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 (excluding 1 who is recused and 1 who is inactive), so 8 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 Clerks' noticeboard. 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) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. 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. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. With the emphasis on the "good-faith". Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. As in past cases, the last clause is not precisely as I might word it, but any other arguable exceptions are not relevant to this case, so we can leave it until they become relevant in a future case to delineate their scope. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. I could quibble with nuances, but shan't. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. This needed saying. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. This principle (in slightly different words) has been set forth and applied several times in the past, including in the Stefanomencarelli and Franco-Mongol Alliance cases. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. To an extent this is why the Arbitration Committee was set up. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) Canvassing with a biased message and/or requesting intervention from partisan audiences is disruptive and sanctionable behavior. Editors fulfilling a biased or partisan canvassing request may be considered " meatpuppets".

Support:

# -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1. I should note that this is especially the case when they are otherwise single-purpose accounts, or nearly so. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Although there are gray areas here. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice, prefer 8.2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Carcharoth ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Switch to oppose per bainer. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

5. Wizardman 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

6. Second choice, prefer 8.2. Risker ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Equal first choice, with 8.2. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1 or 8.2; the last clause is overstated. -- bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. The last clause may be overstated. If I am brought to a discussion by biased canvassing and express my opinion, then the debate may be adversely affected because the bias in the selection of people to be recruited to the debate may artificially skew the consensus process—but I am not thereby rendered a "meatpuppet" in the sense of being there to express someone else's views rather than my own. Prefer 8.1, proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I was basing this association with meatpuppetry based on the language of the linked policy. Editing to fulfill a biased recruitment message is just about the definition of meatpuppetry. I'm not sure I understand your objection. Vassyana ( talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Per Newyorkbrad. A user with a genuine and sincerely held view who is canvassed by a supporter and comes to outline their view is not necessarily to be treated as a meatpuppet. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'd like to ask the both of you, if you would, to elaborate in the discussion section. I truly and honestly do not understand the line you are both drawing. Vassyana ( talk) 05:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3. Per Brad and Sam's valid concerns. -- Vassyana ( talk) 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

8.1) It may sometimes be appropriate to draw an important discussion to the attention of a broader range of editors, and of course it is desirable to bring new users to Wikipedia. However, biased canvassing, whether on- or off-wiki, is inappropriate and disruptive. Indicia of inappropriate canvassing may include bringing an on-wiki discussion to the attention of editors on only one side of the controversy, or urging off-wiki that new editors begin their Wikipedia participation by intervening with a predetermined position in a fractious discussion rather than by editing articles. Such attempts are inappropriate because they may distort and artificially skew the consensus process. Although all substantive points made in a discussion should be considered on their merits, in evaluating consensus, the participation of users who were brought to the debate through questionable canvassing, and particularly those who appear to be effectively expressing the views of those who recruited them rather than their own views, may be appropriately discounted.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Though I never saw the word "Indicia" used before. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Equal support with 8.2. -- bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 8.2. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Proposed 8.2. This needs to be a bit more simply. While I understand the point, due to Sam's excellent response in the discussion section, the closing phrase still seems problematic to me. Most people respond to biased canvassing because they already believe the recruiter is correct, not because they're simply regurgitating a view. Vassyana ( talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   This seems to be a longer way to say much the same as 8) without using the word "meatpuppet". Vassyana ( talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. I don't see the need for such a level of detail here. Kirill  ^[pf] 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Overdetailed, prefer 8.2 Wizardman 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 8.2, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. per Vassyana. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

8.2) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. However, biased canvassing, on- or off-wiki, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Single-purpose accounts created for this purpose may be treated as " meatpuppets".

Support:

1. Proposed. -- Vassyana ( talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Equal support with 8.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Ok. Kirill  ^[pf] 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Risker ( talk) 05:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Equal support with 8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Equal first choice, with 8. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Equal support with 8.1. -- bainer ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm not sure about the bit about discounting the views of canvassed editors. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1) The dispute is focused on Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. This topic has been the subject of long-standing and unresolved conflict. [1]

