Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 7 active Arbitrators, so 4 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute centers around the name and content of the Liancourt Rocks article, with subsidiary activity occurring on other articles related to Korean topics.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikimachine[edit]

2) Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([10]), refusal to work constructively with other editors ([11], [12]), and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Wikimachine banned[edit]

1) Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Parties reminded[edit]

2) The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

Support:
  1. Kirill 03:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

  • Straightforward implementation; all proposals are passed. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.

  1. Close. Kirill 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close Fred Bauder 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Proposed_decision&oldid=431107342"