This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Dominion of Melchizedek[edit]

1) Those that have been brought to arbitration have again started to revert Dominion of Melchizedek even before the outcome has been decided. It's obvious that they do not take the arbitration hearing seriously.

User:208.57.91.27 reverted on 12/19 at 16:07 GST [1] and again at 16:29 GST [2].

User:67.125.151.194 reverted once on 12/19 at 16:06 GST [3]. It is also noteworthy that this IP address is very close to the known IP of User:Johnski who's IP address is 67.124.49.20. [4]

I am therefore asking for an injunction against all the editors that are named in the complaint from reverting all of the articles (DOM, Bokak Atoll, ect) until such time as the arbitration case has been concluded. Davidpdx 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't have anything to do with those IP addresses listed above. If there is an injunction it should be on both sides of the fence. Sincerely, Johnski 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are slightly misguided. Based on the evidence, it is yourself and others who continue to POV push pro-DOM statements, which have caused problems, not the rest of us. If you look at the DOM talk page, I stated several times, if the article was reverted during arbitration I would ask for a TRO. Sincerly, Davidpdx 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davidpdx, I'm not misguided, as I only have a pro-fair and balanced edit bending, not pro-DOM. You and those on your small team have a con-DOM approach evidenced by your refusal to correct a mis-quote, etc. Perhaps you lost money in a bank licensed by DOM, or you have some religious zealousness, but what ever your cause, you need to set aside your personal feelings and let the article come together without your constant reverting when a quote is fixed, etc. I don't have a problem with you having a negative opinion about DOM, my opinion is also negative, only that Wikipedia policy be followed regarding bias, balance, accurate quoting, quoting credible sources, etc. Sincerly, Johnski 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of POV pushing on DOM related articles:

Explaination: Since this has not been address and the sanctions proposed have been at best weak, I am suggesting these ideas as addendums to the proposed decision. These efforts are being made to ensure the problem is dealt with sufficently so that the case does not end up back before arbitration again. I have recommended several diffrent ideas so that they may (hopefully) be discussed and decided upon.

1) Johnski is banned from editing all DOM related articles for a period of six months

This would go hand and hand with proposed principal that editing of personal projects are a disruption to Wikipedia. [5] Davidpdx

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Johnski is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year for edit warring and POV pushing. [6] He may be banned from any article or talk page if he engages in disruptive editing. Bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This remedy may be extended year by year by any three administrators for good cause shown. Davidpdx

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Should Johnski edit any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. (this is in connection with proposal #1) Davidpdx

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: