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 12 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions that 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

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blocking

3) Blocks should be given as a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Although block logs can often give an insight into previous disruption by a user, the length of time since a previous block should be considered by administrators before deciding the length of a future block.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Unblocking

4) Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Block summaries

5) Because the blocking summaries contained in a user's block log and on the user's talkpage are a primary means for communicating both with the blocked user and with other administrators who may review the block, and because block logs are virtually indelible, administrators should take care to be accurate and temperate in describing the reasons for a block. The same is true when an administrator gives reasons for unblocking a user.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Equitable enforcement

6) In the cases where multiple editors violate the three-revert rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

Support:

Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Fairly, yes, but not always blocks of equal length. Usually equal length blocks work but not always so do not want to set this in stone. The point is to stop the disruption so that collaborative editing can resume. Sometimes different length blocks are needed to make this happen. FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6.1 is better Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prefer 6.1 --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just wrong-headed. If X and Y and Z are engaged in an edit war, each with too many reverts, I know from my own experience that blocking all of them may not be the best solution. In particular if X and Y are a cynical team editing against Z, who lacks experience, it is important to be able to deal unequally. Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily prescriptive.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Equitable enforcement

6.1) In the cases where multiple editors violate the three-revert rule, administrators should treat all sides fairly.

Support:

Alternate wording to avoid block length issue. Kirill 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, better. And looser. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
FloNight 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Paul August ☎ 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)~~ 6.2 is better. Paul August ☎ 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Well, yes. Admins should always act fairly, though the interests of the wiki do not always lead to equitable-looking ways of dealing with problem editors. Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worried that this will simply encourage the querulous to dispute their treatment as unfair. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equitable enforcement

6.2) Administrators enforcing the 3RR are expected to familiarize themselves with the edit history of the article at issue and the facts of the edit war. Once this is done, administrators should treat all sides fairly and equitably in placing blocks.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.

7) Administrators should usually use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions, especially for a period exceeding 24 hours.

Support:

I think the lack of on site discussion is a big part of the problem in this case. Best to find out prior to the block, what the opinions of other admins and editors are. Long blocks can be quite upsetting to an editor and others that know that editor. FloNight 14:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Kid gloves are generally not needed for short blocks. Kirill 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7.2 is best Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too prescriptive. Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 7.1 Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.

7.1) In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions, especially for extended periods.

Support:

~~Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

As in 7. Kirill 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7.2 is best Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.

7.2) In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions.

Support:

Kirill 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. FloNight 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 01:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: per discussion with Fred, I have reworded this for clarity - again ;-)) Paul August ☎ 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ultimatums are poor Wikiquette

8) It is frequently necessary to warn users who make inappropriate edits out of naivety. However, where established users are involved, ultimatums or threats of lengthy blocks, bans, or initiation of arbitration are both ineffective and poor Wikiquette.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that discussion about problems noted are appropriate...not a short remark threatening to ban or start a RFArb. We need to make it clear that these discussions may include warning that blocks or arbitration may occur as an end result if dispute resolution takes them there. FloNight 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between a warning and an ultimatum SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As opposed to lengthy blocks without warning? Kirill 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I share Kirill's concern. The difference between a warning and an ultimatum is far too subjective and leaves little room to maneuver. Mackensen (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, I'm afraid. James F. (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Miskin broke the three-revert rule

1) Miskin reverted to this version of Battle of the Persian Gate at 13:34, 14:06, and 14:26 on 11 May. His edit at 10:21 on 12 May constituted a substantial revert in one aspect. These four edits constitute a breach of the three revert rule.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Not convinced.[reply]

Abstain:

Several users broke the three-revert rule at Battle of the Persian Gate

1.1) The locus of the dispute was the article, Battle of the Persian Gate. An edit war over the article was under way and had peaked around 11 May 2007. Miskin (talk · contribs), AlexanderPar (talk · contribs), and Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs) each made edits during this time that could have been construed as violations of the three revert rule.

Dharmender6767 made four obvious reverts and was blocked at 14:24 (UTC) on May 11 by an administrator unrelated to this proceeding.

Miskin reverted to this version at 13:34, 14:06, and 14:26 on 11 May. His edit at 10:21 on 12 May constituted a substantial revert in one aspect. These four edits may be construed to be a breach of the three revert rule, which administrators are encouraged to interpret with judgment rather than in a mechanistic fashion. Misken had been blocked on five previous occasions for three revert rule violations, most recently in December 2005, about sixteen months prior to the current dispute.

