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 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Users are expected to negotiate in good faith should a dispute arise. Repetitive assertions, circular logic, and references to inapplicable policies or guidelines are not acceptable.
2) Users who repeatedly disrupt the editing of an articles or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive tactics may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.
3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise.
4) Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability.
5) Internal links in a "See also" section need only be of related interest.
6) "See also" sections should contain directly relevant material, and should not be used to make arguments or points.
1) Zer0faults ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing [1]. His activities were opposed by Nescio ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to have abandoned the site.
2) Zer0faults has engaged in tendentious editing [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
3) Zer0faults has removed well sourced information [11] and [12].
:#
Dmcdevit·
t
04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
4) Zer0faults fails to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19].
5) Zer0faults and Nescio have engaged in mutual discourtesy [20].
6) Zer0faults has adopted an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources [21].
7) An examination of the evidence of improper editing by Nescio presented by Zer0faults Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence#Evidence presented by .7Bzer0faults.7D shows it to be generally satisfactory.
8) A number of the disputes between Zer0faults and Nescio were over inclusion of an internal link in the "See also" section of articles [22].
9) Several other editors have supported Zer0faults arguments and edits: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
10) Other editors have turned the contentious article Zarqawi PSYOP program into a re-direct to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which contains a paragraph on the subject in this section.
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.
1) Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans.
1) Should Zer0faults violate any ban imposed under this decision they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans.
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.
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.
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 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Users are expected to negotiate in good faith should a dispute arise. Repetitive assertions, circular logic, and references to inapplicable policies or guidelines are not acceptable.
2) Users who repeatedly disrupt the editing of an articles or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive tactics may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.
3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise.
4) Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability.
5) Internal links in a "See also" section need only be of related interest.
6) "See also" sections should contain directly relevant material, and should not be used to make arguments or points.
1) Zer0faults ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing [1]. His activities were opposed by Nescio ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to have abandoned the site.
2) Zer0faults has engaged in tendentious editing [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
3) Zer0faults has removed well sourced information [11] and [12].
:#
Dmcdevit·
t
04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
4) Zer0faults fails to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19].
5) Zer0faults and Nescio have engaged in mutual discourtesy [20].
6) Zer0faults has adopted an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources [21].
7) An examination of the evidence of improper editing by Nescio presented by Zer0faults Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence#Evidence presented by .7Bzer0faults.7D shows it to be generally satisfactory.
8) A number of the disputes between Zer0faults and Nescio were over inclusion of an internal link in the "See also" section of articles [22].
9) Several other editors have supported Zer0faults arguments and edits: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
10) Other editors have turned the contentious article Zarqawi PSYOP program into a re-direct to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which contains a paragraph on the subject in this section.
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.
1) Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans.
1) Should Zer0faults violate any ban imposed under this decision they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans.
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.
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.