Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem/Proposed decision

all proposed

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 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, 1 Arbitrators is recuse (automatical new arbitrator recusal of Fennec) and 3 are inactive (Nohat, Mav, Theresa), so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

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:

Alfrem banned from Libertarianism
1) Enacted on 19:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Pending resolution of this matter is banned from editing of Libertarianism. It shall be presumed that any user, such as  who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 19:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Edit warring
1) Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are required to respect the three-revert rule and to avoid edit-warrior behavior, and are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as talk page discussion, negotiation, surveys, then requests for comment, mediation, or, finally, Arbitration.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (though I think "usually" is being overly kind :-); slight tweaks to wording)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reasonableness and disruption/Ownership of articles
2) Editors are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and dealing to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia&mdash;such as the persistant removal of a phrase or sentence, and the reversion of its restoration&mdash;will not be tolerated. In addition Wikipedia articles, do not have 'owners' or 'custodians 'who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or polling.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (voting -> polling, we don't do binding polls (a.k.a. "votes") on Wikipedia)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material
3) Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material from articles without a compelling reason, especially when other users object, is generally considered inappropriate.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of sockpuppet accounts/IP adresses to evade blocks and bans
The use of sockpuppet accounts (including IP addresses), while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts (including IP addresses), such as using them to evade blocks and bans is strictly forbidden.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * James F. (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC) This is slightly the wrong way around; see below.
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

amended
Whilst using multiple accounts, including IP addresses, is not forbidden, "sockpuppeting", or the abuse of multiple accounts, such as in suggesting support from multiple people, or attempting to evade blocks and bans, is strictly forbidden.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Conflict with other editors
1) has come into conflict with multiple Wikipedians over his edits to libertarianism, Template:Elections, anarcho-capitalism, and non-aggression principle. These users include, , and.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Inappropriate editing habits
2) has exhibited inappropriate editing habits on libertarianism, Template:Elections, anarcho-capitalism, and non-aggression principle, through a hostile attitude towards other users, the removal of endnotes and explanatory material, and many reverts.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Violation of official policy/three-revert rule
3) has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially as it relates to the three-revert rule. This has led to his blocking on several occasions.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of IP address to circumvent ban
4) has used the IP address  to circumvent a temporary Arbitration-ordered block on editing the libertarianism article.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.

Three-month ban on editing libertarianism-related articles
1) Due to a pronounced inability to work productively with other users, is hereby prohibited from editing libertarianism or libertarianism-related articles for three months. If Alfrem edits libertarianism or a libertarianism-related article, any administrator may block him for a period not less than one day and not exceeding two weeks. This does not include talk pages.


 * Support:
 * Neutralitytalk 07:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
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.


 * Looks like everything likely to pass has passed. &rarr;Raul654 21:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 21:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)