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, two Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 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]

Edit warring

1) Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule, consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiability

2) While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways; for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppets

4) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Requests for comment

5) Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the open part of the dispute resolution process, which seeks community input regarding specific topical, policy, and personality disputes [...] to request broader opinions [...]. A user RfC is intended to help resolve disputes and is not in itself an attack; users are expected to cooperate with this process.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Users with similar editing patterns

1) The same dubious content added by 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) has been inserted by several other anonymous IPs as well as named users Labgal (talk · contribs) and FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs).

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Edit warring

2) 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) as well as several other editors with similar editing patterns have repeatedly inserted dubious content into articles on the Kennedy family, against the consensus of other editors of the article, and has mischaracterized the efforts of others to remove it as "vandalism". [1], [2], [3]

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks

3) 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks ([4]) against other users who have challenged his/her editing behavior.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
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.

Bans for edit warring

1) Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), and 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, are banned for three months for edit warring.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (I assume it was supposed to be "administrator", not "sysop").[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Article area bans

2) Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), and 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, are banned from editing articles and talk-pages related to the Kennedys for one year.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (I assume it was supposed to be "administrator", not "sysop").[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of editing restriction

1) Should Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), or 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, edit any article which relates to the Kennedys within the time that they are restricted for, they may be briefly banned, for up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After the 5th such ban, the limit on the length of a ban shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (I assume it was supposed to be "administrator", not "sysop").[reply]
  5. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

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. Raul654 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - everything has passed[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


More