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Minor copyedit to second sentence. Other arbitrators please review, and revert if desired (my support will still stand). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The editing environment surrounding the Ayn Rand topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurrences. Notably, edit warring continued to occur even during this arbitration case ( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Also the appearance of new editors who are, or become, single-purpose accounts with no experience of, or interest in, other articles is a sure sign of prolonged disruptive edit-warring. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Dispute resolution has been underutilized in the Ayn Rand topic area. Venues for addressing content disputes, such as the reliable sources and no original research noticeboards, are rarely used. Avenues to resolve conduct concerns, such as requests for comment and the incidents noticeboard, have also rarely been sought out.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. In particular, mediation may be of help. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Minor copyedits, as above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Indeed, though mediation was sought before this RFAR, but rejected due to one party not agreeing to mediation. Little or no evidence of use of content dispute noticeboards. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. There has been substantial discussion, but only among regular editors of the article, not among the broader editing community. The key is dispute resolution that attracts external voices. -- bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) has been uncivil ( [7] [8]) and disruptive ( [9] [10] [11]). He has been blocked twice; once for disruption and the other time for vandalism ( disruption to make a point)( [12]). After the first block, he stated he would continue being disruptive, until banned ( [13]). He followed through with vandalism, receiving a one week block ( [14] [15] [16])

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Although I also note his commitment to improved behavior on the talkpage to this page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Textbook case of disruption by a new editor due to frustration (which is no excuse). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Per Carcharoth. -- bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Brushcherry ( talk · contribs) is an account primarily focused on Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( [17]). He admits to commenting flippantly ( [18]) (examples: [19] [20] [21] [22]), occasionally crossing the line into disruption. He appears to be non-partisan and acting in good faith.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 5.1; there's no need for us to speculate on appearances and good faith here. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. prefer 5.1, per kirill Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 5.1, I prefer to avoid commenting on motivation. Risker ( talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 5.1 Wizardman 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 5.1, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Per Kirill. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Prefer alternative wordings. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I don't consider occasional talkpage flippancy to be sanctionable; I'm guilty of it sometimes myself. Here there may have been a little too much of a good thing, but the diffs cited don't convince me this warrants an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I take the point about opening windows into his soul, although I can see where it came from. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

5.1) Brushcherry ( talk · contribs) is an account primarily focused on Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( [23]). He admits to commenting flippantly ( [24]) (examples: [25] [26] [27] [28]), occasionally crossing the line into disruption.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. More factual. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Brushcherry is a very new editor and clearly shows it; he appears to me to be acting predominantly in good faith. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Facts stated are correct, so am supporting this, but per Brad and Sam, do not think talk page flippancy is a sin in a new editor. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Though for an editor mainly focused on that article it is somewhat strange that they have never edited it. -- bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Same comment as on 5. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

6) Kjaer ( talk · contribs) has canvassed ( [29] [30]). It is very likely that the canvassing was effective and drew meatpuppets to the topic area (examples: [31] [32]). Kjaer has also been disruptive, such as pointedly templating regulars ( [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]), edit-warring on Ayn Rand ( [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]), and making bad faith accusations ( [43] [44]). He has been blocked for edit-warring ( [45]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. And, indeed this is a good example of improper canvassing. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. I might add the minor caveat that I'm not sure that the implicit reference to WP:DTTR has been used as the basis of an ArbCom decision before, but there is ample evidence of disruption in any event. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Agree that Kjaer's conduct does demonstrate why we have WP:DTTR. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) SteveWolfer ( talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility and bad faith accusations ( [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]), as well as edit-warring on Ayn Rand ( [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. I'm a little hesitant of qualifying anything as "bad faith", but there are few other reasonable explanations in this case. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. As a matter of semantics, it is not clear on first reading whether "bad faith accusations" means "accusations that are made in bad faith against another user" or "accusations that another user has acted in bad faith." Neither, of course, is desirable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) TallNapoleon ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring on Ayn Rand ( [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]). He also misrepresents WP:3RR as an entitlement to three reverts ( [62]), which explicitly states it is not an entitlement.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. The policy page is clear that 3RR doesn't entitle anyone to a set number of reverts, and TallNapoleon is obviously familiar with it. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that there's any intentional misrepresentation of the 3RR here ("Under normal circumstances I would not even have done this..."). Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Kirill. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 8.1. The 3RR rule is frequently misinterpreted in good faith. Risker ( talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 8.1 Wizardman 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Per Kirill, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Per Kirill. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Prefer 8.1. A single misdescription of a complex policy is not sanctionable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

