Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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 from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Basic stuff. Vassyana ( talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views or soapboxing.

Support:

1. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Nor should it be a place for general discussion of the subject article. Risker ( talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Agreeing with Risker's additional statement. Vassyana ( talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Several parties have crossed this line here, as well as others not originally named in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

1. Not quite as relevant, since after a while 194x edited elsewhere, but still noting. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Wizardman. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

   I don't want to delay this case for peripheral discussions over wording, but perhaps the abstainers can suggest a wording that would satisfy their concerns the next time this is used. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

   Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. It may not match exactly the current case, but it influences how an editor's contributions are evaluated globally. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Risker ( talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Contradict myself. Judas now has a finding about him; this should be kept, with the Judas finding as an instructive example. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per position on the same proposal in the Macedonia 2 case. -- bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Quibble over wording. I fear that the "non-neutral" will reinforce the misperception that NPOV is about some objective neutrality or "fairness". Also, very few (if any) editors are truly neutral, leaving this open to wikilawyering and abuse. I would prefer that "non-neutral" is replaced with "agenda-driven" or a similar phrasing. It is not worth opposing over, but it does prevent me from supporting, even though I approve of the recognition that SPAs are subject to strict strutiny in relation to agenda-driven editing. Vassyana ( talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Vassyana. I also retain concerns that such principles will be used to bite new users. A certain amount of time, along with several attempts to suggest broadening of interests, should be allowed before concluding that an account is only here for a single purpose. That said, in this case, there was indeed a clear SPA, but that was Judas278, not 194x144x90x118. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

   Per Carcharoth. Out of scope. Cool Hand Luke 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

4) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Absolutely. 3RR is an electric fence, not a rationed limit. Vassyana ( talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Where a dispute exists at an article between editors who are or were customers of a business (that is described by that article), and editors are unable to edit in an unbiased manner due to their prior experiences of the products and services of that business, then attempts should be made to obtain third party opinions, and to encourage editing of the article by editors with no prior knowledge of the company or the disputes.

Support:

1. This relates to the editing of the DreamHost article, but applies to other articles as well. This principle is not meant to imply in any way that being a customer (whether satisfied or not) is a conflict of interest, but is meant to point out the problems that can arise if editors with viewpoints informed by their experiences end up unbalancing the article either way. Previous general discussion on the topic of editing business articles has failed to reach a consensus: failed proposal. There was also recent discussion at the village pump. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Wizardman 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per Brad below; I would normally have simply abstained given that this principle is harmless if of dubious utility, but I'd rather it not pass by weight of abstentions. "Meh" is a poor foundation for a decision. —  Coren  ^(talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Good advice but there are a number of appropriate courses of action open to people with conflicts of interest of which this is one, and this is too precise in that context. -- bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose per bainer. Cool Hand Luke 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I take the same issue with "unbiased" as I do with "non-neutral" above and refrain from support for the same reason. Otherwise, I agree with this principle. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

   I think general principles swallow this note. Cool Hand Luke 17:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Not sure this is settled practice, at this point, although it is generally good advice. Risker ( talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. This is aspirationally wonderful, but as a practical matter, editors with "no prior knowledge" of a company will rarely take a lot of time to edit its article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

6) When an editor of an article faces allegations of improper conduct, such as article ownership or failing to deal with potential conflicts of interest, then review of both sides of the dispute by uninvolved editors should be sought at the relevant noticeboards or the article talk page. If such independent reviews find cause for concern, then steps should be taken to deal with the issues raised. Such steps can include statements of disclosure in an editor's userspace, commitments to reduce involvement in an article, warning an editor for making groundless accusations, or agreeing to pursue further stages in dispute resolution.

Support:

1. Persistent allegations have been made both before and during this recent dispute, and a principle on the correct way to address such disputes, and standards for conduct when making and facing such allegations, may help here. Allowing them to fester does no-one any good. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I probably would choose different wording, but this is essentially a point I often raise about disputes in general. Outside input needs to be solicited from the community more often in many disputes. Additionally, parties to a disagreement should heed the advice and suggestions received through such solicitation. That said, there were some attempts to utilize such venues in this dispute. Vassyana ( talk) 15:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. OK. Cool Hand Luke 17:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Vassyana and Carcharoth. Risker ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Although it could be wise to add that while soliciting external advice is good, willingness to heed it is also important. —  Coren  ^(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. bainer ( talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) 194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor since April 2009, has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages, [1] [2] [3] personal attacks, [4] edit warring, [5] [6] [7] [8], [9], [10] [11] and a lack of a desire to abide by policy [12]. The first attacks and soapboxing took place on DreamHost and its talkpage, but similar behavior has subsequently occurred on other subjects. [13] [14] [15]

Support:

1. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Copyedited the second sentence; Wizardman please check and make sure you concur. Many more instances of personal attacks and severe incivility could be added, only some of which are captured on the evidence page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Vassyana ( talk) 13:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Very poor conduct, only slightly ameliorated by being a new user. Should have been dealt with before it reached arbitration, which it might have been if more people had been aware of, or commented on, the request for comments, or undertaken a fuller review. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Though per Brad below, #2 could easily be folded into this, and it could be clarified that it is the account that has existed since April 2009. -- bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Prior to registering an account, 194x144x90x118 edited as an unregistered user from April 2007 to April 2009.

