Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
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.
;For all items:
Line 114:
:Oppose:
:# The <s>second</s> final sentence is not quite right, I think. We need to go where the [[WP:V|verifiable]] material takes us. For example, most serial killers are going to have articles that are overall critical of the subject. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:#: (Third sentence, by the way.) Isn't that weight on the critical material for a serial killer ''due'' weight though? A typical head of state, for example should not have as much critical material as a serial killer because of the undue weight clause. It is undue weight only when it fails to reflect the state of scholarship. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:#:: I still do not think this wording is clear (but the arbs additional comments do clarify it.) and agree with Blnguyen, also. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 129:
:# Like this one. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
:#
Line 303 ⟶ 306:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 321 ⟶ 325:
:Abstain:
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
===Outside comments===
Line 331 ⟶ 335:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 347 ⟶ 353:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 362 ⟶ 369:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 462 ⟶ 471:
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) See below.
:# [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 503 ⟶ 513:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 531 ⟶ 543:
:Support:
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Presumably this was the intent.
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 561 ⟶ 575:
:# '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oppose:
Line 588 ⟶ 603:
:Note that #3 '''Article quality and sourcing''' currently ''passes'' with 6 votes; with Blnguyen abstaining, it only needs 5 votes to pass. If the generic version is preferred, at least two arbitrators need to change their vote, otherwise both versions will pass. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm confused. The generic version fails with only four votes, does it not? [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the summary; principles 1, 2, 3, 5.1, and 6; findings of fact 1, 2, and 4; and remedies 1, 2, and 3.1 have passed. Principle 5, though it has nominally passed, is irrelevant since substantially identical text is present in 5.1 therefore I consider it to have been superceded by 5.1. I note that the enforcement section needs one more vote to pass, and I would hope that someone will make that vote, but I do not consider it necessary to the case since it reiterates common sense. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:Principle 3.1 (the generic version) now has 5 votes but needs 6. Principle 3 also has 6 votes, although James' is conditional, but passes with 5 due to Blnguyen's abstention. With the generic version gaining momentum, I wanted to point out that unless someone changes their vote on 3, both could pass. Regarding 5 and 5.1, it looks like Fred has proposed them at the same time as a general and specific sub-principle (or something), not as alternates. Since none of the votes are conditional, I would tend to count them both as passed, even though it won't have much practical impact. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
===Vote===
Line 593 ⟶ 612:
<small>24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. </small>
'''Support''':
:# Close. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:# (Unrecuse and) Close. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">'''Essjay'''</span>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">(<small>Talk</small>)</span>]]</span> 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:# Close. I think we can return to Bill Huffman in a motion if there is more on-wiki. Off-wiki is not our remit, really. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:# Unrecuse for closure only. Close. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:# Close.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Oppose''':
:# Oppose [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Bill Huffman has been stalking Derek Smart for years in a variety of venues. The decision as it stands does not deal adequately with Huffman continuing with that activity on Wikipedia. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Clerk note''': This case is ready to close and I will close it tomorrow, but would appreciate confirmation whether the number of participating arbitrators should be left at 10 or reduced given that some arbitrators have taken inactive status without having voted ont his case. This will affect whether remedy 8 passes. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:As a matter of policy, the arbitrators who became inactive without voting are substracted. (Their listing was probably a de facto recognition of the fact that they haven't participated in any cases in some time.) Of course, this a policy I wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard&diff=86038304&oldid=85704436] but in 3 months no one has complained. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::I will close the case on this basis tomorrow unless told otherwise by an arbitrator. Moving Raul654 and Morven to inactive (SimonP voted in this case) reduces the number of participating arbitrators to 8, so the majority is 5, with the result that in addition to the proposals noted in the implementation notes above, remedy 8 also passes. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
{{NOINDEX}}
| |||