all proposed
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 enacted.
On this case, 1 arbitrator are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
1) {text of proposed orders}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) As put forward in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia: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.
3) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
4) The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Vfp15 has worked against consensus by repeatedly adding trivia to Charles Darwin despite apparent consensus not to have the trivia in the article.
1.1) Vfp15 has failed to work cooperatively with other editors. He has made insufficient attempts to seek consensus on issues related to the inclusion of trivia in the Charles Darwin article. This lack of cooperation with other editors has caused significant disruption to the article in question.
2) Adraeus has engaged in personal attacks during the course of this debate. See [1], [2], [3] (also see this for background. ).
3) Vfp15 has stated that he regards the 3RR as an entitlement to revert. [4] [5]
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editting Charles Darwin for a period of three months.
1.1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editing Charles Darwin for a period of one month.
1.2) For significant disruption relating to the articles Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, Vfp15 is banned from both articles or their talk pages for one year.
2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for three months.
2.1) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one month.
2.2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one week.
3) Vfp15 is banned for two months for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
3.1) Vfp15 is banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
3.2) Vfp15 is banned for two weeks for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
4) The arbitration committee thanks User:Imaglang for his assistance in acting as advocate for User:Vfp15 in this matter
5) For as period of three months, to be served after successfully serving any bans that pass, Vfp15 is limited to 0 reverts per day (obvious vandalism excluded: See Wikipedia:Vandalism definition). Admins can regard any non-vandalism revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. 'Gaming' this by making trivial changes before reverting, is also covered under this injunction unless those changes are a good faith attempt at compromise.
6) Adraeus is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year: if Adraeus makes an edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for up to a week by that administrator and the parole timer shall be reset.
:#
Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) If Vfp15 attempts to edit Charles Darwin, he may be reverted immediately and blocked for up to 24 hours.
Most ArbCom cases revolve around someone doing something stupid, but this one is a particularly stupid case - David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Four Aye votes needed to close case
Closed by sannse (talk) 14:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
all proposed
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 enacted.
On this case, 1 arbitrator are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
1) {text of proposed orders}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) As put forward in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia: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.
3) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
4) The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) Vfp15 has worked against consensus by repeatedly adding trivia to Charles Darwin despite apparent consensus not to have the trivia in the article.
1.1) Vfp15 has failed to work cooperatively with other editors. He has made insufficient attempts to seek consensus on issues related to the inclusion of trivia in the Charles Darwin article. This lack of cooperation with other editors has caused significant disruption to the article in question.
2) Adraeus has engaged in personal attacks during the course of this debate. See [1], [2], [3] (also see this for background. ).
3) Vfp15 has stated that he regards the 3RR as an entitlement to revert. [4] [5]
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editting Charles Darwin for a period of three months.
1.1) For working against consensus on Charles Darwin, Vfp15 is prohibited from editing Charles Darwin for a period of one month.
1.2) For significant disruption relating to the articles Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, Vfp15 is banned from both articles or their talk pages for one year.
2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for three months.
2.1) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one month.
2.2) For engaging in deliberate personal attacks, Adraeus is banned for one week.
3) Vfp15 is banned for two months for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
3.1) Vfp15 is banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
3.2) Vfp15 is banned for two weeks for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.
4) The arbitration committee thanks User:Imaglang for his assistance in acting as advocate for User:Vfp15 in this matter
5) For as period of three months, to be served after successfully serving any bans that pass, Vfp15 is limited to 0 reverts per day (obvious vandalism excluded: See Wikipedia:Vandalism definition). Admins can regard any non-vandalism revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. 'Gaming' this by making trivial changes before reverting, is also covered under this injunction unless those changes are a good faith attempt at compromise.
6) Adraeus is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year: if Adraeus makes an edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for up to a week by that administrator and the parole timer shall be reset.
:#
Fred Bauder 23:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) If Vfp15 attempts to edit Charles Darwin, he may be reverted immediately and blocked for up to 24 hours.
Most ArbCom cases revolve around someone doing something stupid, but this one is a particularly stupid case - David Gerard 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Four Aye votes needed to close case
Closed by sannse (talk) 14:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)