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 of whom none are 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

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Trolling

2) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Harassment

3) Use of Wikipedia to harass other editors is prohibited. Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Remedies for sustained patterns of behavior

5) Otherwise valuable users who engage in sustained patterns of disruptive behavior may be briefly banned for each incident on a continuing basis.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Care in moving pages

6) Moves, especially when disambiguation pages are used rather than simple redirects, may result in many broken links. Although it is not the sole responsibility of the mover, as bot-assisted editors can much more efficiently fix the problem, care should be taken to ensure that this will happen in a timely fashion.

Support:

To go with FoF 4.1, below. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Tobias Conradi

1) The locus of this dispute is the sustained disruptive behavior of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community discussions regarding Tobias Conradi

2) There has been substantial discussion regarding Tobias Conradi's behaviour - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi, Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive7#User:Tobias_Conradi, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive82#Tobias_Conradi, deleted user page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi. Earlier material Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse, [1]

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in some text as well, implied. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Moves

3) There has been an ongoing controversy regarding Tobias_Conradi's moves, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Evidence#Controversial_moves_without_first_seeking_consensus Examination of the moves show them to be generally well founded; however, there is often resistance to his choices [2]. With respect to that particular edit, see poll and discussion of move and reversion, note the acrimonious tone. Giano, 2005.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Broken links

4) Moves, especially when disambiguation pages are used rather than simple redirects, may result in many broken links. Tobias Conradi has been rather obtuse regarding this problem, insisting that clearing up such problems are not his responsibility [3]. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Evidence#Editors_asking_Tobias_to_fix_the_wiki_links_broken_by_him_moving_pages_around.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

It is courteous to fix broken links, but as volunteers I don't think there is any obligation to do so. Moreover with bot assisted editing certain users can make such changes very rapidly, and it can actually be an inefficient use of time for editors without these tools to spend a great deal of effort on these fixes. SimonP 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Simon; see alternative, below. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ArbCom doesn't make policy on these matters. Charles Matthews 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courteous action in creation of broken links

4.1) Tobias Conradi has not exercised sufficient care in moving pages to ensure that broken links are fixed, disclaiming any responsibility [4]. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence#Editors asking Tobias to fix the wiki links broken by him moving pages around.

Support:

Tieing in with P6. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Accusation of Tobias Conradi

5) According to Tobias Conradi, "There is a whole culture of corruption and admin rights abuse.", see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi/admin_right_abuse and the contents of the deleted page, User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Incivility

6) Tobias Conradi is sometimes quite rude. Called on his behavior, he habitually responds with a rejoinder of some sort, see Talk:Jambi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence#Incivility, a particularly egregious example.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

User talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

7) Tobias Conradi has presented evidence and grievances at User talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Obtuse behavior

8) At times Tobias Conradi adopts a posture of not being aware of common Wikipedia conventions [5]

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Benefit of doubt, per Simon. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Willing to believe he was just looking for clear evidence of the policy. - SimonP 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

9) Tobias Conradi has engaged in edit warring over trivial matters [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. His position was apparently that it was the responsibility of other editors to "fix" the page title.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {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.

Civility parole

1) Tobia Conradi may be blocked up to an hour by any administrator for any personal attack or violation of civility. Blocks need not be logged.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1RR

2) Tobias Conradi is limited to one revert per week on any article. This includes moves.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Laundry lists of grievances

3) Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how well this will be interpreted. James F. (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Tobias Conradi violate any ban or prohibition imposed by this decision, he may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour. Blocks need not be logged.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Question for Fred and others. Why is there no escalation built into the blocks? I can see the limit for personal attacks and incivility if he stops. The next separate incident can be treated the same way. But if he immediately returns and continues the same incident I think making the community request and admin do multiple short blocks might be more problematic than a longer block. It is the constant complaining that wore on the community and caused the case. I think the admins need some leeway here. Also if he start a laundry list of grievances and will not agree to its removal, a longer block might be required. Thoughts? FloNight 23:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent short blocks offer opportunities for change that year long blocks don't. Fred Bauder 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 close—everything with 6 votes passes. As noted in the motion to close, James F.'s new proposals on page moves would not be addressed if the case closes now. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 20 May 2007 (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.

Support

Move to close. I don't think the ArbCom should be micro-managing move policy, so I'd prefer to deal with this as currently stands. Charles Matthews 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. - SimonP 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. I don't disagree with James on courtesy, but as Charles we don't need to involve ourselves. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to close. Note that "my" proposals were merely tightened wordings of others', and I'm not particularly attached to them. As to the lack of ratchetting, I think that it is best for this case. James F. (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Until the issue about the length of the blocks is resolved. [11] I think this could be a problem going forward and is better to address it before we finish the case. FloNight 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]