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, 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:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Wikipedia is not a court of law

1) While certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process may resemble their real-world legal counterparts, they are not identical to them, and do not follow the same rules and procedures.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive. See "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not" policy.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere

3) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other web sites, is extremely disruptive.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Legal threats

4) Threats of legal action intended to intimidate other editors are incompatible with the wiki method of collaborative editing. Editors with concerns about article content may attempt to address their concerns through the normal editing process, or they may contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly about legal remedies, but they may not do both. Note that there is no material difference between a direct legal threat (I will sue you if you don't change the article to my liking) and an indirect legal threat (someone else may sue you if you don't allow me to change this article content to my liking); both are violations of the " no legal threats" policy.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2nd choice. reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Legal threats

4.1) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Those editors who wish to utilize a court of law to resolve disputes with other editors may not use Wikipedia pages for communications preparatory to such actions.

Editors encountering content which may be a copyright violation or which may be libelous are encouraged to follow established procedures for dealing with such matters. Editors encountering unencyclopedic content are encouraged to improve it or remove it using the customary means. In those rare cases where legitimate encyclopedic content appears to create legal exposure for the Wikimedia Foundation, a volunteer for the foundation should be contacted for guidance.

Editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against the Foundation are encouraged to inform the Foundation privately of the facts of the matter. Similarly, editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against another editor are encouraged to contact the affected editor privately.

Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a respectful, non-threatening fashion.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Raul654 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Would the phrase "chilling effect" be relevant? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. SimonP 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Somewhat overly wordy. Kirill 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Context

1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a controversial figure in the Linux/Freeware community and has been harassed on Wikipedia by a number of single-purpose accounts (including Vigilant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), talks_to_birds ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vryl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Friendly neighbour ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sue me Jeff ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and various others; see their block logs). Merkey has edited primarily on Native American topics, and has been involved in various disputes regarding the status of certain Native American groups.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I believe this is useful for historical reasons. In the future we may look back on this case and wish to see the context. reply
3. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC) per UC reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Think this might need a bit of rewording. FloNight 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not sure who he is matters at all -- just how he behaves on Wikipedia. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

2) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely banned under a previous account, but was recently allowed to resume editing. Merkey has a history of making legal threats [1] [2], most recently alleging that the Wikimedia Foundation could be civilly or criminally liable for allowing certain groups to claim membership in a Native American tribe ( [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]; see also {{ NativeWarn}}).

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pfagerburg

3) Pfagerburg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has fewer than 200 edits, the majority of which relate to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in some manner. He has made edits to Jeffrey V. Merkey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that tend to cast Merkey in a bad light ( [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],). Pfagerburg made a complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard ( [18]) regarding Merkey's use of legal threats in a content dispute. Pfagerburg was not previously involved in the dispute, except for two comments ( [19], [20]), and had never edited any of the related articles or their talk pages. In this context, given Pfagerburg's lack of prior interest in the topic, and previous interest specifically in Merkey's alleged propensity for filing lawsuits, his involving himself in the Native American dispute constituted harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kebron

4) As noted here, Kebron ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account that generally acts to oppose Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Kebron's first edits were to User talk:Gadugi, referencing a dispute on the Yahoo SCOX message board ( [21], [22]); he has continued to monitor the edits of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), making complaints and particpating in discussions at the Administrators' Noticeboard in which he was not a stakeholder. He has agressively pursued Merkey's former accounts and sockpuppets ( [23], [24], [25]); has edit warred with Merkey but ignored the resulting mediation; and created Southern Cherokee Nation, a copyvio, to make a point while in a dispute with Merkey at Talk:Cherokee. While no single edit stands out as particularly incivil or harassing, Kebron's overall edit history constitutes harassment of Merkey.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {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.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned

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

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on parole

2) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Any uninvolved administrator may ban him for a period of up to one year if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The policy says indef ban until legal issues are resolved. I think we should stick with the policy. FloNight 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. In favor of 2.1 Raul654 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on parole

2.1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Any uninvolved administrator may indefinitely block him if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.

Support:

1. FloNight 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice, with the understanding that the blocks would not be lifted lightly; I don't want a cycle of threat→block→withdrawal of threat→unblock here. Kirill 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pfagerburg banned

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

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kebron banned

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

Support:

1. Kirill 17:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Fred Bauder 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {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.

The following pass:

• Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, and 4.1 (I interpret 4.1 as superseding 4).
• Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 4.
• Proposed remedies 1, 2.1, 3, and 4. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 29 July 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. Close. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Kirill 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Raul654 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close. SimonP 17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Close. FloNight 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply