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 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 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 users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously sanctioned in three Arbitration cases (Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health, Mr-Natural-Health, and John Gohde) for inappropriate behavior. Since then, he has continued to engage in a variety of such behavior, including incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([1], [2], [3], [4]), grossly inappropriate commentary ([5], [6]), attacks in external forums ([7]), soapboxing ([8]), and gaming the system ([9]).

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. The evidence reflects numerous and serious acts of problematic user conduct, in the wake of the user's having returned from a one-year ban imposed by this committee based upon earlier instances of the same behavior. Because the on-wiki conduct warrants a severe sanction, I do not think it is necessary to rely on the user's negative remarks about Wikipedia and its administrators on an external site or to decide whether his conduct on that site rises to the level of extreme off-wiki attacks warranting this committee's attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Newyorkbrad, it is not necessary to look at the off-wiki activity here, although it does reinforce the finding in respect of on-wiki activity. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Note: I've amended the above to include a third Arbitration case.[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[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) John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Deskana (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. bainer (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Paul August ☎ 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Should he return to the project at the conclusion of the ban, John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be banned by any uninvolved administrator for escalating periods of time beginning at not over 30 days for conduct substantially similar to that addressed by this case.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 07:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Escalating" and "beginning at" seems to provide plenty of leeway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Oppose. I do not think limiting the blocks to 30 days is wise. This gives admins less leeway to deal with him than they do with the other users. Let's deal with it when the user returns. FloNight (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Kirill 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also per FloNight. bainer (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I would have supported a provision of this nature (perhaps with slightly different wording per FloNight) had it been offered in the original proposed decision or shortly thereafter, but at this point I don't think the closing should be delayed. I trust that administrators, the Committee, and/or the community would be prepared to deal expeditiously with a user who resumed disruptive editing after returning from two successive one-year bans. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {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.

• Straightforward close. Everything passes nem. con. except remedy 2, which remains open for voting until closing, which should be 24 hours after the fourth net vote to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close time noted, will be closed some time during late January 12 unless there are developments. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 12 January 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. Move to close; everything passes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. FloNight (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. The decision ready for adoption is complete. While I understand the purpose of proposed remedy 2, I believe it is dispensible under the circumstances per my abstention comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Kirill 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. bainer (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]