Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision

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 14 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 1 who is inactive), so 8 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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

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. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. With the emphasis on the "good-faith". Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. As in past cases, the last clause is not precisely as I might word it, but any other arguable exceptions are not relevant to this case, so we can leave it until they become relevant in a future case to delineate their scope. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. I could quibble with nuances, but shan't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct and decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. This needed saying. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
10. This principle (in slightly different words) has been set forth and applied several times in the past, including in the Stefanomencarelli and Franco-Mongol Alliance cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
11. To an extent this is why the Arbitration Committee was set up. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Canvassing and meatpuppetry

8) Canvassing with a biased message and/or requesting intervention from partisan audiences is disruptive and sanctionable behavior. Editors fulfilling a biased or partisan canvassing request may be considered "meatpuppets".

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. I should note that this is especially the case when they are otherwise single-purpose accounts, or nearly so. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Although there are gray areas here. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The last clause may be overstated. If I am brought to a discussion by biased canvassing and express my opinion, then the debate may be adversely affected because the bias in the selection of people to be recruited to the debate may artificially skew the consensus process—but I am not thereby rendered a "meatpuppet" in the sense of being there to express someone else's views rather than my own. Prefer 8.1, proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I was basing this association with meatpuppetry based on the language of the linked policy. Editing to fulfill a biased recruitment message is just about the definition of meatpuppetry. I'm not sure I understand your objection. Vassyana (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Newyorkbrad. A user with a genuine and sincerely held view who is canvassed by a supporter and comes to outline their view is not necessarily to be treated as a meatpuppet. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to ask the both of you, if you would, to elaborate in the discussion section. I truly and honestly do not understand the line you are both drawing. Vassyana (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

8.1) It may sometimes be appropriate to draw an important discussion to the attention of a broader range of editors, and of course it is desirable to bring new users to Wikipedia. However, biased canvassing, whether on- or off-wiki, is inappropriate and disruptive. Indicia of inappropriate canvassing may include bringing an on-wiki discussion the attention of editors on only one side of the controversy, or urging off-wiki that new editors begin their Wikipedia participation by intervening with a predetermined position in a fractious discussion rather than by editing articles. Such attempts are inappropriate because they may distort and artificially skew the consensus process. Although all substantive points made in a discussion should be considered on their merits, in evaluating consensus, the participation of users who were brought to the debate through questionable canvassing, and particularly those who appear to be effectively expressing the views of those who recruited them rather than their own views, may be appropriately discounted.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Though I never saw the word "Indicia" used before. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Proposed 8.2. This needs to be a bit more simply. While I understand the point, due to Sam's excellent response in the discussion section, the closing phrase still seems problematic to me. Most people respond to biased canvassing because they already believe the recruiter is correct, not because they're simply regurgitating a view. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

   This seems to be a longer way to say much the same as 8) without using the word "meatpuppet". Vassyana (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't see the need for such a level of detail here. Kirill ^[pf] 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

8.2) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. However, biased canvassing, on- or off-wiki, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Single-purpose accounts created for this purpose may be treated as "meatpuppets".

Support:

1. Proposed. --Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal support with 8.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Ok. Kirill ^[pf] 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute is focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. It is a long-standing and unresolved conflict.[1]

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing environment

2) The editing environment surrounding the Ayn Rand topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurrences. Notably, edit warring continued to occur during this arbitration case ([2][3][4][5][6]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

3) Dispute resolution has been underutilized in the Ayn Rand topic area. Content venues, such as the reliable sources and no original research noticeboards, are rarely used. Avenues to resolve conduct concerns, such as requests for comment and the incidents noticeboard, are rarely sought out.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
8. In particular, mediation may be of help. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Stevewunder

4) Stevewunder (talk · contribs) has been uncivil ([7][8]) and disruptive ([9][10][11]). He has been blocked twice; once for disruption and the other time for vandalism (disruption to make a point)([12]). After the first block, he stated he would continue being disruptive, until banned ([13]). He followed through with vandalism, receiving a one week block ([14][15][16])

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Brushcherry

5) Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is an account primarily focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([17]). He admits to commenting flippantly ([18]) (examples: [19][20][21][22]), occasionally crossing the line into disruption. He appears to be non-partisan and acting in good faith.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 5.1; there's no need for us to speculate on appearances and good faith here. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. prefer 5.1, per kirill Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Prefer 5.1, I prefer to avoid commenting on motivation. Risker (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Brushcherry

