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.

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 1 is inactive, so 13 out of 14 arbitrators are available and 7 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[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

No original research

1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No personal attacks

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dispute resolution

3) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation. Where users are unwilling to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, measures may be taken to stop the disruptive behavior without their participation.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of sources

4) Wikipedia users are expected to cite sources for statements, and all conclusions drawn must be cited to verifiable sources. Editors should not quote material out of context in order to mislead; conclusions drawn must also be supported by verifiable sources.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

5) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues, and we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view; views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

6) A user who disrupts editing of an article or subject area may be banned from editing that article or subject. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Licorne has repeatedly been uncivil and made personal attacks

1) Licorne (talk · contribs) has been uncivil to other editors on numerous occasions ([1], [2], [3], [4]), frequently engaging in personal attacks ([5], [6]).

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Licorne has refused attempts at dispute resolution

2) Licorne has refused to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, making only a flip response to his Request for Comment [7] and refusing to participate in Arbitration [8]. Requests to respond to his RfC [9] were met brusquely [10].

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Licorne has made POV edits against consensus

3) Licorne has attempted to push POVs on various articles against consensus ([11], [12], [13]), see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not established by the cited evidence. Fred Bauder 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Licorne engages in original research

4) Licorne has engaged in original research, repeatedly adding uncited opinion as fact: [14], [15], [16]

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Evidence of this is not adequately developed. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Licorne banned for a year

1) For his repeated incivility, POV-pushing, and unwillingness to cooperate productively with other editors, Licorne is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Probation

2) Licorne is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as physics. Licorne must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attack parole

3) Licorne is is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

1) Should Licorne violate any ban imposed under the remedies in this decision, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

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.


Last updated: --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. close ➥the Epopt 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 20:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More