Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision

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 12 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

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

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Arbitration rulings

1) All Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee. Encouraging or assisting other editors in violating them is inappropriate, and may result in sanctions.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Private correspondence

2) In the absence of permission from the sender and all addressees, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Lack of evidence

1) As the evidence presented to the Committee is unclear in its provenance and veracity, sometimes contradictory, and generally speculative, the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate to any degree of confidence.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {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.

No sanctions

1) In view of the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the lack of a clearly formulated stance on publishing private correspondence, and the voluntary actions taken by several of the involved parties, no sanctions are levied against any party. Involved editors are encouraged to move forward from this regrettable incident with a spirit of understanding and forgiveness.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mediation

2) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.