rejected all moves to block anonymous users from editing. See m:Foundation issues.
- Support:
- Ambi 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- David Gerard 01:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- ➥the Epopt 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- mav 16:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 20:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 10:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Matters must be brought to the ArbCom timeously
The issues brought to the ArbCom must be substantial and on-going and not issues are no longer current or which are minor.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {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:
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.