8.1) TallNapoleon ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring on Ayn Rand ( [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Equal support to 8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) TheJazzFan ( talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility ( [68] [69] [70]). He has expressed a flippant attitude towards any sanctions that might be imposed against him, including stating that he would create sockpuppets to avoid restrictions ( [71] [72]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Made a minor copyedit, as above. I also am not sure that "flippant" is the right word here, but I haven't come up with a better one. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I believe TheJazzFan ought to have edited more articles about jazz, where he was helping, rather than getting sucked into this ongoing punch-up. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Classic case of a new editor getting distracted. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) Snowded ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring on Ayn Rand ( [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. It might be worth adding "on Ayn Rand" to this and a few of the other findings, to make it clear that the problems are focused on this article or topic and to tie the findings of fact directly into the remedies. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. With some reluctance. When other editors started off an edit-war, Snowded became a participant. It is not necessary for anyone to break the three revert rule in order to edit-war, to take one issue raised by Snowded on the talk page. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) Idag ( talk · contribs) has edit-warred on Ayn Rand ( [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]).

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Same comment as 10 (this also applies in a few other places where I haven't expressly said so). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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) Editors involved in the Ayn Rand topic area are warned to refrain from edit warring, incivility, soapboxing, and other disruptive behavior.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. It's a little overbroad, but the warning is nonetheless indicated. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. -- bainer ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This seems to be encompassed in every other remedy. Wizardman 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Not specific enough. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Which editors is this referring to? Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned and warned individually (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return or the ones who would still be allowed to contribute to the area's talk pages this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   While many would be subject to topic bans, many editors remain. Additionally, some of the topic bans permit continued talk page participation. I see this applying equally to the editors remaining, the editors topic banned but permitted to continue talk page participation, and any editors returning from a topic ban. Vassyana ( talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   1. The lead-in to my alternate proposal at 1.1 would make it clear that we are cautioning both experienced editors on this article (who should be familiar with the problems to date and what to avoid), as well as new editors on the article (to remind them to be on their best behavior as they approach a historically contentious topic area). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3. I think this is largely covered under 12. Risker ( talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 1.1, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1.1) Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments, and complying at all times with the policy on biographies of living persons in reference to the various living people whose names come up from time to time in these articles.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Good alternate. First choice. Vassyana ( talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[pf] 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. This one works. Wizardman 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Full of win. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. But this will only work for new editors if others warn them and make them aware of this. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. First choice. -- bainer ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The editors at the Ayn Rand article are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. The encouragement, no matter who is left to heed it, is a good one. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. For clarity, added last clause (beginning "in connection with"); revert if undesired (my support would still stand). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Though smaller, more specific mediations may help avoid what happened here (where one editor refused mediation). Editors should also not forget to use the content dispute noticeboards mentioned in Finding of fact 3 "Dispute resolution". Carcharoth ( talk) 00:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Re abstentions, can't hurt to reiterate. -- bainer ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return—or referring to the rest of editors or the ones who would still be allowed to contribute to the area's talk pages—this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Responded to the general point at 1). Vassyana ( talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1. I think this is largely covered under 12. Risker ( talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Risker, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3) Editors in the Ayn Rand topic area are reminded to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, but the individual content issues are deferred to the consensus process and community.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. That does not appear to be meaningful in context. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Wizardman 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Shouldn't need saying. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Coren. -- bainer ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Which editors is this referring to? Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Many—if not most—of the article's editors may end up being topic banned (see below). Unless we are explicitly referring to warning them after they return—or referring to the rest of editors—this remedy remains moot. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Responded to the general point at 1). Vassyana ( talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. I think this is largely covered under #12. Risker ( talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Probably subsumed by 1 or 1.1, 2, and 12. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Afraid I find this empty of substantial meaning. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Sam. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Sam, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4) Due to the likelihood of continued disruption, Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

# -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Second choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   First choice. Risker ( talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Supporting topic ban below. Risker ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4. Second choice, in favor the the better wording of 4.2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In view of comments on the talkpage, I cannot find that there remains a likelihood of continued disruption, and would support a more lenient sanction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Now that this editor has recognised the seriousness of the concerns and has taken steps to address them. Risker ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. This is a new editor. Prefer 4.3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 4.3. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Better wording below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Brad, it is apparent at this juncture that a lesser sanction is more appropriate. Vassyana ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4.1) Having made explicit threats of further disruption, Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) is permanently banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. First choice; there's no reason to limit a ban when someone is unambiguously threatening the project. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Abstaining for now. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   first choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Equal first with 4.2, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't think "permanently" banning anyone is required here; a set-time or indefinite ban is in keeping with community and committee standards. Risker ( talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. In view of recent comments on the talkpage, I cannot find a likelihood of continued disruption. Additionally, I do not find this an appropriate case for a "permanent" ban. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. The Arbitration Committee does not have the power to do this. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. This is a new editor. Prefer 4.3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 4.3. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Can we change the wording from "permanently" to "indefinitely", which seems more in-line with our conventions? Also, I'm having second thoughts about even an indefinite ban, though I still support a one year ban at this juncture. Vassyana ( talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 4.2 per Vassyana. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. see below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4.2) Having made explicit threats of further disruption, Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Proposed per Vassyana. Equal prference to 4. Wizardman 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Second choice. Risker ( talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) supporting topic ban below. Risker ( talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   first choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Second choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. First choice. Above all, Wikipedia requires editors to agree to improve the encyclopedia. Explicit threats to the contrary are not acceptable. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Fine. Kirill  ^[pf] 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. OK, permanent/indefinite, in reality no major difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   New First Choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

5. Equal first with 4.1, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The prior "explicit threats of further disruption" obviously were grossly unacceptable, as Stevewunder has now conceded, albeit at the eleventh hour. In view of recent comments on the talkpage, I cannot find that there remains a pending threat of further disruption. Accordingly, I would support a less severe sanction. Given my position on this issue, it is unnecessary for me to address whether this is an appropriate case in which to modify our long-term policy that with exceedingly rare exceptions, the Committee does not ban any user for more than one year. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. The Arbitration committee does not have the power to do this. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Now that this editor has recognised the concerns and has taken steps to address them. Risker ( talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. This is a new editor. Prefer 4.3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 4.3. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Per Brad, it is apparent at this juncture that a lesser sanction is more appropriate. Vassyana ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Brad, and signs of moving on. I feel he may be able to be productive elsewhere and put this behind him. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4.3) Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year. He is warned to avoid disrupting the project to make a point, incivility, and other inappropriate conduct. Stevewunder is encouraged to work with a mentor, better learn Wikipedia's practices, and utilitze dispute resolution.

Support:

1. Proposed. One version with a total area ban, the other with a mainspace ban. The threats of disruption were apparently made in frustration. The continued threat is diminished, if not removed altogether. He accepts the wrongfulness of his actions, shows an intent to move forward productively, is willing to abide by a topic ban, and accepts a mentor. [87] [88] [89] Vassyana ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice now, given there has been recognition and signs of moving on. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Since he recognized his mistake and willing to not repeat it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First and only choice. On careful consideration, I believe this editor has recognised the seriousness of the concerns identified during this RFAR, and has taken steps to change his behaviour and to work on the skills needed to be a productive and valued member of the editorship. This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he can work within the Wikipedia framework; a relapse into the behaviour reviewed during this case is very likely to result in a permanent parting of the ways. Risker ( talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice; while I am skeptical about the sudden change of heart, this remedy might guide this unexperienced editor in the right direction. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Per other supporters, especially Risker, and per Vassyana's comment below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. This is a new editor who was frustrated. Given talk page comments, this remedy is appropriate. Should have the opportunity to try contributing to other areas of Wikipedia for a year, possibly with a mentor. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. From the talk page conversations, I think this editor has the potential to be productive, especially if teamed with a mentor. There has not been any indication of disruption outside this topic area. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Since when do we give topic bans to outright vandals? Kirill  ^[pf] 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I would say there should be a clear distinction between a vandal and a generally productive editor who has a frustrated outburst, recognizes the wrongfulness of the misbehavior, and shows signs of moving forward productively (including a willingness to accept a topic ban and work with a mentor). Vassyana ( talk) 08:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Reluctant per Kirill. Wizardman 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I see no effort to be productive, only to be destructive; this does not warrant a simple topic ban. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

3. Per Kirill, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

4.4) Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for one year. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Stevewunder is warned to avoid disrupting the project to make a point, incivility, and other inappropriate conduct. He is encouraged to work with a mentor, better learn Wikipedia's practices, and utilize dispute resolution.

