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, there are 13 active arbitrators of whom none is recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

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:

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:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Added link, Paul August ☎ 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

User pages

2) While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Will support because I support this principle in general...but not sure that "bringing the project into disrepute" is the central issue of the case. FloNight 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Trolling

3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. But it is harder to show intention. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Don't like using "trolling". jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Provocation

3.1) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. His comments on this RFArb's workshop page and talk pages cause me to support now. FloNight 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I don't like using the word "trolling" — I think this is better worded. At the moment I don't know if this applies, as intention is difficult to judge. reply

Disruptive editing

4) Editors who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I've changed "Users" to "Editors". Paul August ☎ 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal expression on User Pages

5) Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. It's worth making this clear. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Agree that ordinarily users may personalize their users pages to reflect matters that are important to them. But, they do not own the page and do not have the final say about it's content. FloNight 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

This doesn't seem relevant, except perhaps as background for principle #2. Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Billy Ego

1) Billy Ego ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been engaged largely in a variety of disruptive behaviors, including interfering with the deletion nomination of Category:Fascist Wikipedians(   talk  links  history) and recreating it multiple times once it had been deleted ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), tendentious edit-warring on Nazism, Fascism, and related articles ( [6], [7]), the addition of inflammatory materials (including pro-Nazi advocacy and other content likely to bring the project into disrepute) to his userpage ( [8]), vexatious attempts to use Wikipedia processes against editors attempting to stop his activities ( [9], [10]), and making wild allegations against editors in good standing ( [11]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Multiple accounts

2) Billy Ego ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with numerous sockpuppets which have been independently disruptive including but not limited to Doctor Doc ( talk · contribs), BillyBoom ( talk · contribs), Anarcho-capitalism ( talk · contribs), Instantiayion ( talk · contribs), Bridge & Tunnel ( talk · contribs), Working Poor ( talk · contribs), Guidehead ( talk · contribs), Regulations ( talk · contribs), Talking man ( talk · contribs), Aunt Cudjoe ( talk · contribs), Beyond the classroom ( talk · contribs), FargoWells ( talk · contribs), and Monopolizer ( talk · contribs).

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

Billy Ego banned

1) Billy Ego ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 23:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

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.

• Proposed principles 1, 2, 3.1, 4, and 5, finding of fact 1, and remedy 1 pass. Proposed finding of fact 2 now up for voting. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Update: Proposed FOF 2 also passed; closed accordingly by Penwhale. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

1. Move to close. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close Fred Bauder 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close. FloNight 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Oppose, wait until the new Finding passes? FloNight 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose closing. The sockpuppet issue is in the air. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Close. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Close Paul August ☎ 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply