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, so 6 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

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:

I have adapted the substance and order of most of the proposed principles from FloNight's draft on the workshop (which was something of a reworking and modification of my original draft). I have made a few further changes and tried to shorten some of the wordings in the interests of brevity and clarity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of administrator tools in disputes

2) Administrator status or tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content or policy dispute.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC) (I like the addition of the word "status".)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though really this should say just "dispute"; it should go without saying that the tools must not be used to further the administrator's own position in, say, a personal dispute, but omitting any qualifier would be simpler. --bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usual wording in the past has been "content dispute," so this was actually intended to be a bit broader. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

"Ignore all rules"

3) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's intended primarily as advice for editors working alone encountering a novel situation for which existing policies were not designed. --bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

"Wheel warring"

4) Administrators are expected to act collegially and to respect one another's decisions. If one administrator disagrees with an action taken by another, then unless the situation is an emergency, he or she should seek to discuss the matter with the second administrator or to raise the issue on a noticeboard and seek consensus. "Wheel warring", in which administrators reverse one another's actions multiple times, is especially inappropriate and may result in substantial sanctions, including desysopping.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of thoughtful discussion. The dispute-resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Administrators, as experienced and trusted users, are expected to fully embrace and follow our custom and practice of working toward consensus on difficult issues and respecting consensus when it is reached. Except where privacy or similar considerations are involved, the primary venue for consensus-building discussion about content and policy should be on-wiki discussion, rather than other venues such as IRC or mailing lists.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living persons

6) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia has become one of the most prominent and visited websites in the entire world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking pages to turn up in an Internet search for that individual. The contents of these articles may profoundly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. All biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. See generally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy").

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Application of BLP policy

7) Our policies and standards for biographies of living persons apply to all articles or discussions containing factual assertions regarding any living individual, regardless of his or her level of prominence or notability. However, the nature and extent of an individual's prominence, the reasons the individual is notable, and the type of specific BLP concerns affecting a given page may affect the choice of the specific methods by which the BLP policy may best be enforced regarding that page, such as whether protection or semiprotection is appropriate and for how long.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to bear in mind that the policy originated to assist editors working in areas where articles were receiving little, if any attention. --bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Special BLP enforcement

8) The norm against wheel-warring especially applies where an administrator has acted under the "special enforcement" authority for BLP articles that was recognized by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. That decision authorized the use of "any and all means at [administrators'] disposal," including page protection, "to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the BLP policy." These enforcement actions may be appealed to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but the Committee specifically stated: "administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations."

Support:

Oppose:

I sincerely regret my failure to vote on that case, and I realise I am late in voting here, but I think that case was wrongly decided. Insofar as that case stood for the proposition that the BLP policy touches on all aspects of project policy and practice (including ordinary practice as to the use of administrative tools), giving editors (and administrators) strong support in dealing decisively with issues covered by the policy, it is correct; yet that is the case regardless of any "special enforcement" declarations. The propriety of taking strong action to deal with BLP issues derives from the policy itself, and the great weight of community consensus that underlies it, not from any decision on our part. --bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Protection of articles

9) Because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit," the vast majority of articles and other pages can be freely edited by anyone (except for blocked or banned users). However, where necessary as the result of vandalism, edit-warring, BLP violations, or other good cause, an administrator can protect a page for a given period of time, restricting users' ability to edit that page. An administrator who protects or semiprotects a page is expected to explain the reason for this action in a log summary and (unless obvious) on the talkpage. The duration of protection should be no longer than reasonably necessary to address the specific concern that prompted it. Templates have been created to designate pages that have been protected, and to explain what this means for the benefit of new editors. Procedures also exist for users to request the lifting of page protection when they believe the need for it has expired.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pros and cons of protection

10) Whether and how to page-protect BLPs and other articles of unusual prominence can be a controversial matter, for both "wikiphilosophical" and pragmatic reasons. On the one hand, prominent articles are among the most likely to be viewed by Wikipedia readers who have not yet become editors. Many readers first become editors by editing these articles, and it is feared that if they are unable to edit them, an opportunity to introduce readers to editing may be lost. On the other hand, if an article attracts an unusually high number of readers, then that many more people will be exposed to any vandalism or BLP violations contained in it, which may unfairly affect both the subject of the article and the reputation of Wikipedia. Whether to balance these considerations in favor of or against protecting a given page at a given time is a matter of administrator discretion, not governed by hard-and-fast rules, but subject to discussion and the consensus process in cases of disagreement.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The considerations outlined in proposed principle 7 above are also relevant. --bainer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case concerns disputed administrator actions and a "wheel war" concerning the repeated protection and unprotection of Sarah Palin, a BLP article concerning a prominent American political figure which was, for about two weeks, the most widely viewed article on Wikipedia.

