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 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, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] 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 Stubs 3.1.2 Assume good faith 3.1.3 No personal attacks 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Creation of stubs by Maoririder 3.2.2 Maoririder's response to complaints 3.2.3 Blocks of Maoririder 3.2.4 Sockpuppets 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Mentorship 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 4 Discussion by Arbitrators 4.1 General 4.2 Motion to close

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[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] Stubs

1) "Stubs are articles which "[are] clearly too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title."[Stubs] don't yet contain enough information to be truthfully considered articles. The community believes that stubs are far from worthless. They are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete." Wikipedia:Stub, a guideline, does not prohibit stubs, nor does it incorporate the generally negative community opinion regarding very brief stubs that do little more than define their subjects, but does strongly suggest that they "be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences".

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC) (changed wording 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
2. Note added sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

2) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

3) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopædia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a "bunker mentality").

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Creation of stubs by Maoririder

1) Maoririder (talk • contribs), new Wikipedia editor, has created a large number of stubs, some of which were no more than a sentence in length and offer no more than minimal definition of their subjects. This is shorter than recommended by Wikipedia:Stub, which offers a guideline of "3 to 10 short sentences". ([1], [2], [3], [4])

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (change tense - we're talking about the past)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Maoririder's response to complaints

2) Maoririder has been generally polite in his response to criticism of his creation of stubs, and has made very gradual but good-faith efforts to improve his performance, as can be seen by User talk:Maoririder and a comparison of an early edit [5] to an edit of roughly a week later [6].

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Blocks of Maoririder

3) Maoririder has been blocked several times due to his prolific creation of stubs, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence#Third_tranche:_Blocks_applied_to_Maoririder

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

4) Maoririder is known to have created two sockpuppets, Bluejays2006 (talk • contribs) and Sandove89 (talk • contribs) which, due to his distinctive editing style, were fairly easily identifiable. These were evidently attempts to evade continuing negative attention rather than for the purpose of evading a block, as their creation did not coincide with any blocks. One separate editor was misidentified as a sockpuppet.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

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] Mentorship

1) Maoririder is to be assigned a mentor as outlined in Wikipedia:Mentorship. Mentorship of Maoririder will include guiding him to edit according to accepted article standards and helping him resolve disputes with other editors.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 16:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Raul654 19:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] 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.

1. Everything has passed. Raul654 12:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Close Fred Bauder 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Close Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Close ➥the Epopt 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Yes, it has, but we've not decided anything. Some remedies might be nice. James F. (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC) OK, I'm in favour of closing, now. James F. (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I really think we need to think more about remedies on this one. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)