Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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, no arbitrators are recused and 7 are away or 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.

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}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Users who repent of past behavior may be accorded a second chance.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly edited as Azmoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 85.70.5.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been blocked indefinitely based on trollish edits such as this typical example. He admits trolling but requests permission to edit articles in a quiet way.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed, to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans together with the basis therefor.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1. move to close ➥the Epopt 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Charles Matthews 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]