Support:

1. Noting this here to flag up a block of the IP and the discussions on the IP's talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Was indeed a longer block record. Cool Hand Luke 17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Risker ( talk) 17:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. (Although as a matter of style and chronology, this could be folded into finding 1.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Factual (though I'm not entirely certain how relevant it may be). —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) The locus of the dispute between 194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs) and Scjessey ( talk · contribs) is the DreamHost article, an article that was created in July 2005. Scjessey has edited the article since February 2006. The most recent set of disputes started in March and April 2009, and also included Judas278 ( talk · contribs) and administrator SarekOfVulcan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), among others.

Support:

1. Fuller description and links, including article statistics, can be found here. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. But would prefer some light copyediting before we close, per comments on the workshop. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Although purely as a matter of style, any locus finding would typically be the first finding. -- bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) One of the accounts involved in this dispute, Judas278, who retired on 9 July 2009, was a single-purpose account that made 282 edits from March to July 2009, all to the DreamHost article ( 69 edits), its talk page, or related discussions. 194x144x90x118, another account involved in this dispute, has made over 500 edits since registering in April 2009, with 81 article space edits split mainly between Icelandic/Norse history, the Bobby Fischer article and related chess articles, and the DreamHost article (12 edits). The majority of the editing by Judas278 and 194x144x90x118 has been to article talk pages and user talk pages.

Support:

1. Setting out this description here to make clear that the SPA principle clearly doesn't apply to 194x144x90x118, and that most of his editing is in talk spaces, although, as covered elsewhere, the nature of the contributions there is not good. It should also be clear that 194x144x90x118 was not a lone voice in that dispute. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Factually accurate, and helpful here given some of the concerns raised by commenters; although normally the fact that an account is not an SPA doesn't need its own finding, nor does reference to a user who retired two months ago. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my position on similar proposals in the Macedonia 2 case, the "single-purpose account" label is clearly understood as a pejorative one within the community (regardless of attempts to cast it as descriptive) and I would rather limit its use to users with a disruptive agenda, that is, users who confine their contribution to a narrow area intending to be disruptive in that area. The actual editing of Judas278 is not considered in this or other proposals, nor significantly considered in the evidence so far, so I'm not going to support the use of the label here. -- bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

5) The history of disputes and dispute resolution at the DreamHost article since March 2009 includes threads at the administrators noticeboard ( 1, 2), several blocks and article protection for two months, along with a period of talk page semi-protection ( [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), extensive talk page discussions ( 1, 2), informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal ( 1, 2), more ANI threads ( 1, 2), an article request for comments ( 1), a rejected request for arbitration ( [21]), a user conduct request for comments ( 1), and finally an accepted request for arbitration ( [22]). In addition (since the article's creation), there have been three deletion discussions ( 1, 2, 3), a request for Editor assistance ( 1), and (more recently) requests for advice from venues such as WikiProject Companies, the Conflict of interest noticeboard, the Content noticeboard, and the Neutral point of view noticeboard ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Not all requests for advice gained a response.

Support:

1. Full timeline can be found here. This finding illustrates the chronic nature of the dispute and also highlights earlier successful advice, as well as failures to deal with some problems earlier. Articles such as this really shouldn't end up being disputed to this extent. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Background. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Several of the past and current editors, including several of those engaged in disputes at the DreamHost article, are self-identified customers or former customers of the company. One of the points disputed during the talk page discussions was editorial objectivity when discussing article content related to criticisms and praise of the company [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (last paragraph).

Support:

1. Brings out the nature of the dispute. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. think it is helpful to point out. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure about the weight this is given. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

7) Third parties, without prior involvement in the dispute, have expressed concern about issues of article ownership and potential conflicts of interest relating to Scjessey's editing of the DreamHost article [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Scjessey has consistently rejected such concerns [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].

