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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, 2 Arbitrators are recused and 13 are active, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines

1) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, a policy, provides a series of steps for the resolution of disagreements or grievances Wikipedians may have with one another. Airing a dispute on project pages in violation of this policy is disruptive and is prohibited. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline, states that illustrating a point through parody or a breaching experiment is, generally, disruptive.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree with this. There are nuances of the formulation that are arguable, but they are not sufficient to affect the outcome of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reversion not a substitute for discussion

2) Wikipedia:Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic. (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
In the vast majority of cases, and certainly once more than one revert has taken place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

3) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, although I don't believe all of this is applicable to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Deskana (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pages are not owned

4) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum: fair criticism

6) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:

Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Giano

1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter that "Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions." Despite this, Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in early 2007 (see timeline).

Support:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano (actually, Giano II), in addition to being a valued content creator, is an opinionated editor, dedicated to Wikipedia but known for expressing his views on matters affecting governance of the project in an unusually direct and forceful way. At times, this is to the benefit of the project. At other times, Giano has the weaknesses of his strengths and escalates his stridency to the point that it becomes less productive. Friendly urgings that he lower the tone of the rhetoric, in these situations, are often ineffective. In this instance, comments made by another user to Bishonen in the #admins channel on the evening of December 22, 2007 became known to Giano, a close wiki-friend and collaborator of Bishonen's, under circumstances described in Bishonen's evidence, which I credit. Giano, who already disdained #admins and the Wikipedia page describing it as a result of prior incidents in the channel, sought (with some success, as it happens) to compel change to #admins through a series of provocative edits to the page in question beginning the following day. Although Giano believed his edits were truthful and accurate (see his evidence, which I also credit), and although I am confident that his subjective motivation was to help rather than harm Wikipedia, the fact remains that Giano made a substantial number of these edits over a sustained period of time and persisted long after it had become clear that his point had been made. With regret, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the overall effect of this conduct was unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bishonen

2) Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made three edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. Bishonen's edits were similar in substance and tone, and were provocative and disruptive (see timeline).

Support:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Bishonen made a total of three edits to the page in question, the day after the incident in the channel. The first two of the edits echoed Giano's early edits. One might opine that these were unhelpful changes (assuming that the circumstances made this a conduct issue rather than a content ruling). However, these edits came at an early stage of the dispute, and Bishonen did not persist in adding the language in question after being twice reverted. Instead, her third and final edit took an intermediate course by reverting a sentence to a prior version that had been stable for five months. That edit strikes me as wholly unobjectionable. When reverted again, Bishonen left the page completely and did not participate in editing it any further. I cannot consider that her two or three edits at issue are sufficient to warrant this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Geogre

3) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made a provocative and disruptive edit to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. The following day, he reverted on separate occasions an attempt to protect the page and an attempt to delete it, thereby escalating the disruption (see timeline).

Support:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Reviewing the proposed finding in order, first, it is not clear to me which of Geogre's edits is described as "provocative and disruptive." To be sure, some of Geogre's edits were in my opinion unhelpful, but that is at some remove from an arbitration finding of disruption. Next, a finding based on the single reversion of protection is questionable; it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable, and a mitigating factor here is that the initial full protection was itself dubious, having been applied by a user busily engaged in editing the page. Last, a finding based on the undeletion of the page would be without support: the page had been deleted, admittedly without any policy basis, on Christmas Eve with the suggestion of "Christmas truce— a well-meant effort to reduce what had become a divisive and dispiriting dispute, but hardly a disposition that could be made binding on users over their objections. (Is the contention really that someone should have initiated a 5-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page?) I must therefore oppose the finding as presented. This is not, by any means, to suggest that I approve of all that Geogre had to say with respect to this matter. As with Giano, I admire the strength with which Geogre articulates his thoughts about Wikipedia as well as his loyalty to his friends, but I will suggest that George might better dedicate his almost unparalleled mastery of rhetoric (in the word's positive sense) to worthier and weightier affairs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

David Gerard

4) David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, repeatedly reverted Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in violation of WP:3RR and WP:OWN.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the sincere belief he was correct, but still ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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.

Vote

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.