Support:

The proposed findings are based upon my original draft as modified by FloNight. Other arbitrators may, of course, offer additional proposed findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Initial protection of Sarah Palin

2) The Sarah Palin article became very prominent when the subject was named as a major-party candidate for Vice President of the United States. Upon the announcement of the subject's selection, the article was semiprotected to address vandalism from IP editors. After several days of edit-warring and alleged BLP violations on the article, an administrator increased the protection to full protection.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The semi-protection, at least, of this article was manifestly reasonable and indeed necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

First reduction of protection by Jossi

3) At 12:32-12:33 on September 4, 2008, Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semi-protection, with the log summary "High traffic articles should not be protected." There is no evidence that Jossi consulted with the protecting administrator or sought consensus anywhere before making this change. By the time Jossi modified the protection, he had already made a series of substantive edits to Sarah Palin and related articles and their talkpages, so that he should not have taken contentious administrator actions concerning this article. Jossi's action was discussed on the administrators' noticeboard and based on that discussion, another administrator restored full protection at 13:52.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Second reduction of protection by Jossi

4) At 14:12-14:13 on September 4, following the noticeboard discussion that had led to a consensus in favor of continued full protection at that time, Jossi again downgraded the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semiprotection, with the log summary "WP:IAR - There are times in which IAR is a necessity. This is a highly trafficked page AND a current event. Unprotected". This action, by an administrator who was also involved in editing the article in question, was against consensus and was an instance of wheel-warring. Jossi has subsequently acknowledged that this was not a beneficial use of "ignore all rules" and has pledged not to use IAR this way in the future.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Full protection and special BLP enforcement by MBisanz

5) At 15:02 on September 4, 2008, MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored full protection to Sarah Palin, for a designated period of two weeks, and announced that he was acting under the "special enforcement authority" provisions of this Committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. This was an acceptable use of the special enforcement authority, although reasonable administrators could differ as to whether this step was warranted or whether the two-week protection was too long. Following MBisanz' action, the protection status of Sarah Palin continued to be discussed on-wiki, now at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. As with all administrator actions including those taken under the special enforcement authority, the protection remained subject to change based on new developments and evolving on-wiki consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

I agree with this description, save for the parts about "special enforcement", per my opposition to that approach, and I find it simpler to abstain here. Note that the duration of protection didn't really matter, since protection was being actively discussed, it could easily be altered as necessary as a result of that discussion, and just had to be sufficiently long to cover the discussion. --bainer (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of protection by MZMcBride

6) At 17:21 on September 4, MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the protection of Sarah Palin from full protection to semiprotection, with a log summary stating solely "this is a wiki", even though:

(A) The ongoing consensus on both WP:AN/I and WP:AE continued to support full protection as of that time, so the action was against consensus;

(B) Based on the number of protection and unprotection actions that had recently taken place on the article, the action was an instance of wheel-warring;

(C) MZMcBride had not participated on the noticeboard discussion of the protection issue and offered no reason why his judgment on this issue should supersede that of the many other administrators and editors who had participated; and

(D) MZMcBride, apparently knowingly, ignored that the most recent protection had been made under the special enforcement authority for BLPs and that this Committee emphasized in the Footnoted quotes decision that such actions must not be reversed unilaterally.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a wiki" is a poor way of justifying reduction of protection. Taken literally it could be used to oppose the protection of any article at any time. What was meant was clearly that the ability for editors to improve the article outweighed the risk that some would vandalise or add questionable material; even if I had held that the reduction of protection was reasonable, it would have been better to have expressed this as an opinion rather than an assertion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I see no mention to the IRC-based discussion --mainly the one which led to the unprotecion by MZMcbride. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

7) Each of the administrators involved in this dispute (whether or not mentioned by name in this decision) appears to have acted in the good-faith belief that he or she was best serving the interests of the project by his or her actions.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm my support for this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I do not think that a finding that gives any extra cover to the involved administrators is wise in this instance. All contributions, by all users, are assumed to be good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not true; AGF means that you should not a priori assume that anyone's edit was meant in bad faith; it is not a Faustian pact from which we cannot escape, wherein we must blinker ourselves to malice and misconduct. In this case, people have suggested that assuming good faith is incorrect; making a comment is thus necessary if we feel such a comment is appropriate, as here. James F. (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to stay silent on the topic. I do not think that these administrators need ANY feedback that excuses their actions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Flo. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this finding has become controversial, perhaps I can add a bit more explanation. In my view the reason for AGF is to improve immediate interaction between disagreeing editors and administrators. Implicit in it is the fact that, in some cases, the assumption of good faith will be mistaken. When a case comes to arbitration, it should be seen in the cold light of day. Arbitrators, when looking at user and administrator behaviour, should assume the good faith of the actions under question, but that is simply a routine application of AGF.

Sometimes, when the good faith of a particular action is under question, it is acceptable to propose a finding of fact declaring that it was or was not in good faith as it eventually turned out, but that is not what is proposed here. Instead it is a proposal which states that the assumption of good faith appears to be true. This seems to be circular: the assumption is declared to be an assumption. If the intention was to declare that the various protections and unprotections were actually in good faith, then the proposal should have said so; but I would have voted against that as not being made out by the evidence. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Sam. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sam. I likewise would not have supported such an alternative proposal; I do not think illustrating a point about policy by taking such actions as the unprotections in this case can be described as entirely good faith. --bainer (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

8) {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.

Parties instructed

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jossi

Jossi admonished

2) Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in which he is involved as an editor (such as changing the protection status of an article he is actively editing). Jossi is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad below, this should be cumulative with, not alternative to, 2.1. Together they are my second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jossi restricted

2.1) Jossi is instructed not to unprotect or reduce the edit-protection status of any article substantially constituting the biography of a living person for a period of 90 days.

Support:

Third choice. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad below, this should be cumulative with, not alternative to, 2. Together they are my second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Given the substantial time that has elapsed without protection issues involving Jossi being brought to our attention, and given the need to resolve this proposal to close the case, I am changing my abstention to a negative vote. My concerns about Jossi's conduct as set forth in the admonition stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

#Originally proposed by me on the Workshop, but Jossi's subsequent comments and the passage of time lead me to believe this may not be necessary. Submitted for consideration. If passed, will be in addition to 2, not in place of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The horse bolted five weeks ago; I doubt locking the stable door for ninety days now will help. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi admonished and desysopped for 90 days

2.2) Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in which he is involved as an editor (such as changing the protection status of an article he is actively editing). Jossi's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 90 days. Jossi is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the permanent revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

First choice. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Considered alone, the unprotections verge on point-making, but Jossi had also been involved in content debates on the article and related articles. Taking those circumstances together I think this remedy is justified. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Submitted for consideration at the request of another arbitrator. In my view, unnecessary and overly harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully unnecessary. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90 days is too harsh based on two unprotections of a single page. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Jossi desysopped

2.3) Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrator privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means of an RfA or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:

Fourth choice. I consider these actions to be a serious breech of the standards for use of administrator tools. I'm not fully satisfied by Jossi's comments that he understands that administrators should not use their admin status to influence the outcome of discussions. And I do not think that Jossi has fully disengaged from his dispute with other editors on this topic and that leads the possibility that he will make a poor judgment again. For that reason, I consider that a desysop, might be in the best interest of Wikipedia. But, I also recognize that Jossi has a long record of making many sound decisions and for that reason, I'm making this my last choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Submitted for consideration at the request of another arbitrator. In my view, unnecessary and overly harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is necessary; I hope that I will not be proven wrong. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully unnecessary. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Jossi admonished and restricted for 90 days

2.4) Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in which he is involved as an editor (such as changing the protection status of an article he is actively editing). Jossi is instructed not to unprotect or reduce the edit-protection status of any article substantially constituting the biography of a living person for a period of 90 days. Jossi is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

No other choices. fayssal - wiki up^® 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice (with same weight as my other second choice.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo, second choice: either this alone, or 2 and 2.1 together, are my second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is just a combination of 2 and 2.1, which were indicated as being cumulative, not alternative, and I believe that 2.1 has already been implicitly rejected. In any event, I believe any need for a remedy beyond the admonition has faded, particularly given that six weeks have passed since the events at issue in this case without any subsequent similar incidents involving Jossi being reported to us, and with the case otherwise about to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

In line with comments on 2.1, which I believe is now passing due to abstentions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, 2.1 is not passing; those are mostly "second choice" votes which are superseded by first choices on 2 (although I agree the nose-count here is complicated). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride

MZMcBride admonished

3) MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, cumulatively with 3.1. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride restricted

3.1) MZMcBride is instructed not to unprotect or reduce the edit-protection status of any article substantially constituting the biography of a living person for a period of 90 days.

Support:

Second choice. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, cumulatively with 3. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Given the substantial time that has elapsed without protection issues involving MZMcBride being brought to our attention, and given the need to resolve this proposal to close the case, I am changing my abstention to a negative vote. My concerns about MZMcBride's conduct as set forth in the admonition stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

#Originally proposed by me on the Workshop, but the passage of time leads me to believe this may not be necessary. Submitted for consideration. If passed, will be in addition to 3, not in place of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as for this remedy on Jossi. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride admonished and desysopped for 90 days

3.2) MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of 90 days. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the permanent revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

Third choice. After reviewing MZMcBride protection log, I think MZMcBride entered the situation with "a bee in his bonnet" about articles being over protected. Instead of discussing the issue with other involved admin, he imprudently used his tools. Given that I do not think that this entirely a single instance of poor judgment, I think a temp desysop to drive the point home would not be wrong. That said, I'm making it my third choice because I'm hopeful that MZMcBride will listen to the feedback from the Community and the Committee, and not repeat the actions in the future. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I have a similar view to Flo: MZMcBride was foolish and reckless in parachuting into this issue, especially in the context of the article having already been unprotected and protected twice, and the prominence of the article and the volume of edits to it, of which MZMcBride must have been aware. That said, MZMcBride had the sense not to repeat the action, and had not been involved with the article beforehand, so the lesser approach is my first choice. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Submitted for consideration at the request of another arbitrator. In my view, unnecessary and overly harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is necessary; I hope that I will not be proven wrong. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully unnecessary. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride desysopped

3.3) MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrator privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means of an RfA or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:

Fourth choice. After reviewing MZMcBride protection log, I think MZMcBride entered the situation with "a bee in his bonnet" about articles being over protected. Instead of discussing the issue with other involved admin, he imprudently used his tools. Given that, and other separate instance of concern (which I will be discuss with the MZMcBride), I do not think that this entirely a single instance of poor judgment, and therefore a desysop could be an appropriate remedy. That said, I'm making it my fourth choice because I'm hopeful that MZMcBride will listen to the feedback from the Community and the Committee, and not repeat the actions in the future. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Submitted for consideration at the request of another arbitrator. In my view, unnecessary and overly harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is necessary; I hope that I will not be proven wrong. James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully unnecessary. Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride admonished and restricted for 90 days

3.4) MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in which he is involved as an editor (such as changing the protection status of an article he is actively editing). MZMcBride is instructed not to unprotect or reduce the edit-protection status of any article substantially constituting the biography of a living person for a period of 90 days. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges.

Support:

No other choices. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice (with same weight as my other second choice.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo, first choice: either this alone, or 3 and 3.1 together, are my first choice. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is just a combination of 3 and 3.1, which were indicated as being cumulative, not alternative, and I believe that 3.1 has already been implicitly rejected. In any event, I believe any need for a remedy beyond the admonition has faded, particularly given that six weeks have passed since the events at issue in this case without any subsequent similar incidents involving MZMcBride being reported to us, and with the case otherwise about to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

In line with comments on 3.1, which I believe is now passing due to abstentions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe 3.1 is passing; those are "second choice" votes, mostly subordinate to support for 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing BLP discussion

4) The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved, with a view toward continuing to mitigate the harms caused by BLP violations while also reducing any negative impact created by the necessary enforcement measures themselves. The developers are urged to give priority attention to any needed software enhancements that may be needed to implement new features recommended by consensus of the community with respect to these matters.

Support:

Some ideas that I believe deserve further attention are listed on the Workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, ArbCom highlights the importance of the BLP policy and urges the Community to address concerns about content about living people as a top priority. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fayssal - wiki up^® 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {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.

Passing are:
- Proposed principles 1-10;
- Proposed findings of fact 1-6; and
- Proposed remedies 1, 2, 3, and 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closure delayed, further to James F.'s 11th hour opposition, and as per my relevant Clerks' noticeboard post. (This is pending, of course, any Arbitrator who has not yet voted, casting a further vote on the motion.) Anthøny ✉ 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing tomorrow. James oppose has now expired, 2 days after it was posted ("oppose for 48 hours," was the precise wording). Therefore, I am interpreting the tally at the below motion to close to be a net support of 4 to close, and ergo, will close this case tomorrow morning. (This is, of course, pending a request to the contrary from an Arbitrator; correction from James; or the placing of further (oppose) votes by other members of the Committee.) Anthøny (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag. (For Arbitrators.)
Further to the recently-cast votes, I still see no change in what proposals are to be implemented. (See Newyorkbrad's list, above, for full details.) There have been changes, however, in the voting tallies, with some "sub-remedies" (eg., 2.1) coming to reach the majority; Arbitrators, please do double-check my findings here [well, they were Brad's in the first instance, but I am now reiterating them].
Anthøny (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we need to sort out which remedies pass. I struck my close vote so that arbs can looks to see if they want to leave the case as it stands or cast new votes. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I'll stand by for guidance. If I may offer some guidance: the remedies which are causing confusion are those relating to Jossi: 2), 2.1), 2.2), 2.3), 2.4), and 2.5); and those relating to MZMcBride: 3), 3.1), 3.2), 3.3), 3.4), 3.5). My evaluation is that, of those 12, 2) and 3)—the original proposals—have the most support, after one has factored in first/second choice weighting. 3.1) technically also has plentiful support, but 2 Arbitrators have abstained, and the level of support is still lesser than 3); the same goes for 2.1) vs. 2). Anthøny (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As noted by Newyorkbrad in this statement, "This is just a combination of 3 and 3.1, which were indicated as being cumulative, not alternative, and I believe that 3.1 has already been implicitly rejected.", 3 was not to be seen as a completely separate alternative from the others since the admonishment should happen alone or with the other sanctions. The original numbering and voting did not make this clear so we need to figure out how to determine if whether 3.1 and 2.1 passes if every vote for the admonishment and voluntary restriction passes. It might take a re-vote after renumbering to make it clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I approached 2.1 and 3.1 as additional proposals, not alternatives, but a majority of arbitrators saw them as true alternatives and voted accordingly (indicating them as a second choice). The fact that 2.4 and 3.4 (the explicitly cumulative proposals) have not passed on any reckoning, and indeed attracted some opposes, also indicates that the Committee as a whole has approached these as alternatives. I think that they do not pass. Perhaps if Brad and Sam revisit their votes; their abstentions alter the majority and bring this whole matter into issue anyway. --bainer (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am changing my abstentions to negatives to help clarify this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The implementation note as above stands. I believe this can now close promptly, though couldn't quarrel with waiting one more day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (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.

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

Support

Move to close. Everything needed for a decision has passed, and there has been ample time for consideration of the remedy alternatives or the addition of new proposals. I will be glad to hold the closure in abeyance for a few days if other arbitrators wish to vote or if there are new proposals to be offered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm that it is time to close this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, a complete case, unless other arbs want to vote or add proposals. (The PD has been up slightly less than one week so we can hold up if other arbs want to vote). FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Strike my close vote for now because this is still an active case with many votes cast in the past 2 days. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill ^(prof) 21:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my close. New proposals and too many new votes to satisfy me that the case is not still active. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close, with the most recent comments by bainer and Newyorkbrad, I think we are done now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose for 48 hours; I think FoF7 should pass, and would invite Flo, Josh, and Sam to revisit their comments. James F. (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded below your comment on Fof7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose for now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Move to close, now that bainer and Newyorkbrad have clarified their views. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]