all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

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

Edit warring

1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Autobiography

2) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption

3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained tendentious editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

4) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Privacy

5) Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. Users do not need to reveal their offline identities to edit Wikipedia.

Support:

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not really relevant. Fred Bauder 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not applicable given lack of finding based hereon. James F. (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not convinced either way... Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

6) The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility

7) 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. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) This dispute is centered on Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles such as Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham. Jonathan Sarfati is a creationist who was trained as a scientist. Agapetos angel and several anonymous editors are suspected to be either him or associated with him.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

2) Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 have engaged in tendentious editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Opposing parties

3) There has been significant tendentious editing to these articles by others who oppose the creationist point of view.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Second choice. James F. (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either version. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

See modified version. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing parties (more explicit)

3.1) There has been significant tendentious editing to these articles by others who oppose the creationist point of view. Other edit warriors besides Agapetos angel include Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk (see evidence).

Support:

I think the "others" should be explicitly named. Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. James F. (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Duncharris misuses rollback

4) Duncharris has misused his administrative rollback tool to make repeated reverts of non-vandalism in a content dispute. This occurred on multiple occasions. e.g.: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Support:

Oppose:

Administrative rollback is not forbidden in cases of non-vandalism; rather, Wikipedia:Reverting states "If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." Impoliteness and misuse are quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a serious infraction Fred Bauder 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Agapetos angel et al. banned

1) Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Opposing editors warned

2) Other editors who have engaged in tendentious editing with respect to Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles are reminded of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Second choice. James F. (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
second choice Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer modified version (edit warring as well). Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

...modified

2.1) Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk are reminded of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They are instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles.

Support:

Prefer explicit naming, also added specific warning about edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. James F. (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Duncharris banned

3) Duncharris is banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles.

Support:

Being the most severe edit warrior here besides Agapetos angel in combination with the repeated rollback abuse is enough for me. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps later if he keeps it up. Fred Bauder 14:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

For now, still thinking. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. Blocks to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Implementation notes

Principle #5 fails.
FoF #3.1 passes in favor of #3 (more first choices).
FoF #4 fails.
Remedy #2.1 passes in favor of Remedy #2 (more first choices).
Remedy #3 fails.
All proposals not mentioned pass. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

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.

Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. James F. (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]