From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 4 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.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Edit warring 3.1.2 Consensus 3.1.3 Disruption 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Raphael1 edit wars 3.2.2 Raphael1 defies consensus 3.2.3 Raphael1 is disruptive 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Raphael1 banned from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 3.3.2 Raphael1 placed on Wikipedia:Probation 3.3.3 Raphael1 placed on general Probation 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Enforcement by block 4 Discussion by Arbitrators 4.1 General 4.2 Motion to close 4.2.1 Implementation notes 4.2.2 Vote

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Edit warring

1) Edit wars are harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits. Wikipedia:Consensus

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

3) Users who disrupt an article or type of articles by tendentious editing may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Raphael1 edit wars

1) Raphael1 has engaged in persistent edit warring, both regarding Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Cyde's evidence) and elsewhere. Block log with 3RR violations

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Raphael1 defies consensus

2) Despite prior consensus supporting the inclusion of the controversial cartoon in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_Results), Raphael1 continually removed or altered the image, both before and after he was notified of the consensus [1] and was blocked for this.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Recognizing that there is a minority disagreeing, still, who may never agree, sometimes a decision has to be made. It was made; unless the community of editors in general changes direction, it should stand, and not be repeatedly warred over just because the other side still disagrees. Complete consensus is hard to come by -- in practice there will almost always be those who remain unsatisfied, but that can't justify repeated edit-warring. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Looking at it, I think that this was "consensus", although it certainly, no, wasn't otherwise unanimity. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I am somewhat reluctant to refer to this as consensus. There is certainly an overwhelming majority, but a strong and vocal minority exists that disagrees with this view. This minority also largely comes from a demographic underrepresented in the Wikipedia community. Consensus is not the same as unanimity, but it is also more than a majority in a poll. However, I also feel that this is one of those rare issues where consensus is essentially impossible. There will be never be a better option than accepting the decision of the poll as final, and the results of the poll must thus be considered a firm rule of the community. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael1 is disruptive

3) Raphael1's edits constitute disruption. He has created (and then recreated) the controversial user subpage with no encyclopedic value User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims, which was deleted as a personal attack and subsequently endorsed on deletion review [2]. Raphael1 was blocked for a week for personal attacks related to the incident (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week). He also created the proposed policy page Wikipedia:OURS, substantially identical to that proposed by banned editor Rgulerdem (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS), which was subsequently deleted.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Debate is welcome, disruption is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
5. As per Kat. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Debate regarding policy should always be welcome Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

   Debate is welcome, yes, but you can debate without being disruptive, and he has not. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Raphael1 banned from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

1) Raphael1 is banned from editing Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its talk page and related articles for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Raphael1 placed on Wikipedia:Probation

2) Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Raphael1 placed on general Probation

3) Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Any ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. ➥the Epopt 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] 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.

• Principles: all pass 7-0
• Findings: 1 passes 7-0. 2 pass 6-0 with one abstention, 3 passes 6-1.
• Remedies: all pass 7-0
• Enforcement: passes 7-0

[edit] 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.

1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Close. SimonP 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Close. James F. (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Close. Fred Bauder 20:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)