all proposed

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.
• 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 they so choose. 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.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 6 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.

Place those on /Workshop.

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Assume good faith[edit]

1) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

2) 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:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Support as a motherhood issue. But we do not want to make the mistake of requiring politeness to the point of stifling frank and robust discussion.[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability and sourcing[edit]

4) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research[edit]

5) Original research is prohibited. This includes a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; an argument is permissible only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the specific topic of the article.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation[edit]

6) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article itself on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Try this out Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I take UC's point. But I think article probation is worth a try here. If it fails we can revisit.[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I oppose probation generally and believe that the lack of community interest in the article to date is likely to lead to uneven enforcement of such a remedy, at best.[reply]

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article; these have been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved. Among other issues, the debate has focused around two related questions: whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. But shouldn't it be "loci"? jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. First. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1.1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article. Each of these points has been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer the more specific one, though. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to 1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute tags[edit]

2) A number of parties—including Advocatus diaboli, Constanz, Ghirlandajo, Grafikm_fr, Petri Krohn, Lysy, Irpen, and Martintg—have engaged in a revert war over the presence of the {{POV-title}} and {{noncompliant}} tags on the article.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Poor behavior[edit]

3) A number of the parties to the dispute, including Grafikm_fr ([1], [2]), Constanz ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), Advocatus diaboli ([8], [9]), Martintg ([10]), Lysy ([11]), and Petri Krohn ([12], [13]) have aggravated it by some form of poor behavior, such as engaging in personal attacks, assuming bad faith of the other editors involved, making attacks and accusations along national lines, or soapboxing.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Parties admonished[edit]

1) The parties named above as having acted poorly in this dispute are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation[edit]

2) The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Try this out Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Second choice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Per my notes at the related finding of fact, above; also, there should be a time limit so that if the Committee never reviews this, it will eventually expire.[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 2.1.[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't particularly like the last sentence, binding us to review the situation in one year. I prefer the right to review the situation, if appropriate, in one year; I've changed this in 2.1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with the cellist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation[edit]

2.1) The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. First. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I take UC's point. But I think article probation is worth a try here. If it fails we can revisit. And the clause that we reserve "the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate" really has no substantive meaning, since in my view we can review the article probation at any time.[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Per above.[reply]

Abstain:

Mediation[edit]

3) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article content issues that may still be outstanding.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continuing jurisdiction[edit]

1) If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

Vote[edit]

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. Close; everything's passed in one form or another. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Charles Matthews 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]