Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
• 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 she/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, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

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.

Highway moves

1) Until the conclusion of this case, no party may move a highway-related article except to correct page-move vandalism. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision and SPUI (talk · contribs) contributions. Fred Bauder 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) 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, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility/disruption/reasonableness

2) Civility, disruption, and reasonableness:

• Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
• Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
• Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
• Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ownership of articles

3) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

4) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

5) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others. All of this applies to page moves.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

SPUI is to be banned for doing incomplete work

1) As SPUI does not fix everything, his page moves are not "a valid contribution to the encyclopedia" and he is not a "bonafide contributor". Thus he is permanently banned.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

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.