Support:

1. Proposed. One version with a total area ban, the other with a mainspace ban. The threats of disruption were apparently made in frustration. The continued threat is diminished, if not removed altogether. He accepts the wrongfulness of his actions, shows an intent to move forward productively, is willing to abide by a topic ban, and accepts a mentor. [90] [91] [92] His talk space contributions, for consideration: [93] Vassyana ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice, prefer 4.3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The talk page has been a major source of conflict on this article; while normally willing to allow talk page contributions, I do not think it appropriate in this case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Sam, we need to avoid e-reams of talk text on this one. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Since when do we give topic bans to outright vandals? Kirill  ^[pf] 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. For the same reason as 4.3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Per Kirill, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Per Sam. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Prefer 4.3 - staying away from the topic area completely would be best. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

5) Brushcherry ( talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions. Brushcherry is further encouraged to continue working with a mentor and learning Wikipedia's practices. He is also cautioned to avoid disrupting discussion and taking actions likely to be poorly received.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Especially the broadening of content - that needs to take place. Wizardman 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Appropriate for new editor. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Kjaer ( talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year. Kjaer is strongly warned to avoid further canvassing, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Conduct was inappropriate. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) SteveWolfer ( talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. SteveWolfer is warned to avoid further incivility, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) TallNapoleon ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for six months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. TallNapoleon is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) TheJazzFan ( talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TheJazzFan is warned to avoid further incivility and other inappropriate conduct. TheJazzFan may be monitored for sockpuppetry, due to the potential for ban evasion.

Support:

1. First choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice, as a strict mininum. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too weak. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Conduct during case means more forceful remedy needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

9.1) TheJazzFan ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. For the explicit threatening of sockpuppetry used for a potential ban evasion. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per preceding. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per FayssalF. Risker ( talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice; puppetry concerns make it unlikely that this editor will play within the rules under a simple topic ban. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Even new editors should pull their horns in when a case is in progress. Would be open to a single appeal filed at some point during the year. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I am not convinced that one or two comments, blatantly inappropriate as they were, warrant expanding the scope of the ban to areas outside the dispute. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'll be supporting this as long as he is not withdrawing his threat. This is serious and the ball is in his camp. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Per Brad. -- bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

10) Snowded ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Snowded is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. In order to de-escalate the situation, best for all parties to have a break. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Casliber. Risker ( talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Per Casliber, with nod to Sam. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure this is merited on the evidence. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

11) Idag ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Idag is warned to avoid further edit warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. In order to de-escalate the situation, best for all parties to have a break. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

12) Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Feels more like a principle than a remedy, but an important point to make in cases such as this. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. With the note that Arbitration Enforcement would normally be the proper venue for discussions about applying this remedy. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
14. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

13) In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page, the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. Alternatively, the administrator may impose any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision. As to any user named in this decision, the first sentence of this remedy shall be in effect for one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later.

Support:

1. Proposed. To some extent, this duplicates the "enforcement" proposals below; however, because the steps described here would to some extent constitute an additional authority for administrators to take action rather than just their enforcement of the remedies already stated, I believe that this should be collected in one place as a remedy. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Fine. Kirill  ^[pf] 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Looks like a good thing to try in such a disputed topic area. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Seems reasonable, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Seems a mite complex, but could work well if enforcing admins can get timings right for those "on notice" and those needing warnings. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I've moved the closing statement back a bit for the sake of thought flow. (Revert if you feel that is a bad change.) I am abstaining for now because the expiration standard isn't very clear. (I may also propose a shortened revision.) As written, the first expiration period is superfluous, as topic bans are (almost certainly) being imposed this decision. Is it meant that a user placed under a topic ban through this remedy and the enforcement provisions essentially has a one year probation after the ban expiry? Does it mean the topic area remains under this remedy until one year after the last ban expires? Vassyana ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   The intent is that our decision (which basically, as Thatcher points out on the talkpage, winds up re-inventing what used to be called "article probation" or more recently "discretionary sanctions") would remain in effect indefinitely, but that after one year a given user would no longer be "on notice" and therefore is guaranteed a warning before sanctions are imposed. (Warnings may of course be issued before sanctions in any event, in appropriate instances.) I have edited the last sentence to try to clarify, although changing the order back might possibly be as effective. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Removed "strongly", per Risker. Put it back if that's problematic. Vassyana ( talk) 20:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Topic bans are the favored remedy in cases of POV warring. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Standard. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not persuaded of the need to the use the word "strongly", which implies an imperative when it might not be the best course of action. Risker ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice; prefer remedy proposal 13 in lieu. Also per Risker. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (struck duplicate vote by Casliber. Paul August ☎ 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) reply

