1) It is a violation of civility to disclose personal information regarding any other user, see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Does not allow for beneficial exceptions.[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1.1) Wikipedia is not a forum for disclosure of nonpublic personal information, whether in regard to an article subject, a Wikipedia editor, or an individual unrelated to the project. However, nonpublic personal information may be disclosed in specific circumstances detailed in the privacy policy.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Exactly citing the policy is best, I think. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. SimonP 13:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Editors are expected to be reasonably civil and courteous to one another. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other Wikimedia projects, is extremely disruptive.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Editors may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) When an editor has chosen to edit Wikipedia anonymously, other users must not disclose the editor's real name or personal identifying information on-wiki, even if the information has been revealed in another online project or forum.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This could be interpreted as allowing an editor to openly announce their identity and use of a particular account off-wiki while still having that information prohibited on-wiki. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Per Kirill; also, there are exceptions.[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

5.1) Users must not disclose any personally identifying information about an editor who has chosen not to openly do so himself, even if the information has been revealed by other parties in another online project or forum.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Again, there are exceptions, and I think this is still too strongly worded. As written, this would rule out allegations of sock puppetry, and would not allow editors to speculate that a particular editor might be someone who has a conflict of interest. While such speculation is often unhelpful, I do not believe it is useful to disallow it. I am not necessarily opposed to a principle regarding the "outing" of editors but if we have one it should be carefully framed with due regard to the precedent it may set. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The wording needs to be changed to address instances when discussion of personal information is allowable such as issues of banned users and sockpuppets, yes. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Per UC and Flo[reply]
4. Too inflexible. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Maybe. Possibly some tightening. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6) Where a person is notable in his or her own right, legitimate discussion of that person in appropriate articles is not restricted because that person happens to edit Wikipedia. In borderline situations, good judgment must be used in determining, for example, whether to refer to such a person as an example of a phenomenon rather than referring to a different individual.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Editing of Wikipedia is open to anyone who conforms to our policies.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) -jkb- (talk · contribs) and Zacheus (talk · contribs) (formerly V. Z. (talk · contribs)) have been involved in a complex series of disputes that originated on the Czech Wikipedia and have expanded to Meta Wiki. In the fall of 2006, the dispute spread to the English Wikipedia. Both editors behaved inappropriately by conduct such as importing external disputes into the English Wikipedia, making serious personal attacks on each other, and/or revealing personal identifying information about each other.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Both -jkb- (talk · contribs) and Zacheus (talk · contribs) (formerly V. Z. (talk · contribs)) have discontinued their objectionable behavior.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {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) -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behavior in this matter and are directed to refrain from:

1. Importing outside disputes, including disputes from other Wikimedia projects, into the English Wikipedia;
2. Disclosing on-wiki the real names of or other personal identifying information about each other or about any other editor; and
3. Making personal attacks or uncivil remarks toward each other or toward any other editor.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Kirill 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Paul August ☎ 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) James' "split" remedies are better. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) But also offer them as split if felt useful.[reply]

Oppose:

1. I think an enforcement clause is needed so I support the new remedies which make this enforcement fit better with our past findings. FloNight 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Indeed, splitting is needed here. Kirill 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) per Flo and Kirill.[reply]

Abstain:

1.1) -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behavior in this matter.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, splitting the two is better. FloNight 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.2) -jkb- and Zacheus are directed to refrain from:

1. importing outside disputes, including disputes from other Wikimedia projects, into the English Wikipedia;
2. disclosing on-wiki the real names of or other personal identifying information about each other or about any other editor; and
3. making personal attacks or uncivil remarks toward each other or toward any other editor.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. per my above comments I prefer this split remedy. FloNight 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 13:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should -jkb- or Zacheus, editing under any account name or IP, violate the direction contained in the "Remedies" section of this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Easier philosophically if we split the remedies, IMO.[reply]
3. Needed and now with the split remedies it fits better with our past case ruling. FloNight 13:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Works with the remedies split. Kirill 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

An admonition is, by definition, not enforceable; I see no reason to dilute the terminology used in our remedies to this extent. If blocking is needed, we should pass a ban or parole. Kirill 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to containing an admonition, remedy 1 above contains a direction to refrain from A B and C. it is that direction that this proposal is attempting to enforce. I've reworded it to reflect that. This proposal has two aims. To make it more likely that our direction will be followed, and to make it less likely we will have to be involved should our direction not be followed. Paul August ☎ 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) {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.

• Principles 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, and FoFs 1 and 2 pass. None of the remedies or the enforcement yet pass. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that with Fred away the remedies and enforcement may technically pass. In any case they do not appear to have drawn any objections. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment makes sense, but typically in counting the number of participating arbitrators we have considered that a given arb is in the case or out of it, rather than calculated paragraph-by-paragraph (except for actual abstentions). If the case closes as is, I suppose we can consider these items passed based on this comment, but it would probably be better to dun one more arbitrator to vote in this case rather than potentially change the policy. Newyorkbrad 04:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just voted, rendering this moot I hope ;) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:20, 17 August 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]