5.1) Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is an account primarily focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([23]). He admits to commenting flippantly ([24]) (examples: [25][26][27][28]), occasionally crossing the line into disruption.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. More factual. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kjaer

6) Kjaer (talk · contribs) has canvassed ([29][30]). It is very likely that the canvassing was effective and drew meatpuppets to the topic area (examples: [31][32]). Kjaer has also been disruptive, such as pointedly templating regulars ([33][34][35][36][37]), edit-warring ([38][39][40][41][42]), and making bad faith accusations ([43][44]). He has been blocked for edit-warring ([45]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. And, indeed this is a good example of improper canvassing. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

SteveWolfer

7) SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility and bad faith accusations ([46][47][48][49][50]), as well as edit-warring ([51][52][53][54][55][56]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. I'm a little hesitant of qualifying anything as "bad faith", but there are few other reasonable explanations in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

TallNapoleon

8) TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring ([57][58][59][60][61]). He also misrepresents WP:3RR as an entitlement to three reverts ([62]), which explicitly states it is not an entitlement.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. The policy page is clear that 3RR doesn't entitle anyone to a set number of reverts, and TallNapoleon is obviously familiar with it. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that there's any intentional misrepresentation of the 3RR here ("Under normal circumstances I would not even have done this..."). Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Prefer 8.1. The 3RR rule is frequently misinterpreted in good faith. Risker (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

TallNapoleon

8.1) TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring ([63][64][65][66][67]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Equal support to 8. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

TheJazzFan

9) TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility ([68][69][70]). He has expressed a flippant attitude towards sanctions, including stating that he would create sockpuppets to avoid restrictions ([71][72]).

What I actually said was if I actually cared I could etc. etc. As I've come to expect, many here don't sweat details of accuracy. But I appreciate the recognition. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Bateau des imbéciles 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Snowded

10) Snowded (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring ([73][74][75][76][77][78]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Idag

11) Idag (talk · contribs) has edit-warred ([79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]).

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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 warned

1) Editors involved in the Ayn Rand topic area are warned to refrain from edit warring, incivility, soapboxing, and other disruptive behavior.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. It's a little overbroad, but the warning is nonetheless indicated. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This seems to be encompassed in every other remedy. Wizardman 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Which editors is this referring to? Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned and warned individually (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return or the ones who would still be allowed to contribute to the area's talk pages this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   While many would be subject to topic bans, many editors remain. Additionally, some of the topic bans permit continued talk page participation. I see this applying equally to the editors remaining, the editors topic banned but permitted to continue talk page participation, and any editors returing from a topic ban. Vassyana (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I think this is largely covered under 12. Risker (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors encouraged

2) The editors at the Ayn Rand article are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from MedCab or the Mediation Committee.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
6. The encouragement, no matter who is left to heed it, is a good one. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return—or referring to the rest of editors or the ones who would still be allowed to contribute to the area's talk pages—this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Responded to the general point at 1). Vassyana (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

2. I think this is largely covered under 12. Risker (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Content issues

3) Editors in the Ayn Rand topic area are reminded to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, but the individual content issues are deferred to the consensus process and community.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. That does not appear to be meaningful in context. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Which editors is this referring to? Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return—or referring to the rest of editors—this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Responded to the general point at 1). Vassyana (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I think this is largely covered under #12. Risker (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder banned

4) Due to the likelihood of continued disruption, Stevewunder (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice, in favor the the better wording of 4.2. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Better wording below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder banned

4.1) Having made explicit threats of further disruption, Stevewunder (talk · contribs) is permanently banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. First choice; there's no reason to limit a ban when someone is unambiguously threatening the project. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

   Abstaining for now. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

3. first choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think "permanently" banning anyone is required here; a set-time or indefinite ban is in keeping with community and committee standards. Risker (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Can we change the wording from "permanently" to "indefinitely", which seems more in-line with our conventions? Also, I'm having second thoughts about even an indefinite ban, though I still support a one year ban at this juncture. Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Prefer 4.2 per Vassyana. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder banned

4.2) Having made explicit threats of further disruption, Stevewunder (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Proposed per Vassyana. Equal prference to 4. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3. first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. --Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Above all, Wikipedia requires editors to agree to improve the encyclopedia. Explicit threats to the contrary are not acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Fine. Kirill ^[pf] 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Brushcherry reminded and encouraged

5) Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions. Brushcherry is further encouraged to continue working with a mentor and learning Wikipedia's practices. He is also cautioned to avoid disrupting discussion and taking actions likely to be poorly received.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kjaer topic-banned and warned

6) Kjaer (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year. Kjaer is strongly warned to avoid further canvassing, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

SteveWolfer topic-banned and warned

7) SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. SteveWolfer is warned to avoid further incivility, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned

8) TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for six months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. TallNapoleon is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

TheJazzFan topic banned and warned

9) TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TheJazzFan is warned to avoid further incivility and other inappropriate conduct. TheJazzFan may be monitored for sockpuppetry, due to the potential for ban evasion.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice, as a strict mininum. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too weak. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

TheJazzFan banned

9.1) TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. For the explicit threatening of sockpuppetry used for a potential ban evasion. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Per FayssalF. Risker (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice; puppetry concerns make it unlikely that this editor will play within the rules under a simple topic ban. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Snowded topic banned and warned

10) Snowded (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Snowded is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. In order to de-escalate the situation, best for all parties to have a break. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Casliber. Risker (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Idag topic-banned and warned

11) Idag (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Idag is warned to avoid further edit warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. In order to de-escalate the situation, best for all parties to have a break. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors not named

12) Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Feels more like a principle than a remedy, but an important point to make in cases such as this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
9. With the note that Arbitration Enforcement would normally be the proper venue for discussions about applying this remedy. — Coren ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Topic bans

1) Uninvolved administrators are strongly encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Topic bans are the favored remedy in cases of POV warring. — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not persuaded of the need to the use the word "strongly", which implies an imperative when it might not be the best course of action. Risker (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocks

2) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
8. A topic ban without teeth is not a ban. — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Block and ban logging

3) Topic bans and blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Log of blocks and bans, to provide a central record for administrators and the community.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Normal operating procedure. — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community review

4) Topic bans and other measures are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Support:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too broad as written; only administrators' actions are open to further review, not the bans we've imposed directly. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Kirill. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Kirill Lokshin. Risker (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Kirill is correct. — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Community review

4.1) Topic bans and other measures imposed by administrators pursuant to the enforcement provisions of this case are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Consensus applies; again, this points to WP:AE as the proper prior forum for such measures. — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

I do not understand why the standing opinions of the responders should weigh against the label of "meatpuppet". The whole crux of the meatpuppetry concept is the recruitment of already like-minded people, which is explicit in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. As relevant to this case, it notes:

“ It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to ... communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. ”

This fits in with the tone of the policy section and with how editors (in my perception and experience) generally view the matter. All that said, I hope that helps clarify my confusion over the reluctance to accept the term "meatpuppet" in this case. Vassyana (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with it is this: suppose there is an established editor, User:X who has expressed on several occasions the strong belief that John Doe should be referred to as a "writer and philosopher" and not a "philosopher and writer". A dispute emerges on a page User:X is not aware of, in which User:Y editwars to try to get John Doe described as a "writer and philosopher". In order to get an advantage, User:Y then canvasses all the people he knows support his side to get them to come to the talk page and weigh in. User:X receives a message, and so goes to the talk page and says "In my opinion John Doe is more accurately described as a 'writer and philosopher' because ..." etc.

All User:X is doing is giving their honest opinion in an ongoing debate. User:X is not responsible for the fact that User:Y has canvassed only one side of the debate. User:X only becomes a sanctionable meatpuppet if they are there in bad faith: for instance if they are a single purpose account only on Wikipedia to force the preferred description of John Doe.

The problem with the proposed formulation of principle 8 is that it inappropriately transfers responsibility to the canvasee to (a) realise that they have been canvassed, and (b) desist from offering a genuine and quite possibly well-founded view in a debate, merely because the canvassor knew what it was they were likely to say. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. It is sincerely appreciated. I've tried to limit the broad brush of "meatpuppet" and simply the principle as 8.2. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2009 (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.

Currently Passing :

• Principles - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
• FoF - 1, 2, 3, 4
• Remedies - 12
• Enforcement - 2, 3,

Currently not Passing (for motions due to majority not met, they are italicized)

• Principles - 8.1
• FoF - 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 8.1, 9, 10, 11
• Remedies - 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 10, 11
• Enforcement - 1, 4, 4.1

- Mailer Diablo 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.