Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis/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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
 * 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:

=Proposed final decision=

No personal attacks
1) No personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Need I say more? Grunt 🇪🇺 21:28, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Civility
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.


 * Support:
 * Imported from JonGwynne, et al. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:28, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 23:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Consensus
3) As put forward in Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.


 * Support:
 * Imported from Antifinnugor, et al. Grunt 🇪🇺 21:28, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit summaries
4) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:31, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Talk pages
5) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate.


 * Support:
 * Expanded on wording from PSYCH. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:42, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Personal attacks
1) JarlaxleArtemis has engaged in personal attacks. ,


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:39, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Incorrect use of image tags
2) JarlaxleArtemis has uploaded images with, and attribued to previously uploaded images, questionable or entirely incorrect copyright tags and has persisted in doing so despite being warned repeatedly by other users to stop.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:39, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ignorance of Wikipedia policy
3) JarlaxleArtemis's above actions, among others, do not appear to arise out of malice, but instead are apparently a result of ignorance of Wikipedia policies.


 * Support:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) - His understanding of copyright law may be bad, but I'm not sure about the rest of his motives

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.

Requirement to read policies
1) JarlaxleArtemis is required to read and understand the Wikipedia policies he has violated, including No personal attacks, Image copyright tags, and Copyright FAQ. Once he has done so he shall, on the wiki, prepare and sign a statement that he has done so and present it to the Arbitration Committee. He shall not be permitted to edit outside the Wikipedia namespace or his userspace until he has done so.


 * Support:
 * If you can't figure it out without help, I suppose we'll have to force you to figure it out. (Did I miss any policies he should read? And why was I logged out) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:56, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Innovative. I like it. Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 05:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) - I have also added the copyright FAQ as well
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Bans for continued ignorance of policy
1) If JarlaxleArtemis, within a period of three months after having provided the above statement, continues to make edits that an adminstrator feels ignore Wikipedia policy in the fashion outlined above, he may be be banned for a short period of time (up to one day) and reminded to review the policy he has violated.


 * Support:
 * Just in case the above does not help. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:59, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * As above. Ambi 22:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 20:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 23:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Just a note - this should have a time period it applies over. A year? Three months? - David Gerard 12:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Added. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:30, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

=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.


 * Fred Bauder 16:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:54, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nohat 08:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 23:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)