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 (excluding 1 who is recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

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

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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 Information

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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; 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

3) 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

4) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:

Kirill 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
And users who find themselves criticised should participate in dispute resolution, and try to regard criticism as constructively as possible. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Content disputes

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The present dispute is centered around the content of the waterboarding article (notably, the nature and definition of the term, and the question of whether or not the practice is a form of torture). It has been exacerbated by numerous instances of unseemly conduct from editors on different sides of the matter.

Support:

Kirill 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is certainly true, although it could be argued that additional findings should be made. (See my comments under remedy 1, below.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {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.

Article probation

1) Waterboarding and all closely related pages are subject to standard article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from some or all of these pages by any uninvolved administrator; editors that violate such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Kirill 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I will support, but with two comments, one procedural and one substantive. The procedural question is whether there is any reason to treat the proposals here as two separate remedies, or whether they should be combined ("editors making disruptive edits on the page may be subject to an appropriate restriction, such as a revert limitation or a ban from the page"). The substantive question is whether it suffices in this casefor the committee to impose a forward-looking remedy only, without findings and remedies for the disruption that has already occurred. In many cases I support such a resolution, which effectively draws a line and points the way to what we hope will be better editing practices and levels of civility in the future, but in this case I am not certain that transferring the entirety of the problem from the committee to the administrators on the Arbitration Enforcement page is the best course, especially since there have been sock allegations and checkuser requests. I would welcome thoughts from Kirill and other arbitrators on these issues. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Could you spell out your reasoning more? I'm not entirely sure that I understand your concerns. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree this is needed. It is clear additional investigations of problematic editors are likely to continue to be needed, but I believe they can be handled within the existing channels of Requests for checkuser and Suspected sock puppet reports. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

General restriction

2) Any editor working on waterboarding or any closely related page may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Support:

Kirill 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per my comments on remedy 1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Logging of sanctions

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Kirill 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the heading should be changed to "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions", for this case and/or on the template for future cases. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

2) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {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.

Straightforward implementation; all proposals now pass. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:15, 14 February 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.

There being apparent consensus, I support closing the case as soon as all the currently proposed remedies pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per The Uninvited Co. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. I have offered a separate motion on WP:RfAr in connection with the issues raised concerning the Free Republic article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Kirill 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply