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 of whom none are recused, 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:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not useful as worded; not everything that's verifiable warrants inclusion. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not bar inclusion of information regarding the ethnicity or religious affiliation of prominent public figures.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus of dispute is Lewis Libby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specifically whether Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies with respect to disclosure of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly inserted information regarding Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation into Lewis Libby, providing reliable sources supporting that information.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) A number of other editors, including Notmyrealname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have repeatedly removed information and supporting references from Lewis Libby. Numerous justifications for the removal of this information have been given including the privacy provisions of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, allegations of yellow badging and providing support for conspiracy theorists.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Lewis Libby is a prominent public figure.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) NYScholar has violated no significant policy with respect to the locus of this dispute.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. He's certainly edit-warred, at the very least. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC), per Kirill.[reply]
3. Edit warring. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

6) {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) In light of the understandable concern regarding exploitation by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation, those editors who have repeatedly reverted this information and removed references to it are granted an amnesty.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Prefer 1.1; neither side has been stellar here. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Per Kirill[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1.1) In light of the ambiguity in the BLP policy, as well understandable concern regarding the effects of including such information, those editors who have edit-warred over it it are granted an amnesty.

Support:

1. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Editors who continue to edit war over this matter in contradiction to our ruling may be appropriately sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) This ruling does not give license for inclusion of conspiracy theories. They may be treated as vandalism.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. License for revert-warring due to vandalism being exempt from the 3RR; I think this can be left to editorial judgement. Kirill 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) This should go without saying, (although with an application of WP:AGF, such edits would not qualify as vandalism per se.)[reply]
4. SimonP 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

The proposals I have made are intended to deal with the underlying issue and do not address the manifold manifestations which have resulted from failure to promptly resolve that issue. They assume good faith on the part of both parties.

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. Passing are proposed principles 1, 2, 3, and 4; proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3, and 4; and proposed remedies 1.1 and 2. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 11 July 2007 (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. Move to close Fred Bauder 10:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]