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 of whom none are recused, 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.

Motion to suspend the case pending mediation

1) Motion to suspend the case pending mediation. [1]

Passed on 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support:

Several people in the community have requested a final chance to resolve the situation through mediation. FloNight 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dispute resolution

1) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.

Support:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators

3) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators are responsible to the community

4) Administrators use their powers as representatives of the Wikipedia community, and as such the use of those powers is subject to observation by and comment from members of the community. Administrators are expected to respond courteously and constructively to good-faith questions about, and criticisms of, their use of administrator powers.

Support:

James F. (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but within some limits of course. After prolonged criticism or questions that has been answered, an administrator need not answer future comments or questions if they seem to be of no further benefit. FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Added "good-faith."[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 17:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Inappropriate unblocking

5) Administrators should follow the blocking policy when unblocking users.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Tajik

1) Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having offered to engage in mediation in order to avoid a pending Arbitration case against him, created numerous sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny of his behavior and further delay the dispute resolution process.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

E104221

2) E104421 is a persistent edit warrior with a long history of blocks [2], especially as a result of a protracted personal conflict with Tajik. He and Tajik were eventually placed on a revert parole [3] by community acclamation, which resulted in further blocks for both violations and gaming.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~James F. (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~~Changing to merely "offered". James F. (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed block reversals by AzaToth

3) On March 27 and March 30, administrator User:AzaToth reversed both standing blocks on E104421 and Tajik for edit warring [4] [5] without either discussing the matter with the blocking administrator or having a community discussion, and did not notify either after the fact. One week later when the two resumed edit warring and were both reblocked, AzaToth again immediately unblocked without any discussion [6] [7], this time despite the fact that another administrator had independently reviewed and declined unblocking E104421 [8]. In all four unblocks, AzaToth made no attempt a discussion before overturning previously uncontested blocks. See the block logs [9] [10]. When asked about the matter, he remained unresponsive, giving a single line reply and no further replies when asked.

Support:

I think that this is worth noting. I'm happy to split this into the "bold" unblocks (first pair) and "unhelpful" ones, but I think it should be addressed. James F. (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {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.

Ban endorsed

1) The indefinite ban of Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is endorsed.

Support:

First choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot apply, but can endorse. James F. (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tajik banned

2) Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Fred Bauder 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will mean that the indef. block must last for at least a year. James F. (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

E104221 placed on revert parole

3) E104221 is placed on revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period he may be briefly blocked. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~James F. (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~~Changing to merely "offered". James F. (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AzaToth reminded

4) AzaToth is reminded that Wikipedia operates by consensus and advised that he may wish to be more responsive to other users' reactions.

Support:

Dunno about the wording (lifted from previous cases, slightly altered). A commendation of intention might be an idea. Thoughts appreciated. James F. (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of E104221's revert parole

1) Should E104221, using any user account or IP, violate his revert parole he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After each 3 such blocks, the maximum block length should be doubled. Blocks, and the current maximum block length, are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Trying a new twist on this. Making it gradually worse, rather than impossibly quickly. Not sure... James F. (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (Obviously, only to pass if an appropriate remedy does. James F. (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
SimonP 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

Allgemein

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.

Arbitrators are advised to clarify whether Remedy 1 and 2 are supposed to be supplement of each other, or one supersedes another. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no conflict. ArbCom gives him a one year ban -- that's the most we like to do. Also, ArbCom endorses the community ban; should the community ban be rescinded, ArbCom's ban is still in place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notices when the case closes should make this clear the remedies. How about: "The Arbitration Committee endorses the indefinite community ban of Tajik; concurrently, Tajik is banned for one year by the committee." Newyorkbrad 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be fine. James F. (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation note: The paragraphs that are passed at present are proposed principle 1, proposed finding of fact 1, and proposed remedies 1 and 2. Newyorkbrad 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently passing are all principles, finding 1 (Tajik) and 3 (AzaToth), and remedies 1 and 2 (Tajik) and 4 (AzaToth). So James' opposition to closing should be rectified. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E104221 has requested on my talk page regarding the duration of the revert parole. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it no proposals with regard to E104221 now pass. Paul August ☎ 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an enforcement verging on passing for something that has no yay/nays for. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that, although the passing of the enforcement would be contingent on the passing of some remedy. Paul August ☎ 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there is recent precedent that an enforcement that doesn't link to a corresponding remedy is disregarded (although a couple of times admins haven't realized that and have tried to enforce it anyway). Theoretically, one could argue that the enforcement here could become an enforcement guideline for the existing community revert parole, but I don't think that is the intent. Newyorkbrad 21:59, 24 June 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Paul August ☎ 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose closing. The Azatoth items are fully supported, but insufficiently to pass. James F. (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)~~ This was meant as a conditional stay on closing; sorry that it wasn't more obvious. James F. (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]