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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The purpose of user pages is to aid in encyclopedic collaboration. In keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, user pages may not be used for displaying religious, ethnic, national, or racial propaganda.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC) "Propaganda" and "self-identification" are very different, and I would expect sysops to be able to tell them apart.[reply]
3. This is right. And I disagree with Fred. We have always said "leave it at the door". Charles Matthews (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) First choice, per James.[reply]
5. Support with the understanding that enthusiastic self-identification can appear to be propaganda. We need to approach this with a light hand when enforcing. (First choice.) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Concerned that this may be used to prevent people from self-identifying as to nationality, religion, etc.[reply]
2. Too strong and quite grinchy. Anyone willing to disclose their passions and prejudices should be encouraged to do so. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2.1) The purpose of user pages is to aid in encyclopedic collaboration. In keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, user pages may not be used for propaganda or advocacy for causes unrelated to the project.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]

Oppose:

1. But knowing what a person loves and hates helps you to relate to them, for purposes of appropriate collaboration. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. First choice; removes the need for additional cases of this sort. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC) First choice[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) The disputes presented in this case focus specifically on issues related to Macedonia. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Macedonia-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice, per Kirill. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Better, but hard to interpret for many users (Second choice). Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {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) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC) First choice.[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. The provisions of this remedy shall expire in one year.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill 05:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Distant second choice, an open ended time is best. We can revisit the remedies later if needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. @2 Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]

Oppose:

1. Maybe ten years, but not one. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Reversing or otherwise interfering with the imposition of a discretionary sanction without (1) the consent of the administrator who imposed it, (2) extensive discussion and clear consensus at the administrators' noticeboard, or (3) the permission of the Committee will be grounds for summary desysopping.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC) See below, let's leave ourselves some flexibility[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, OK.[reply]
3. Good, but not the summary desyopping. Desysopping after repeated or deliberate infractions, and a hearing, yes. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per James and Fred. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2.1) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I disagree with Kirill; if a sysop does something for a friend rather than per policy, they have abused their status and should be brought to us.[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per James. Kirill 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. We want administrators to wade in and get involved without fear of being desyopped for making a blunder. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This will effectively exempt users with admin friends from sanctions. Kirill 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

• Given the lack of usable evidence, it is impractical to issue immediate sanctions to any particular party at this point. I am unconvinced that the general remedy would be insufficient, in any case; anyone behaving particularly disruptively will no doubt find themselves subject to it in short order. Kirill 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a time limit on the remedy? One year? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that new editors arrive continuously, I'm not convinced that a fixed duration would necessarily be better than an indefinite one. We can always lift it if it becomes too onerous. Kirill 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have is one of accumulation of outdated remedies. It doesn't have to be one year. Three years would be fine based on your concerns, which I think are reasonable. I share your concern that we don't really want to have to revisit this case every year. On the other hand, it is already quite difficult to get old cases reopened or modified, and I think that at some point the burden of getting a majority of committee members to support a motion should be on those who think the remedy is still relevant. Too, I don't think there would be anything wrong with starting a tradition of reaffirming old remedies every year, ideally shortly after the elections. We could do them all at once if there is no question that they are still relevant. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Move to close. everything settled accept P2/2.1, but I'm not sure that should prevent us from closing. Paul August ☎ 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. P2 isn't critical here. Kirill 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Charles Matthews 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]