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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Biographies of living persons

1) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.

Support:

1. Please see the arbitrator discussion at the bottom of this page for overall comments on the draft decision. Please note that I have addressed aspects of the case that I regard as most important, and that other arbitrators may have additional proposals. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards for biographical articles

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Application of the BLP policy

3) There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of the BLP policy

4) Despite the core values underlying the BLP policy, disagreements frequently arise regarding how the policy applies in specific instances. Some such disagreements arise from clear violations of the policy that must be corrected immediately, but others arise from good-faith editorial disagreements concerning the reliability of sources, the desirability of addressing a particular topic and with what weight, and in some cases whether a particular individual should be the subject of an article at all. A dedicated noticeboard has been established to disputes about the content of BLPs to community attention for discussion and, where warranted, appropriate action. Disputes concerning alleged BLP violations are also subject to Wikipedia's established methods of dispute resolution, culminating in mediation and where other dispute-resolution methods are insufficient, arbitration before this Committee.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conflicts of interest

5) According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, "a Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.... Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." While editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, the guideline reflects best practice for editors having conflicting interests, intended to maximize the chance that all edits will reflect the required neutral point of view. Editors whose contributions are persistently or seriously non-neutral may, after appropriate warnings and guidance, be subject to editing restrictions or other appropriate sanctions; this applies whether the lack of neutrality results from a conflict of interest or not.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Yes. It is not the conflict of interests itself that is a problem, but when the edits being made are affected by the conflict such that they no longer adhere to core policies. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. With minor copy-edit: "policy" > "guideline" and "policy provides guidance" > "guideline reflects best practice",   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

   I endorse the copyedits to this and the next paragraph. Thanks for catching that. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Types of conflict of interest or bias

6) Conflicts or outside interests that may affect an editor's neutrality may be either positive or negative toward the subject of an article. Historically, Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline has been invoked (and in some instances, has been overzealously or counterproductively invoked) most often against positive conflicts of interest, such as where an article is edited by its subject or someone closely associated with the subject. However, it can be at least as damaging where an article is edited primarily by persons who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, or who are involved in disputes with the subject originating outside Wikipedia. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Yes. (May offer a copy edit.) – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. With minor copy-edit: "policy" > "guideline",   Roger Davies ^talk 07:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Manipulation of search engine results

7) It is an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilize editorial and structural features of the site—such as internal links, external links, and templates—in an attempt to inequitably or artificially manipulate search engine results. This is particularly so where the purpose is to disparage a living person.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. With a copyedit to add "attempt to", because the evidence I've seen demonstrated that internal linking within Wikipedia did not appear to affect Google rankings significantly. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

   The copyedit is fine (I've made a small semantic tweak to it of my own), especially given the helpful input and data on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. The concern should be to write a balanced article, not obtain maximum exposure to an article which isnt ready. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. I'm not convinced that this is a big problem in practice, but insofar that someone gets disproportionate google juice for their own article, it is, as John Vandenburg says, not NPOV. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. My concern is that the focus of most editors' - even those editing in the best of faith and from the strictest neutral points of view - is to ensure that their article is well-read: so it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to drive traffic to your articles, and difficult to draw the line between "exuberant" ¹ editing and "inequitable/artificial" search engine optimization.

   If the ". This is particularly so" were taken out (leaving one whole sentence) then I could easily support (as one shouldn't be using manipulating Wikipedia to disparage a living person, end of.). – xeno ^talk 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

2. Xeno's proposed tweak would take care of my concerns about this principle too,   Roger Davies ^talk 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

• Have to look at this one, but support the general principle. There was a demonstration that suggested internal measures did not affect pagerank (and shouldn't anyway, given site configuration). We need to differentiate editing simply to improve an articles' standing and make it popular versus editing to further a campaign. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• While I agree with the thrust of this, I am broadly uncomfortable about principles which involve a determination of motive. I will see if I can offer an alternative which avoids this.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Though I think the proposed copyedit is unnecessary, I would accept it if others prefer it that way. For me, as written is first choice and with the change is (by a narrow margin) second choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Role of the Arbitration Committee

8) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to resolve good-faith editorial disputes among editors. The Committee's role does extend to evaluating allegedly improper user conduct, which in serious cases may include persistent non-neutral editing or BLP violations, or a pattern of making unsupported allegations and personal attacks. In general, the Committee requires that earlier methods of dispute resolution have been attempted before a dispute will be accepted for arbitration.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. – xeno ^talk 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Good 'ole role of the committee finding... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Origin of the case

1) The original request for arbitration in this case was filed by ResidentAnthropologist and sought to address editing of biographical articles within the general topic of "cults" or "new religious movements" and related areas. The request focused most specifically on editing by Cirt and disputes between Cirt and Jayen466; the issues involving those editors are being addressed separately in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466. This case was opened separately "to examine meta behavioral issues and reconcile the applicable principles."

Support:

1. Please see the arbitrator discussion at the bottom of this page for overall comments on the draft decision. Please note that I have addressed aspects of the case that I regard as most important, and that other arbitrators may have additional proposals. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Sets up the background. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. – xeno ^talk 22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Nature of the case

2) Some arbitrator comments from the outset of the case observed that the case as framed was likely to result in statements by the Committee regarding general principles, as opposed to findings and remedies directed against specific editors. In addition, the Committee voted in its motion accepting the case that to the extent issues were not addressed in either the Cirt-Jayen466 case or this case, such aspects of the request were "decline[d] without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing [with respect to] any other matter raised herein."

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Yeah, we shoulda' been a lot clearer on the outside, but no sense crying over mishandled case requests. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. As I understand it, the case was to be taken on to look at the present issues on a wider scale, and attempt to map out of areas of concern. – xeno ^talk 22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Evidence in this case

3) The subject-matters of the evidence and workshop proposals in this case have been wide-ranging, including evidence of some troublesome edits and problematic interactions between editors, but not to a level that the Committee believes necessitates any findings or remedies against specific editors at the present time.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. We (or at least some, based on interpretation) set up the expectation this would be so anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Further to finding #2, the case really wasn't focused to examine specific editors - and indeed, throughout the case a number of parties were unsure as to the scope, and what kind of evidence they should be presenting. While I believe a more focused case would have lead to findings and remedies, I agree that in the present context it would not be appropriate to make findings/remedies about specific editors. – xeno ^talk 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. The lack of focus is largely structural. Probably was not a case worth taking in the first place. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Editors reminded

1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision.

Support:

1. Please see the arbitrator discussion at the bottom of this page for overall comments on the draft decision. Please note that I have addressed aspects of the case that I regard as most important, and that other arbitrators may have additional proposals. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Editors must craft biographies in a courteous and respectful fashion, with strict adherence to core policies. – xeno ^talk 03:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. This is not to say that our policies are any less "in force" when dealing with articles that do not have a BLP-effect, just that one must take all due care possible when editing BLP articles. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. I think that in particular they must comply with the spirit of the policy, not just the letter. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors urged

2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard. Methods of resolving issues on the noticeboard include correcting clear violations of the BLP policy, working to bring about well-focused, knowledgeable participation in discussion of more borderline cases, and ensuring the final resolution of all BLP disputes complies with the BLP policy and takes account of the competing considerations that may apply to a given dispute.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Threads at WP:BLP/N may also need to be escalated to venues which will bring greater scrutiny onto an issue. – xeno ^talk 03:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Jclemens ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I would like to see as many people as possible at BLP/N.. the more eyes the better I think. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Parties urged

3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. In other words, cut it out already. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Good advice for anyone, really. – xeno ^talk 23:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Echoing Sir Fozzie's and xeno's views. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Future dispute resolution

4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist after the case is closed, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes, to maximize objectivity and bring a fresh perspective to the issues.

While the Committee hopes that the guidance provided in this decision and the Cirt-Jayen 466 decision will be sufficient to avoid any further protracted disputes between these parties, if a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision. Whether to accept any such case will be evaluated using the same criteria as for other cases, but if accepted, the Committee will seek to resolve the case on a prioritized basis.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I don't think time limits are really necessary, but I appreciate the desire to prevent issues right after this case is closed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
7. This is not to say that 30 days from now, we want to see all these issues pop up again, but a cooling off period is probably for the best. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I still would prefer something in there in case there's some urgent situation, but not enough to withhold support for the other statements. I suppose if something were to really go awry, concerned parties could write to the list (or - for maximum bureaucracy - formally request an amendment to the limitation). – xeno ^talk 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
9. The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I do not think we should set a time limitation restriction on bringing of unresolved issues. – xeno ^talk 03:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The proposal is for a minimum period of 30 days to elapse before the dispute is brought back here, to allow for other attempts to resolve it. It's not a maximum time limit. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Yes... But if there are serious unresolved issues with regards to edits that are currently live in a BLP, I think they should be brought immediately. – xeno ^talk 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General

I've just finished posting a proposed decision. I'm well aware that some of the parties, commenters, and perhaps a few of my colleagues on the Committee will feel that the decision comprises a series of generalities and does not discuss or resolve the specific BLP and user-conduct disputes raised in the evidence. However, having conscientiously reviewed the statements in the case, the evidence, and the workshop proposals, I don't find this case to be a suitable vehicle for proposing findings and remedies aimed at specific editors. (To an extent, this is a consequence of the way the case was framed at its inception, particularly after Cirt and Jayen 466 was opened separately.) Thus, I've concluded that the most useful thing we can do with the case is to reaffirm some basic principles that apply to BLP editing on Wikipedia and also to adopt a couple of new principles that the case teaches are important.

Another reason the proposed decision does not go farther than it does is the conventional limitations on what types of disputes are resolved by the Arbitration Committee and which are to be the subject of editorial decisions by the community. As we've observed in other decisions before, there comes a point where skewed editing of BLPs (or any other type of article, for that matter) crosses the line from a content issue to a conduct issue. But some of the issues that some editors were hoping we would resolve in this case, are traditionally not the types of issues that are settled in arbitration decisions. If these disputes continue, it may be that ultimately we have to say something about them—and proposed principle 7 deals with a practice, hopefully not yet widespread, that I find sufficiently troublesome that I thought it essential to denounce it.

I hope that the parties to this case and other participants will carefully consider the principles that are set forth and bear them in mind in future editing, thereby reducing the severity of these disputes going forward. However, proposed remedy 4 provides guidance on how the issues in this case can be addressed going forward if necessary. If these parties are before us once again, I anticipate having little patience for any unsupported case requests or allegations, but I also anticipate that in any future case brought based on editing after this one closes, the evidence and issues will be more focused and we will be able to hone in on any problematic user conduct that may continue.

With respect to any issues that readers may feel I've left out, I have selected what I believe are the most significant issues to be addressed in the decision. In this case as in every case, other arbitrators are free to offer additional proposals, and I anticipate that some will do so.

Finally, to the extent that editors (other than arbitrators) may have comments on the proposed decision, I ask that they be posted on the talkpage to this page rather than on my own talkpage, so that all arbitrators and parties will have a chance to see them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

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.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Passing findings: 1, 2, 3

Passing remedies: 1, 2, 3, 4

Passing enforcement provisions: n/a

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: n/a

Failing findings: n/a

Failing remedies: n/a

Failing enforcement provisions: n/a

Calculated by Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 16:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

I'm all set, barring any alternatives or copyedits. – xeno ^talk 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Indenting as new votes received, and arbitrators may wish to take another look at #Manipulation of search engine results in light of comments there and on the talk page. – xeno ^talk 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

1. ditto Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Me too,   Roger Davies ^talk 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Net 4, someone can oppose and/or I'll strike this if there's really going to be an alternative or copyedit to the motion that Xeno and Roger have opposed, but I don't see any reason to delay. Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Ready to close. The parties should read (and other arbitrators are welcome to chime in on) my concluding comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments