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.

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.

For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators (excluding 5 who are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

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 cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

Please note that a slightly reworded version of this principle was proposed and endorsed by commenters on the workshop. I prefer our usual wording as above, which emphasizes the need for good working relationships among our contributors as being integral to the purpose and success of the project, given that we are all volunteers here. However, other arbitrators may wish to ponder whether it better expresses a nuance I am missing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editor conduct and decorum

2) 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. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Casting aspersions

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Evaluating user conduct

4) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Repetition of improper conduct

5) Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project.

Support:

As with several of the other proposals, I have revised this from the workshop draft per the comments received there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Mattisse's contributions

1) Mattisse (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor who has made more than 65,000 edits on Wikipedia. Among other contributions, she has created or contributed substantially to hundreds of new pages, many of which have been recognized as featured articles, as good articles, or on "did you know?" She frequently acts as a copyeditor and her skills in this area are widely recognized. She has also provided input to editors in evaluation processes for featured content, good articles, and DYK. Mattisse's userpage reflects that she has received approximately 30 substantive barnstars from various fellow editors in recognition of the extent and quality of her contributions.

Support:

"Background" positive findings are sometimes thought unnecessary, but it would be churlish at best to evaluate Mattisse's participation in Wikipedia in the context of a one-party case without making prominent mention of these facts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mattisse's behavior

2) During her years of participation in the project, Mattisse has engaged in a pattern of troublesome comments and behavior. These have led to many stressful controversies affecting both Mattisse and many other editors. Among other things, Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, repeated some of her assertions long after any underlying issues had been resolved, and maintained various lists of editors who she believes has wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prior attempts at resolution

3) Mattisse has sometimes agreed to address certain issues concerning her interactions with other users, such as by avoiding the types of discussions or interactions that she finds to be stressful. However, in each instance she has soon returned to the same forums and behavior patterns she had agreed to avoid.

Support:

I have dropped proposal 4 from the workshop but incorporated a key aspect (that Mattisse finds certain types of on-wiki interactions to be stressful, which in turn brings out negative behavior from her) here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (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.

Planning to address issues

1) Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed.

Support:

This troublesome case could reasonably lead to a variety of outcomes. This is my best attempt at balancing, one I present with mixed feelings. I anticipate that other arbitrators may offer alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mattisse banned conditionally

2) Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mattisse restricted

3) Mattisse is instructed not to maintain on-wiki any lists of users with whom she has had negative interactions or of whom she has a negative view.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continuing jurisdiction

4) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

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.

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.