6. Risker ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. A topic ban without teeth is not a ban. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. There's a standard wording that is usually used here, but it contains time limits on the blocks, and I don't know that we need to tailor things that much in advance in this case. The usual section header is "enforcement by block" and that change I would prefer to make. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Standard. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Topic bans and blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Log of blocks and bans, to provide a central record for administrators and the community.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (struck duplicate vote by Casliber. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ) reply

6. Risker ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Normal operating procedure. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Topic bans and other measures are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Support:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too broad as written; only administrators' actions are open to further review, not the bans we've imposed directly. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Kirill. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per Kirill. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Kirill Lokshin. Risker ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill is correct. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Prefer 4.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Prefer 4.1, —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Right direction but wording needed tweaking. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

4.1) Topic bans and other measures imposed by administrators pursuant to the enforcement provisions of this case are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^[pf] 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Vassyana ( talk) 17:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Consensus applies; again, this points to WP:AE as the proper prior forum for such measures. —  Coren  ^(talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Subject to any general modification of the structure of arbitration enforcement sanctions and related issues in general per the RfC on AE. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —  Roger Davies ^talk 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Better than original wording. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I do not understand why the standing opinions of the responders should weigh against the label of "meatpuppet". The whole crux of the meatpuppetry concept is the recruitment of already like-minded people, which is explicit in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. As relevant to this case, it notes:

“

It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to ... communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.

”

This fits in with the tone of the policy section and with how editors (in my perception and experience) generally view the matter. All that said, I hope that helps clarify my confusion over the reluctance to accept the term "meatpuppet" in this case. Vassyana ( talk) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem with it is this: suppose there is an established editor, User:X who has expressed on several occasions the strong belief that John Doe should be referred to as a "writer and philosopher" and not a "philosopher and writer". A dispute emerges on a page User:X is not aware of, in which User:Y editwars to try to get John Doe described as a "writer and philosopher". In order to get an advantage, User:Y then canvasses all the people he knows support his side to get them to come to the talk page and weigh in. User:X receives a message, and so goes to the talk page and says "In my opinion John Doe is more accurately described as a 'writer and philosopher' because ..." etc.

All User:X is doing is giving their honest opinion in an ongoing debate. User:X is not responsible for the fact that User:Y has canvassed only one side of the debate. User:X only becomes a sanctionable meatpuppet if they are there in bad faith: for instance if they are a single purpose account only on Wikipedia to force the preferred description of John Doe.

The problem with the proposed formulation of principle 8 is that it inappropriately transfers responsibility to the canvasee to (a) realise that they have been canvassed, and (b) desist from offering a genuine and quite possibly well-founded view in a debate, merely because the canvassor knew what it was they were likely to say. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for clarifying. It is sincerely appreciated. I've tried to limit the broad brush of "meatpuppet" and simply the principle as 8.2. Thanks again! Vassyana ( talk) 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

Currently Passing :

• Principles - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.2
• FoF - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 6, 7, 8.1, 9, 10, 11
• Remedies - 1.1, 2, 4.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.1, 10, 11, 12, 13
• Enforcement - 1, 2, 3, 4.1

Currently not Passing (for motions due to majority not met, they are italicized)

• Principles - 8.1
• FoF - 5, 8
• Remedies - 1, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 9
• Enforcement - 4

- Unless any Arbs changes their votes, this is likely to be the final. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Updated. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 14 March 2009 (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.

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. Move to close. I believe all issues have been satisfactorily addressed, and there has been ample time for all arbitrators wishing to vote to do so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Okay with holding off close until after Carcharoth has voted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

2. ditto. i am done here. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Risker ( talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Hold off until Carcharoth votes, and then close. Risker ( talk) 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

4. Support motion to close. -- Vassyana ( talk) 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   Same as NYB. Vassyana ( talk) 12:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

5. Wizardman 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Close when Carcharoth has voted. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

   I also agree with delaying the close until Carcharoth has had the opportunity to vote. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

9. I think bainer has finished voting now as well, so that should be all of us. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Apologies for the delay. Have been reviewing the evidence on and off during the week, but won't have time to complete voting until early Saturday morning (UTC), which is about 24 hours from now. Don't want to waste the time I spent reviewing the evidence, so if the close could be delayed for that time, I'd appreciate it. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Switching to support close. Finished voting. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply