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 8 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reliable sources[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that information be supported by a reliable source.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biased characterizations[edit]

2.1) It is the responsibility of every editor to avoid inclusion of biased characterizations found in obviously biased sources.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Biased viewpoints may still be significant, and thus warranting inclusion (within appropriate contexts). Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC) per Kirill.[reply]
The problem is with bias represented as neutral or with views underrepresented/overrepresented Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Disruption[edit]

3) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Harassment[edit]

4) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tit for tat[edit]

5) Editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
emphasizing in retaliation Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) This dispute is centered on auxiliary issues which relate to The Troubles, with notability of baronets as a side issue.

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Participants[edit]

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The evidence regarding these editors is very unequal in substance (some of them have not actually been accused of POV editing, as far as I can tell); it's not appropriate to lump them all into one finding. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Gold heart and Thepiper[edit]

3) Gold heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other accounts has engaged in serious harassment of another user.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Participant probation[edit]

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As in the related FoF. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to either put the articles on probation so all editors are covered or pare down this list as there are big differences in the conduct of listed editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FloNight that this undifferentiated list is not a great idea. Instead, anyone who edit wars in this conflict from now on should be subject to probation as defined. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Additional participants[edit]

3) Users who join the named participants in edit warring over the set of articles may be placed under the provisions of these remedies by any administrator by placing a notice on their talk page and a note at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 3.1. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Additional participants[edit]

3.1) Any users who join in the edit warring over the set of articles in question, [including articles which relate to the Ulster banner and baronets. Inclusion will be liberally interpreted, if the usual crew is engaged in edit warring at the article, it is included], may be placed under the provisions of these remedies by any uninvolved administrator placing a notice on their talk page and a note at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Probation for disruptive editors[edit]

3.2) To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vintagekits[edit]

4) The indefinite community ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifted and he may edit normally subject to the terms of probation as defined in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the explicit reminder that much more civil behavior is expected on Wikipedia - even when dealing with people one detests. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Participants who violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Terms of probation[edit]

2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the terminology is messy here; "probation" has meant something quite different in other cases. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to make a better list of users on probation, but yes I support this type of probation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved to be an Enforcement) Though unused right now. James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

The following have been passed:
- Proposed principles 1 and 2;
- Proposed findings 1 and 3;
- Proposed remedies 3.1 and 4; and
- Proposed enforcement 1 and 2.

The wording of proposed remedy 3.1 is awkward because it references earlier remedies that were not adopted. This remedy should probably be rephrased for clarity before the decision is announced. Proposed enforcement 2 contains definitions that are more often found in remedy provisions, but since it only takes effect if participants are placed on "probation" in the future, the difference is not critical. Additionally, it might be noted that the decision currently contains no actual finding that there has been edit-warring or problematic editing on the articles in question, although that might be considered sufficiently implicit in the context of the overall decision that further delay to draft and vote on such a finding is deemed unnecessary. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, in a clerkful fashion, you could propose a draft correction? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps something like "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below." (On the other hand, the case is already overdue to close and would have by now except that the case clerk had a midterm; if editing the fine points of this paragraph would delay the close another week, the heck with it.) Newyorkbrad 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things are good to go now. Should close as stated above except remedy 3.2 replaces 3.1. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.

Move to close. Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill 19:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. James F. (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close, I added some of the wording from Remedy 1 in a bracket to 3.1. I think this clarifies the articles in question. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]