Revision as of 13:41, 18 September 2007

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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks on other users are not acceptable; Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Harassment

2) Engaging in a pattern of threatening or intimidating behavior directed at another user is unacceptable; Misplaced Pages:Harassment.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Linking to external sites

3) Harassing another user by linking to external sites which contain information harmful to the other user is unacceptable.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes, doing this to harass is unacceptable. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Attack sites

4) It is inappropriate to link to external sites which contain substantial negative or identifying information regarding other users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, exposing users to more harassment by linking to attack sites is not acceptable. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Far too broad; plenty of notable sites contain "negative" information about our editors (moreso for those who are public persons). Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Salt the earth

5) In extreme cases, external attack sites which display moral depravity, in addition to removal of links to the site, references to it may also be removed.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. If a significant mission and scope of a web site and its content is to harass Wikipedians and does so in an extreme manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. An encyclopedia cannot legitimately adopt damnatio memoriae as a policy. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Dealing with harassment

6) Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites. These activities are not subject to revert limitations.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Wikipedians should support fellow Wikipedians by removing personal attacks, links to attack sites, and in extreme cases all reference to attack sites. In some situations, protecting a harassed user takes precedent over transparency. In extreme cases, removal of an article or content may be temporarily necessary to stop harassment. These cases are the exception not the rule. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Dealing with harassment

6.1) Users have the right to combat harassment of both themselves and others. This includes removal of personal attacks and removal of links to external harassment. These activities are not subject to revert limitations.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Does not go far enough in extreme cases. Too easy to game the system. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Compliance

7) All editors are expected to comply with Misplaced Pages policies.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good-faith discussion

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Misplaced Pages policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Penumbra of NPOV

9) Misplaced Pages's role as an encyclopedia, together with the fundamental principle of WP:NPOV, necessarily implies that all major facts regarding a topic must be given fair coverage, even if those facts are not associated with explicit "points of view".

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unclear. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

External links

10) The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

11) Misplaced Pages is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As worded sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

The attack site

1) The focus of this case is an attack site which displays moral depravity, being part of an extensive campaign of harassment directed at several users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Which site is this again? Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Attack sites

2) There exist a number of external sites which regularly engage in or assist with the harassment of Misplaced Pages editors, in large part through concerted efforts to "out" the identities of those editors who chose to remain anonymous.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Legitimate questions

3) While the bulk of the material produced by these external sites is of no merit or importance, there have been several instances where credible allegations of misconduct on the part of Misplaced Pages editors have originated on such sites. Questions concerning these allegations were raised on Misplaced Pages by editors in good standing with a legitimate desire to determine whether any action was required.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Suppression of references to external sites

5) In a number of cases, editors attempting in good faith to protect other Wikipedians from harassment have agressively removed links and references to external sites, as well as discussions associated with them.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {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.

Salt the earth

1) Links to the attack site and references to it may be removed by any user.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Ban

2) Any user who creates links to the attack site or references it (other than in the context of this arbitration) may be banned. As there was some doubt about the applicability of this policy, this remedy applies only to future incidents. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Policy matter remanded to the community

3) The community is instructed to develop a workable policy regarding the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be linked or referenced.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors encouraged

4) All editors are encouraged to show due consideration for the feelings of other Wikipedians, and to refrain from idly or frivolously making references to attack sites.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) After warning, or without warning in the case of users familiar with the issue, users who link to the attack site or reference it may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in Principle #5. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This is all that is necessary or appropriate. Fred Bauder 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, we need considerably more than a restatement of the MONGO ruling here. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.