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.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The use of proxy editors—individuals recruited to perform particular edits under the private direction of another party—is prohibited. This includes both simple cases, where one person might be asked by another to make an edit, as well as more complex arrangements, where an entire group of people is recruited to make edits desired by an individual or group.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) In cases where multiple user accounts are acting with a similar modus operandi, it is often impossible to determine if they are accounts are operated by a single individual, proxy editors coordinating their actions externally, or even unrelated individuals who coincidentally happen to have shared interests and behaviors.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) In cases where multiple user accounts appear to be a group of sockpuppets or proxy editors acting in concert to disrupt Wikipedia, measures may be taken against them collectively, regardless of who may actually be operating them.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) A number of accounts have been identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33, including, but not limited to, BelindaGong, CleanSocks, DrGabriela, FionaS, Freethinker99, HK30, Kecik, Mercury2001, MikaM, NeoOne, NPOV77, Professor33, Rafaelsfingers, RTS, and Supergreenred.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) When the ban imposed on Giovanni33 is due to expire, the Committee shall vote on whether to allow the expiration. Absent a decision by the Committee to do so, the ban shall automatically be renewed for an additional year, and be subject to this renewal procedure upon its expiration.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm uncomfortable with this mechanism. It's an end-run against our usual maximum one-year ban. Either we should ban him permanently, or not. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Josh. The rule of max-1-year isn't some amusing anecdote around which we should attempt to run. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Can't see any special circumstance requiring this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I see no reason to break from usual one year ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No need for this.[reply]

Abstain:

3) All accounts identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33 in the findings of this decision, as well as any account subsequently identified by an administrator as a likely sockpuppet or proxy of him, are banned from Wikipedia until such time as the ban on Giovanni33 is lifted.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Paul August ☎ 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) All bans imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

1. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

All proposed except R2 pass. Daniel (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote to close is certified. Will do so late Sunday evening. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Close. Everything passes except R2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close, although I'd prefer to convince rather than over-rule those who think rolling bans are a good idea. James F. (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was seeing it the other way around. Seeing the existing oppose votes, I largely voted oppose not wanting to push through a rolling ban where several arbs did not think it was necessary (or a good idea.) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My objection isn't that it is unnecessary; my objection is that it is not a good idea. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, modified to make your view more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Close. Kirill ^(prof) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. Paul August ☎ 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]