Under like criteria, AlexanderPar could have also been construed to be in violation of the three revert rule, based on reversions to the version of 12:42, 11 May 2007 by Dharmender6767 at 12:54, 13:31, and 14:40 followed by a related edit at 19:03.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this seems tangential. Kirill 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Although I agree that the reverts in question can be reasonably construed as violations of 3RR, I am not convinced that they were, in fact violations, of course all were edit warring nonetheless. Note: I have corrected the date of the last previous block for violation of 3RR from Sep 2006 to Dec 2005. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this one also. FloNight 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Swatjester's block was excessive

2) Swatjester's block of Miskin for one month, while performed in good faith, was excessive.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done in good faith but still excessive. Everyone that tries to help out is going to make mistakes occasionally. I'd rather that he tried to help and messed up a bit, then not tried to help at all. FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC). I have changed wording slightly based on comments here regarding the good-faith nature of the block.[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per FloNight, excessive does not mean in bad faith. Mistakes will get made. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Swatjester's block

3) Swatjester's block of Miskin was based upon a complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Swatjester did not investigate the complaint sufficiently to determine that there were other editors at Battle of the Persian Gate who were as much in violation of the three revert rule as Miskin. Swatjester based the lengthy block duration on the large number of previous 3RR violations, and either overlooked or lent little credence to the comparatively long periods of time and large volumes of editing between violations.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {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.

Miskin cautioned

1) Miskin is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Swatjester cautioned

2) Swatjester is cautioned to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users in the future.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice. I have no problem with this wording. FloNight 13:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Reconsidering. I don't believe that Swatjester's actions were egregious enough to warrant a remedy, however minor. There simply isn't a case here.[reply]

Abstain:

Swatjester advised

2.1) Swatjester is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule equally.

Support:

~~First choice. Kirill 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~1st. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~# Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

No, sometimes users need to be treated differently based on their prior problematic behavior. FloNight 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought a bit harder. "Treat equally" could imply "same length of time", but that's not appropriate necessarily. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly, not equally Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not equally, fairly. James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Swatjester advised

2.2) Swatjester is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly.

Support:

Treat them fairly, yes. Admins should go out of way to make sure that one side of a dispute is not being treated unfairly by some users being overly aggressive in demanding blocks or gaming the system in other ways. But sometimes different block lengths may be needed. If the situation is complex and part of a larger dispute, addressing the underlying dispute is needed. This can not be done with blocks of equal length for all parties. In this particular case, the one month block was too long. The user seems to have responded to shorter blocks in the past so the longer block seems excessive. FloNight 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes more sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kirill 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~:# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much prefer this version. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First choice SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Per my comment at 2).[reply]

Abstain:

Swatjester advised

2.3) Swatjester is advised to utilize greater care in issuing blocks under the three revert rule, and to give particular regard to the relevant principles cited above.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these remedies that I voted for get the job done for me. FloNight 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice SimonP 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {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.

Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 7.2 pass
FoF 1 and 2 both pass
Remedies 1 and 2.2 pass (Arbitrators are now requested to clarify whether 2 and 2.2 both pass or one supercede another.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.2 supercedes 2. Paul August ☎ 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2.2 passes instead of 2 due to the nature of several votes by arbitrators. FloNight 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that at this point principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.2, and 7.2 pass; FsoF 1.1, 2, and 3 (FoF 1 being superseded by 1.1); and remedies 1 and 2.2 pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note remedy 2.3 does not pass due to two "2nd choice" votes. Thatcher131 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

Support:

Close. The allegation is disconcerting, but there has been no usable evidence presented regarding it. Kirill 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this without further action, now. The allegation seems to lack legs. James F. (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. FloNight 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Pre-emptively note my opposition to closing given that the primary allegation of concern, and why we're here so soon in the dispute resolution process, is the idea that some sysop may be beholden unto users over and above their fealty to the project. James F. (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Striking. James F. (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose until I finish reviewing the evidence sent by email and James F has a chance to offer proposals if he chooses to do so. FloNight 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)~~ ~~Need to wait a bit longer for consideration of Uninvited Company's proposals. Otherwise ready to close as no action needed about allegations and email evidence. FloNight 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~ FloNight 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:# Oppose for consideration of UninvitedCompany's new proposals. Paul August ☎ 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]