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 2 who are recused and none who are 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.

Mass delinking injunction

1) Effective immediately, all editors must cease automated or semi-automated linking or delinking of dates until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

Support:

Proposed. (now second choice) Wizardman 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, proposing 1.1 to make the wording a little clearer. See my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking

1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).

Support:

Proposed. First choice. I am not at all certain what, if any, action by the committee should result from this case. However, I can agree that it would make little sense for us to carefully consider the case while events took place that could potentially render it virtually moot. I gather from the statements that most mass-delinking efforts have reportedly already been put on hold, so hopefully this injunction will not overly restrict anyone's actually intended activities during what I hope will be a relatively short time in which the case will be pending. I have revised the wording of the initial injunction proposed by Wizardman to make it more explicit that it applies to all sides of the dispute and that it is a temporary precautionary measure not reflecting prejudgment of the merits. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case promptly so that a decision may be reached as quickly as possible which will supersede the temporary injunction.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this one. (first choice) Wizardman 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Risker (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice to the outcome of the case. Although the injunction has already been enacted I wanted to indicating my support for it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sam. I support the injunction. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Injunction enacted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Means of contributing

2) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wikignoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

3) 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, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

User conduct

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-warring is harmful

5) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done 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 only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

7.1) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism. (BC2 Workshop - Kirill)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

7.2) Editors who become involved in disputes on Wikipedia should seek to actively engage in the procedures detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. (BC2 Workshop - AGK)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Optional styles

8) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned an British subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. (SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Optional styles, Jguk#Optional styles)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Authority of policies and guidelines

9) The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed. (Climate_change_dispute)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Obsessional point of view

10) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. (jguk 2#Obsessional point of view)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Manual of Style

11.1) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason. (jguk_2#Manual_of_Style)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

11.2) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Wikipedia. It consists of standards to be followed and guidance where no firm requirements have been developed. It should use terminology throughout that differentiates the two, such as using MUST and SHOULD respectively. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

11.3) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Wikipedia. It must be stable and prescriptive elements should have broad consensus. Where there is not broad consensus, the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Style is not a pillar

12) The encyclopedia has five pillars; style is not one of them.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style

13.1) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter. (jguk 2#Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

13.2)The Manual of Style is a standard developed and changed by the Wikipedia community in accordance with how policies and guidelines are decided. Prescriptive elements should have broad consensus, and where there is not broad consensus the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of bots and scripts

14) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fait accompli

15) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Responsibilities of bot operators

16) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted. (BC2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

BAG

17) Members of the Bot Approvals Group are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; members are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of BAG status. (BC2 Workshop - Kirill)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

MediaWiki developers

18) The projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as the English Wikipedia project, are run on the MediaWiki software, which is an open source project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

As it is an open source project, anyone may participate in the improvement of the software, by way of patches, however these changes are subject to approval by the core MediaWiki development team.

The MediaWiki development team are part of the Wikimedia community, however their development work is beyond the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee. The paid development team is answerable to the Foundation, and the Board influences the development priorities based on the needs of the projects, of which English Wikipedia is only one of many. The Wikimedia projects may, of course, question their decisions but must at all times respect those decisions. Bug reports, feature requests, complaints and concerns should be lodged at the appropriate forums, such as Bugzilla, mediawiki.org, mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta for larger problems, with each of these forums having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

System administrators

19) System administrators are responsible for the MediaWiki software configuration of the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as English Wikipedia. They make changes to configuration based on a mix of Wikimedia Foundation, technical and project considerations. While their decisions may affect the English Wikipedia, those decisions are beyond the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee. The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions, but must at all times respect them, Complains should be lodged at meta forums, such as Bugzilla, #wikimedia-tech, wikitech-l, foundation-l and meta, each having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Open source

20) The software used by the English Wikipedia project is open source and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable, however it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers who are in short supply is not acceptable. Developers are volunteers, and at no time is it acceptable to expect them to fix non-critical problems.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality

21) The MediaWiki software used on the Wikimedia projects, and configuration of that software, is the responsibility of the developers and system administrators. In the same way that system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality is a technical decision, and implementation of that decision may have technical implications that need to be considered. The project community should engage the technical team in decisions which relate to use the software.

Policies, procedures and the manual of style may govern how and when the software may be used, however decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

13) {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:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {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.

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.