Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.


Proposed motions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basic principle. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basic principle. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Basic principle. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Yorkshirian[edit]

1) Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([1], [2]); edit-warring ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]); and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines ([8], [9], [10], [11]).

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After reviewing the evidence and statements from all involved parties this is my judgment as well. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This isn't the worst case of incivility, by a long chalk, but the idée fixe about historical counties and the assumption of bad faith on the part of anyone with other ideas is a serious problem in a collaborative project. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {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.

Yorkshirian banned[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based on statements of involved parties as well as the evidence, I support this sanction as needed. Yorkshirian has received more than adequate notice through Wikipedia's standard dispute resolution processes that there were user conduct problems, but I see nothing that demonstrates a willingness to listen to the feedback and bring editing into line with community policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {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.

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. Move to close. Everything passes, no oppose votes. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Wait 24 hours to give Morven a chance to finish voting. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Kirill (prof) 14:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. --bainer (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed_decision&oldid=1138654749"