Support:

1. Making clear that others have expressed their concerns here, not just the editors involved in the disputes. Scjessey's responses are also provided. Further context can be found in the article talk page archives. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Straightforward. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Coren makes a valid point, but really the major part of the finding relates to Scjessey's handling of third-party concerns, which is really independent of the veracity of the concerns (beyond good faith, and some minimum level of credibility). -- bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Per bainer. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm worried that taking "judicial notice" of expressed concerns is rather unwise; it enshrines allegations without the usual burden of evidence and it has dubious value on its own. I'm sure once can find someone to express most any concern, justified or not. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Not sure this rises to the level of ArbCom finding. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

8) Scjessey, a long-time contributor to the DreamHost article, disclosed that he was a DreamHost user [40] before he started editing the article in 2006, and made various other disclosures over the following three years. Following discussions related to the recent disputes, he created a COI notice in his userspace on 5 July, followed by a fuller disclosure notice on 9 July. In addition to this, Scjessey made a commitment at the conflict of interest noticeboard to scale back his involvement in the article following the resolution of the disputes.

Support:

1. Formal finding to note the developments that followed after various discussions on these matters. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Straightforward. Vassyana ( talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I think this is best practices. Commendable. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. okay. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. OK.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. So he did. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) {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) 194x144x90x118 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Wizardman 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2. The block log reflects only a 24-hour block in May, so normally this would be quite an escalation, but the history of dispute resolution attempts culminating in this arbitration, and the user's comments, demonstrate that 194x144x90x118 has failed to modify his behavior despite knowing that it was widely considered problematic and that he was at risk of severe sanctions. Also, that the problematic behavior has continued even during the arbitration case itself, and that there has been no meaningful suggestion by 194... that he is prepared to change his approach to editing and to his fellow contributors, suggests that a lesser sanction is unlikely to be effective. It might be worth adding a provision to the decision imposing some form of civility restriction or the like should 194... resume editing following the ban. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

   Updating now to also note the finding about the IP block above, but also to agree with Carcharoth's comments below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

3. User had a substantial warning when the DreamHost case was narrowly rejected, and he had another chance to consider his behavior at RFC. Finally, he could have altered it in the course of this case. He did not. This remedy is overdue. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
5. I think that this editor has shown unwillingness to behave collegiately. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. I do not believe there are other viable options, for the reasons laid out by Newyorkbrad and Cool Hand Luke. Vassyana ( talk) 13:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. I do think that a lesser ban, for six months, should have been a voting option, and I remain wary of banning someone who has only been editing as an account for a few months (a topic ban by an admin before it got to arbitration would have been better), but they have been here since 2007, and failure to change conduct or recognise the need to change, even while at arbitration (and the earlier block while editing as an IP), lead me to support this ban. The mentoring proposal on the talk page can be considered if 194x144x90x118 appeals in 3-6 months, or if he returns in a year and the conduct is improved. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

Support:

1. Blanket remedy aimed at all current active editors of the article. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I would add "or have reached an impasse" to the end, but I support this regardless. Vassyana ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Okay.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Entirely reasonable reminder. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
10. bainer ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Risker ( talk) 15:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
12. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1,2,3,4,5 and 6

Passing findings: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8

Passing remedies: 1 and 2

Passing enforcement provisions: None

Proposals which do not pass

Failed principles: None

Failed findings: None

Failed remedies: None

Failed enforcement provisions: None

- Mailer Diablo 23:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

- Seddσn ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Wizardman 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Everything is a unanimous pass, what are we waiting for? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

The voting hasn't even been open 48 hours. Carcharoth also raises some valid concerns. Let's take enough time to allow all the arbs an opportunity to review and comment (we don't even have a majority of arbs voting at all on principle 1 for example), as well as consider any further evidence in light of the aforementioned concerns. -- Vassyana ( talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Things are moving along. Striking to allowing a quick close once voting is done on the new proposals and Carcharoth strikes his oppose (which automatically will strike CHL's and Fayssal's per their votes below). Vassyana ( talk) 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm still reviewing the evidence in this case. Also, new evidence has been entered and more may be added, so the decision may potentially be incomplete. Asking that the close be held for a few days until this new evidence has been looked at and potential further findings and remedies posted if needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I'm done here, but I will let others strike their opposes as and when needed (rather than take up the offer to strike other's votes for them), both to allow Brad and bainer and others time to vote, and to allow the parties time to discuss the new proposals on the proposed decision talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose for now to provide additional time so that other parties can be examined. Carcharoth may cross this oppose when he crosses his own to speed eventual closure. Cool Hand Luke 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Per Cool Hand Luke. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Temporary oppose, with apologies for the delay. I'm travelling with limited Internet time and access over the holiday weekend and won't be able to study the new proposals until Tuesday. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Now voted, no objection to closure, although I did not a couple of potential copyedits, above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment

1. Move to close. Seddσn ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply