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 (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Conduct that conflicts with this goal—such as importing off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, creating or escalating unnecessary controversy unrelated to improving the site, harassing other editors either onsite or offsite, or encouraging others to do any of these things—is disruptive and unwelcome.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Unwelcome being operative. reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Integrity of content

2) The project has always aspired to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. The ongoing growth and prominence of the English Wikipedia, which is now one of the top ten websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when research is done on a topic, makes these goals even more important. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing off-wiki controversies.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

3) The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts, while discouraged, is generally permitted. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists—is forbidden.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Although it is unclear to me why the community has not adopted a "one user, one account" policy with a few necessary exceptions. reply
I would prefer "tolerated" to "permitted", but as it stands this is an accurate factual description of the policy that the community currently has given itself. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with UC; policy should be one user, one account; but we don't get to make policy, so we're stuck with what we're given. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Evaluating sockpuppetry

4) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Note that the standard for this community is as a norm (and exceptional cases aside, of which this may be one), closer to "likely" than "beyond doubt". Second choice. reply
Equal preference to 4.1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Evaluating sockpuppetry

4.1) Sockpuppet identification for Wikipedia purposes is based upon evidence of likelihood, and not legal certainty. A finding that two accounts are sock- or meat-puppets, should be read to mean that there is a strong basis in evidence that this is the case, and that the community may treat them as being effectively the voice or action of one person for purposes of wiki operation. In determining whether two accounts are to be treated as sockpuppets, all relevant evidence is considered taken as a whole, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, and any other meaningful and reliable information available. Analysis of behavioral patterns, and identification of common behaviors, is one recognized means of doing so, although such analysis must be performed carefully to ensure the quality of conclusions.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC) The discussed alternative related to evaluation. More specific guidance on the principles involved, and the standards worked to. First choice due to specificity. reply
Equal preference to 4. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I fear that the level of nuance separating 4.1 from 4 is completely swallowed up by the noise level surrounding the case. For me, second choice to 4, by a slight margin. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice, slightly, as per Brad. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I believe that attempts to identify sock puppets through behavioral patterns is harmful to the project due to the likelihood of false positives, especially in situations where there may be a deliberate effort to discredit an editor by imitating their behavior. reply
We need to take into consideration that there can be deliberate efforts to imitate as we weigh the evidence. But outright not using behavioral evidence is unhelpful. Often ip are blocked for repeating edits based on based on behavioral evidence without a CU. I think your thinking will increase CU not reduce them as you have been encouraging in other quarters. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose for now, will change to support if "is one recognized means of doing so" can be changed to "is one such type of evidence that may be considered". None of these types of evidence will found a decision on their own. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with UC completely. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Off-wiki disputes

5) Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct on Arbitration pages

6) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely, and excellently worded. Strong feelings should be acknowledged, but that should not outweigh the fact that disruption during arbitration threatens to worsen, rather than resolve, disputes. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Purpose of Arbitration

7) The purpose of Arbitration is to provide a fair, equitable, well-informed, expeditious, and final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia that have not been resolved through other forms of dispute resolution, in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all of its contributors. To serve this purpose, the Arbitration Committee may after due deliberation elect to address a dispute primarily by issuing remedies designed to safeguard the best interests of the encyclopedia going forward, rather than by adopting findings addressing sharply contested historical facts.

Support:

Newyorkbrad 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I would have worded this much stronger (notwithstanding the overlap with #8), although to the same end:- Arbitration, when used correctly, is intended to address current and ongoing issues affecting the production of neutral encyclopedic articles, and the present and future disruption of the communal environment, when lesser forms of discussion have not succeeded. At times a line may be drawn, and this especially arises when there is a perception that an old or side issue is non-central and would not in fact be useful to address. It should not be assumed that because a matter is not covered, it is therefore condoned, or not considered. reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Limitations of Arbitration

8) Despite certain formal aspects of the proceedings and legalistic terminology that is sometimes used, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Very much so. reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enabling

9) At times, an excessive focus on one aspect of a matter, or enabling of unhelpful and disruptive agendas, can detract from the project as a whole and encourage a sensation-seeking mindset with matching wikilawyering, hostilities and divisions. None of these are productive and whilst at times (due to human nature) unfortunately unavoidable, they are to be studiously avoided and rejected as norms by users. Editors are encouraged to consider the effect of their manner of participation in sensational discussions, and editors who are prone to sensationalizing may be restrained.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) A number of issues, of which this was one, have been made far worse than was necessary by unseemly conduct. Often this caused one of two reactions - a matter became a "storm in a teacup" (blown up), or the matter became so intractable that what might have initially been readily solved by a calm approach took on a life of its own and did extensive harm to the community for a long period. The community should consider that first and foremost we are here to write neutral encyclopedic content. If something gets in the way, making it worse doesn't help. Seek dispute resolution, ask MedCom, seek uninvolved extra input or third opinions or RFC or just walk away a bit. Administrators above all must act as near role-models at such times. Turning one's back on such offsite issues that do not really concern us and focussing carefully instead on the WIkipedia issues that do, is difficult for some people, but needs to be done. The result of not doing so has been a more corrosive effect to the community, in various cases. reply
The words "the affect of their manner of participation" keeps this finding on-topic. We already note, humorously, the tendency of some editors to go 'over the top' in content discussions. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Though I agree with Brad's concerns that this could be abused. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I believe this is a distraction from the core issues of the case. reply
as UC I believe this is unnecessary and distracting, although true. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Although there is some merit to the sentiment, this could too readily be viewed as criticizing editors who legitimately participated in the dispute-resolution process. I think the points made are sufficiently covered by other parts of the decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contribution must sometimes be more than "legitimate". There is a right to contribute.. but also a responsibility to choose how to do so wisely and with awareness of the possible effects on project focus and sentiment, when the issue is divisive. A contribution that in fact causes a resurgence of disruption or heated emotions, may in fact be an unwise contribution even if 'legitimate'. This proposed principle should be read as covering the entirety of the on-wiki dispute, not just the dispute resolution case at Arbitration per se. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Covered by 5 and 6 for me. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's true, but I don't see how it's being applied. (Why are principles before findings of fact? I've always wondered.) -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute includes a user conduct issue involving editing of a range of articles including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, which are the subject of a bitter and protracted off-wiki controversy, as well as a large number of other article and non-article pages ( afd 1 afd 2 rfa 1 et al.). It has been alleged that editing of these articles may have been affected by abusive sock- or meat-puppetry, and/or conflicts of interest.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1.1) A second locus of dispute relates to Wikipedia's reluctant use as a vehicle and battleground for real world personal agendas, and the manner in which inadvertantly and in good faith, a number of users and administrators have perpetuated rather than quenched this, instead of disowning the issue and focussing on the core purposes of the project - to write a neutral encyclopedia.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Proposed as a supplement to 1, not a replacement. reply
As an essential supplement to 1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I prefer to keep the scope of the case narrow. reply
True, but I'd rather not have this as a finding of fact. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Likewise. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
unnecessary Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Per my comment on principle 9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
While true, I don't think this needs to be stated. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Allegations

2) Allegations have been made that established contributors Mantanmoreland ( talk · contribs) and Samiharris ( talk · contribs) are alternate or related accounts. Both editors, who have or had clean block logs, have strongly denied the allegations and asserted that they are the victims of harassment. A request for CheckUser was inconclusive because Mantanmoreland edits from an ordinary ISP while Samiharris edited through proxies. The Arbitration Committee has carefully reviewed all of the extremely detailed evidence of various kinds as presented in a request for comment and in this case. A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable CheckUser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

Note: the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated. (Clerks please copy the previous statement to the main page, if the finding passes.) FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) As discussed on the talkpage, this is presented as what I understand as a committee consensus position. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC) In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee. Although the evidence is respected and was extremely carefully reviewed, the most that can be said by consensus in this most bitter case is "suggestive but not confirmed". reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Per Brad. reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. (Gah. "a majority of the Committee" is not a body corporate but a group of people, and so in proper English - even American English - should take the plural. Tsk.) James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I'd rather see the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors changed to "various factors", to avoid future socky and meaty wikilawyering. The absence of checkuser findings is actually the least important reason for this finding; remember, this is a long-term issue, and CU has a limited history to deal with, much shorter than the full histories of the editors in question. All a negative CU means is "we've been careful recently." -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Please propose an alternative for consideration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Much prefer 2.1 Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 2.1. reply

Abstain:

Allegations

2.1) Allegations have been made that established contributors Mantanmoreland ( talk · contribs) and Samiharris ( talk · contribs) are alternate or related accounts. Both editors, who have or had clean block logs, have strongly denied the allegations and asserted that they are the victims of harassment. A request for CheckUser was inconclusive because Mantanmoreland edits from an ordinary ISP while Samiharris edited through proxies. The Arbitration Committee has carefully reviewed all of the extremely detailed evidence of various kinds as presented in a request for comment and in this case. A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

Note: the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated. (Clerks please copy the previous statement to the main page, if the finding passes.) FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Support:

I think that this wording "helps" address Josh's concerns and comments from the CU and admins that in the future decisions about socking can not be made without conclusive CU evidence. We do not intend to change the bar for evidence with this ruling. I understand that this finding is still hard to swallow by many members of the Community but it was the consensus view to make this finding as part of a minimalist, forward looking ruling. For that reason I support. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Better. I think we can strike the "A majority of the committee concludes" language, since that's implied if this measure passes; if the majority of the committee did not so conclude, the measure, I hope, would fail. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Equal preference to 2. I think the "majority of" language does have value, because there may be committee members who do not want to dissent from this finding, but who believe that as "definitive" a conclusion as is usually possible on Wikipedia has been reached. (Or at least as definitive as is possible without a useful checkuser result, which brings us back full circle....) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An arbitration finding of fact in one case is not a precedent for other cases, but I can see why the Checkusers might think there will be problems if users suspected of socking try to use this as an argument in their defence. So it probably helps to make this small change on the original proposal. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Prefer also. reply
First choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Impact of dispute

3) A series of controversies concerning the articles in question and user conduct relating to them has embroiled or threatened to embroil Wikipedia in bitter and protracted off-wiki disputes, has led to expressions of concern about the reliability of these articles and the fairness of our processes, and has repeatedly disrupted the harmony of the Wikipedia community and the well-being of contributors in a variety of serious ways both on and off the site.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Second preference. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) First choice. reply
First choice. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Change to oppose. 2 weeks later after thought, I still feel strongly it is right to say this more directly as 3.1 or 3.2. I have also drafted 3.2 as a compromise version in case this will work better. (Original comment: Second choice. Doesn't sufficiently delineate the harm done, unfortunately. The tact in drafting may cause some to miss the point. 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)) reply

Abstain:

Impact of dispute

3.1) Disputes concerning the articles in question and user conduct relating to them has been extraordinarily disruptive and damaging. Over a period of two years it has embroiled or threatened to embroil Wikipedia in bitter and protracted off-wiki disputes, has led to persistent concerns about the reliability of these articles, and has repeatedly disrupted the harmony of the Wikipedia community. This included on and off site harassment, breach of privacy, gross incivility and personal attack, short fuses leading in some cases to improper administrative actions, internal conflict, and the use of the encyclopedia for advocacy and perpetuation of off-site disputes, including multiple incidents where unsourced and disparaging negative statements were made in respect of living individuals on a variety of articles and pages. These in turn led to speculative witch-hunts, divisiveness, bad-faith assumptions, and further dispute, and damage both to the community internally, and the perception of Wikipedia externally.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Preferred. Sometimes "just needs saying" without softness. The harm done needs to be seen for what it is, and understood. The aim of the project is a communal effort at writing encyclopedic neutral content without distractions like this. Whilst we can't avoid all human problems, it's important that quite a few people (both on and off site) somberly look at the case, and their conduct on it here and over the months and years, and ask themselves could they have done better, maybe helped it be resolved sooner and with less clamor and acrimony........ and whether their efforts (often in good faith or in frustration) actually in some ways may have done an element of harm as well as good. reply
For the sake of the silent majority who just want to get on with good quality writing of an encyclopedia, it needs saying clearly.
First preference. I think this does bear spelling out in more detail. There has been no previous arbitration case on this dispute. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Second choice; I believe this may overstate the case in some areas. reply
Second choice. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comment on principle 9, and reads to me more like a personal observation than a finding of fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If someone wishes to draft a third variant I would be interested to read it. Identifying the actual harm done seems factual and important, though, so that the cost and damaging impact of long and bitter cases like this can be better appreciated. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Drafted 3.2, based on 3 with facts from 3.1 listed. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

~~FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~~ reply
Prefer earlier version Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Impact of dispute

3.2) A series of extraordinarily disruptive controversies concerning the articles in question and user conduct relating to them has embroiled or threatened to embroil Wikipedia in bitter and protracted disputes, both on and off the site. These have caused significant disruption and damage to the project, have led to expressions of concern about the reliability of these articles and the fairness of our processes, and has repeatedly disrupted the harmony of the Wikipedia community and the well-being of contributors in a variety of serious ways. The disruption has included at times, on and off site harassment, breach of privacy, gross incivility and personal attack, short fuses leading in some cases to improper administrative actions, internal conflict, and the use of the encyclopedia for advocacy and perpetuation of off-site disputes. It has also led to unsourced and disparaging negative statements being made or linked in respect of living individuals on a variety of articles and pages. These in turn led to speculative witch-hunts, divisiveness, bad-faith assumptions, and further dispute, causing damage both to the community internally, and to the perception of Wikipedia externally.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Try that as a merged wording, that tries to keep the approach of 3 and add the further factual matters in 3.1. We need to acknowledge the scope of the problem in specific, to confirm that the various issues were indeed recognized and acknowledged. reply
Second choice, prefer original 3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice, prefer original 3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Third choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Equal first preference, though I doubt it will get the votes before the case closes. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Effect of change to open proxy policy

4) The policy Wikipedia:No open proxies was established in January 2006. It acknowledged that prohibiting open proxies might cause problems for some users, but most open proxy use was abusive in nature. Heated debate verging on edit warring took place during July - August 2007 to soften or revoke it, and it was changed around October 2007 to allow open proxies unless "blocked... to deal with editing abuse", a decision that has been unhelpful in this case, and which potentially deprives the community of evidence from technical abuse-detection tools in cases where they are most relevant. The decision was somewhat contentious amongst users at the time.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I think this is accurate. The impact of the use of proxies in this and some other cases, has certainly been heavily discussed more than once. Even if no specific remedy is proposed (we avoid where possible "making policy") it is important users are aware of the matter. reply
I note this is a finding of fact and not a principle; by and large the principles in arbitration cases are recitations of policies agreed by the community. The community may, however, wish to take this finding of fact into account. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Not a finding of fact, but an opinion (even if it is one with which I agree). James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Better for arbitrators to present this opinion as their own view in a policy discussion rather than enshrine this opinion as a collective comment in a Fof in this case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Substantially per FloNight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

5) {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.

Editors instructed

1) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Added "which shall be the user's sole or main account" to 1(A) per discussion on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Specific restrictions and probation were always going to be needed. And likely, sufficient, given communal scrutiny and feeling. Two fixes: - Added "or discussions on any page" for completeness and reduction of any gaming and changed "article" to "page" for avoidance of doubt in (D). reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)The change in wording works for me. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation

2) Any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable restriction (e.g., a revert or civility limitation) or page-ban against any editor who, after receiving a warning containing a link to this decision, edits naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or any related page or discussion in a disruptive or uncivil fashion, who edits them in contravention of site policies and guidelines, or who attempts to reintroduce subtle or overt partisan advocacy regarding any external dispute concerning these subjects into Wikipedia.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The note in #1 advising consulting the Committee in the case of doubt should probably be repeated here too. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC) See 1 for comment. Changed to "subtle or overt" partisan advocacy, since we've had both. reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Review of articles

3) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and Gary Weiss should carefully review these and related articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Essential - and editors with a past history of significant editing on these articles should not impede, but help them to do so. reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mantanmoreland topic ban

4) Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1.

Support:

Per my comments on the workshop page. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject to principle 8. Added "subject to the requirements of remedy 1" to the proposal (FloNight may revert if undesired). See also discussion on talk. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, must still follow the requirement of remedy 1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Clarified section header for parallelism. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note: I changed "Topical" to "Topic". reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Needs an "end point"; hence support only if 4.1 is not considered to pass, else oppose. Would switch to full support if it is clarified "Mantanmoreland may appeal to the committee at any time after a year from the close of the case" or similar, which I would prefer. (Probably should be the case anyway, but worth clarifying). reply
Any affected user may request relief from a remedy previously imposed on him or her at any time. Obviously, the passage of significant time without problems would be a relevant factor in our consideration of any such request. No need to set a minimum or maximum date. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Noting 4.1 obtained >= 7 supports, but did not become adopted, hence per statement above, support. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Topic ban

4.1) For a period of one year, Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Added time limit since we have a problem with old remedies outlasting the problems they address and since we have no review mechanism in place for getting rid of them. We can renew the remedy at our discretion in the future if need be. reply
Second choice. While in general, I agree with UninvitedCompany's view that remedies should be time-limited, I don't believe that a more open-ended remedy is problematic in this particular instance. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Given the nature of this situation and length of time that it has extended already, I do not think one year ban from the articles will necessarily resolve the issues involved. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. Prefer limited bans in all cases; the community can extend them easily should need arise. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice, per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) UC is right about a time limit, whether a fixed term, by appeal, or some other form of non-open-endedness. Mantanmoreland (if he returns to the topic) will be under much scrutiny anyway, and a long topic ban will provide a viable baseline to judge the impact, intent and encyclopedic quality of any edits after that time. reply
Second choice. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mantanmoreland instructed

5) Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

Support:

