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 11 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:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Community bans

1) The community has traditionally banned users on the understanding that any blocked user whom no administrator was willing to unblock was considered "community banned". However, the later introduction of strong prescriptions against wheel-warring has left the exact method by which community bans may be imposed or overturned unclear.

Support:

Oppose:

Prefer to stick to reviewing Ferrylodge's ban and finding a workable solution to the issue at hand. I don't think a principle by the Committee on this matter is helpful without a solution from the Committee since it will potentially be used to invalidate other community bans. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Per FloNight. Also, see below.[reply]

Abstain:

Community bans

1.1) This Committee reaffirms the authority of the community to ban users at its discretion. Where such bans affect established contributors, a period of discussion and consensus-building should precede the ban (or, in emergency situations, follow it).

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly true for "exhaust the patience of community" type bans. It is also possible that an established user will be indef blocked for a specific disruptive act and will stay blocked if no other admin will unblock. I think both of these definitions of a community ban work. If there is a difference of an opinion about whether an user should stay blocked or not, then an ArbCom case can be requested by the banned user by email or another interested party can start the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not sure that this and P1 don't run together. James F. (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uncomfortable with this wording. Kirill 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right of appeal

2) Any user considered to be "banned by the community" may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, which may overturn any ban that has been improperly imposed.

Support:

Kirill 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I dislike the concept of "rights" rather than "duties". James F. (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Changed wording per Jdforrester's concerns, which I share.[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to lead by example. Administrators may not engage in personal attacks and, when they are the target of such attacks, may not return them in kind.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)~~ per Mackensen, no need for this principle. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The related findings and remedies are unlikely to pass; without them this principle is not relevant to the case. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Ferrylodge

1) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion ([1], [2]), but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics ([3]).

Support:

Kirill 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but note that there are more problems than just the user's disruptive editing of pregnancy and abortion topics as noted by the need to restrict his interaction with other users. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Per FloNight, the situation is perhaps more complex than this captures[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but per Flo --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ferrylodge's ban

2) Following discussion on WP:CSN, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed under a community ban, despite certain irregularities in the process ([4]). Subsequently, at least one administrator has stated an intent to unblock Ferrylodge ([5]), and the community noticeboard itself has been deactivated ([6]).

Support:

Oppose:

Prefer to stick to reviewing the merits of Ferrylodge's editing that caused this ban and finding a solution to the disruption. I don't think the ban itself or bringing the ban to the Committee for review are of special concern that warrants this type of mention. It really is a matter of disagreement among the Community about whether Ferrylodge should be banned. They are asking us to decide the user's fate since there was not agreement. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As FloNight. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ferrylodge's ban

2.1) Following discussion on WP:CSN, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed under a community ban, after a brief discussion from which a consensus was not clear ([7]).

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Alternative for FloNight to consider.[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

KillerChihuahua's conduct

3) KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator and a party to this case, made this edit: [8]. The edit summary and content of the edit fail to meet the heightened civility and Wikiquette expectations the project has of administrators. However, the evidence shows that this is an isolated incident.

Support:

Oppose:

Too isolated to warrant our attention, I think. Kirill 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isolated, and ultimately editorial. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ferrylodge to be unblocked

1) Due to the confusion surrounding the imposition of the community ban, and the lack of agreement regarding whether or not a valid ban was imposed, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be fully unblocked at the conclusion of the case.

Support:

Kirill 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the wording. He's clearly not banned. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Can not support this wording. Surely we are unblocking the user because there are other methods of handling the disruptive editing not because of "confusion". FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ferrylodge to be unblocked

1.1) Since an appropriate degree of discussion and consensus building did not take place, the Committee determines that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not subject to a valid community ban. Ferrylodge may be unblocked by any administrator at the conclusion of the case.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was not agreement that a community ban was needed to end Ferrylodge disruptive editing. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ferrylodge restricted

2) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Ferrylodge is banned from editing any article or other page having to do with pregnancy or abortion, to be interpreted broadly. Should Ferrylodge violate this ban, Ferrylodge may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) The brief ban already endured is sufficient.[reply]
Favor wording below. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ferrylodge restricted

2.1) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; we were moving away from legal terms, no? Kirill 16:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; don't we want to call it something like "article restriction"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ferrylodge instructed

3) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in any way, except in a discussion initiated by others concerning Ferrylodge's own editing behavior, where Bishonen or KillerChihuahua participate in such discussion. Failure to do so voluntarily may result in the imposition of a formal restriction on Ferrylodge's editing.

Support:

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Such gag orders should be a last resort.[reply]
As UninvitedCompany. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really just rather ban someone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Community urged

4) The Committee urges the community to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed.

Support:

Kirill 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Community needs to make sure that our banning and blocking policy are up to date and reflect actual practices and Community values as they have evolved through custom and practice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Begs" would be more like it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

KillerChihuahua

5) KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to observe Wikiquette at all times.

Support:

Oppose:

Too much for a single edit. Kirill 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

I do not support limiting this user's blocks in this manner. The user was disruptive to the point that a community ban was supported by a sizable number of users. We are giving editing restrictions because we think that there are serious concerns about his editing. My perception is that the Community is getting frustrated by these disruptive editors and want them to be gone if they do not follow their restrictions. If this user can not edit within our restrictions then they need to stop editing altogether. I do not think it is an good idea to make our good editors go through cycles of blocks and reblocks for persistent disruption caused by these editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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.

Now passing (updated 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)) are:
- Proposed principles 1.1, 2, and 3;
- Proposed findings 1 and 2.1;
- Proposed remedies 1.1 (which supersedes 1 on the same subject), 2.1, and 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

Close. We're done here. Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. FloNight ♥♥♥ 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]