To assist with enforcement of the topic ban and provide transparency. Subject to principle 8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Similar to requests made to other users in prior situations where socking was an issue. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Although we cannot conclude that he has edited through a proxy previously, and cannot conclude that he has made recent use of more than a single account. reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Emphasizing this is a precautionary measure only, as in other cases, without implication as to any actual or intended behavior. A similar measure would likely have been considered for any other users of similar concern, if any remained editing at this time, not just the one user. Note - given Mantanmoreland has apparently shown zero interest in AOL, a future switch to a proxying ISP such as AOL as a regular source of posts, would be an ominous sign and I would consider it to fall under this. Without directing a choice of ISP, if that were to happen, I would feel Mantanmoreland would have to weigh up any switch to a proxying ISP, against his wish to edit Wikipedia. Crossref loss of communal patience with the dispute, and draconian measures. reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

No finding of fact to back up the second restriction; does this restriction mean, for example, no editing via AOL? -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement

1) Any user who violates any restriction imposed by this decision, or imposed by an administrator acting on the authority of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. A warning should generally be given before a block is imposed, except for severe violations. All blocks, bans, or restrictions imposed under this decision shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Interpretation

2) The remedies contained in this decision should be construed and, if necessary, enforced so as to ensure that the highest standards of reliability and user conduct are maintained on the articles in question, to avoid further disruption arising from disputes and recriminations surrounding these articles, and to prevent Wikipedia from suffering from any further unnecessary involvement with the external dispute.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The last sentence is particularly important. We do not take sides in this dispute. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) A measure of administrative strictness and effectiveness (conmensurate with good faith and fairness) is needed when offsite users may be seeking to game the system and have a long history of having tried to do so without regard for the project. reply
James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Serious violations and circumstances

3) Any serious violation of the remedies in this decision or any related circumstance affecting the well-being of the project and its contributors should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

Support:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Better that we know, I think. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) We don't want any of this issue to further disrupt the project or its users; this measure in the past would at times have helped that. reply
Though ideally we wouldn't need to say this explicitly. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Not necessary reply

Abstain:

Seems like overkill, given we already require logging of blocks and recommend consulting the Committee in difficult cases. -- bainer ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Please see my comments on the talkpage. This is actually an important component of the original decision as I envisioned it based on committee discussion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Please see my individual comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

Randomly jumping in here with the notes (Rlevse has said he'll ultimately close this, which is perfectly understandable as clerk of the case, but the more eyes on this section the better, apparently):

All as of 05:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 pass. 4.1 and 9 do not pass (noting due to sequential successful principles which may result in an error if the entire section was accidentally copied).
Proposed findings of fact 1, 2.1, 3 and 3.1 pass.

Notes: 3.1 passes due to abstentions, which reduces the majority required to six (eleven active total). The preferential voting isn't clear in this case, at least to me. Furthermore, the disclaimer in 2.1 needs to be copied in part, as specified by the proposal.

Proposed remedies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pass.

Notes: At the time of writing, 4.1 is two votes short of reaching a majority, at which point preferential voting may need to considered.

Proposed enforcement 1, 2, and 3 pass.

If an arbitrator, or Rlevse, could double check this, that'd be great. Daniel ( talk) 05:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would tend to pass Finding 3 but not 3.1; counting only first choice votes: 3 (7-1) has stronger support than 3.1 (5-0-2). It would make the situation more clear if an Arbitrator or two would make a more explicit vote. Thatcher 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
- I struck my abstain vote on 3.1 making required majority 7. My vote on 3 stands. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
- I agree with Thatcher. I think the situation is now more clear per FloNight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  - If I had to choose one over the other at the time I wrote the original notes, I would have used 3 and not 3.1 because, as Thatcher notes, it had more support numerically and there was no clear distinction between the two in terms of "first choice" and "second choice". However, guessing is generally bad when closing an RfAr, from experience with such pursuits :) Daniel ( talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    - If you take out the 2nd pref votes on 3.1, even factoring Flo's striking, it still does not pass. Unless told otherwise, I'll only pass 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Items passing at closing: Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Facts: 1, 2.1, 3 Remedies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Enforcement: 1, 2, 3

— Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 13 March 2008 (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.

Close. It appears to me that all measures likely to achieve significant support pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Paul August ☎ 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Close, per UC. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
~~Close~~ effective 24 hours from this vote. Allowing a little extra time as I understand that another arbitrator may wish to vote on the case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Change to oppose closing for now; we need to suspend close until we address the impact of the indefinite block/community ban discussion on WP:AN and the pending request for clarification on WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. James F. (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Confirming we're done. Last edit posted I think. Would post a comment but seems a bit redundant given the amount of clarification already on other pages, notably RFAR (clarification case 12-13 March), and the talk page here. reply