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 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 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.

Users not listed as parties

1) If a user not formally listed as a party on the Obama case, and evidence is brought up against or involving them on the evidence pages, then upon notification to them by the evidence submitter or arbitration clerk, they can be placed in the "involved parties" section at the drafting arbitrators' discretion.

Support:

1. This has the potential to greatly increase the amount of evidence to trudge though, but with how many people are loosely involved in this case's scope, I feel this is necessary to streamline the adding of parties in case this needs to be done. If you look at the Scientology case, new parties weren't added in until some time later, which has unfortunately put the case behind; this will help curb possible delays, and I'd like to see this case handled fairly swiftly, but also with everything dealt with. Wizardman 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
2. That is, in fact, well within tradition and normal operating procedure. —  Coren  ^(talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Coren. We can add anyone as a party as long as we give them notice so they can reply. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per Wizardman and Coren. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
5. OK, but this is fairly standard practice. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Could someone point to where this is stated as being standard practice? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- Vassyana ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChildofMidnight added as a party

2) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs) is added as a party to the case.

Support:

If injunction one is not approved Per [1]. Wizardman 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Moot per above and below. reply

1. I do not expect it would not, but otherwise yes. —  Coren  ^(talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not needed since per past practices, we can add anyone as a party without a motion or injunction as long as an arb or clerk let's them know. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Better wait because we may have other users to add later on per 1; 'One motion per involved user' would be a bit bureaucratic. I'll review this later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Support but we don't need a motion, just add him and notify him by a clerk or arb notice to his talk page, so I'm abstaining. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per others. Motions for each party added is too bureaucratic. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per previous comments. -- Vassyana ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

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 encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors from contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure that articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the sources. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Very minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and sources

4) 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. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Relaying on polarized sources from both extremes does make for a NPOV article. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

5) 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. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Everyone has to follow editing policy. Editors who have editing interests in multiple topic areas are not absolved of the responsibility to do so in any given topic area if it "balances out" across all their contributions. -- bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Biographies of living people

6) Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. In the context of this case, this relates not just to Barack Obama, but to other living persons also mentioned or discussed in these articles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clean-up tags

7) In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute.

Support:

1. A tiny part of the dispute, but should be noted. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Fair enough. If the article needs more work, then removing it might not be the best approach. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. The wording is not perfect, but most of our policies and guidelines do rely on subjective interpretation and good sense. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Very minor copyedits. Regarding the oppose, I'd be glad to consider an alternative. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Equal preference with #7.1. -- bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. "appropriate instances" makes this subjective. The two main objectives of tags are to alert the reader and/or the editors of some problem. Tags have different audiences, and often their utility is negligible if there are an active group of contributors actively trying to work on the problem. We should discourage edit-warring over a tag while also trying to fix the problem. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   I see your point. Our past wording did not have the second sentence, so the appropriateness of the tag placement was not the main emphasis of the ruling. I don't want to stop users from tagging articles for clean up if they see a problem. This wording makes adding tags controversial when the original intent of the wording is to allow users to use tags to notify the Community of problems instead of repeatedly reverting the content, or if they are not the best person to make the changes. (Of course there are other common reasons people use the tags such as lack of time or knowledge to fix the article.) Maybe we need to eliminate the second sentence, or tweak the wording to make it more clear. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Per John. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Clean-up tags

7.1) Depending on the discretion of editors, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article in instances where those editors are unable to fix them themselves. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute.

Support:

1. Addressing the concerns above. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Equal preference. Wizardman 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First pref. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. This is always an acceptable reason to place clean-up tags, so "editor's discretion" is correct. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Equal preference with #7. -- bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good-faith participation welcome

8) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. A balance needs to be struck here. New contributors still on their training wheels should stay off the highway. Mediocre changes to high profile pages are usually reverted, which also results in driving these people away. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   It is the wiki model to encourage people that are interested to jump in and edit. I like this model. I don't want to discourage people from quickly joining deletion discussion, starting Xfd if they see a problem with a BLP article, or tagging BLP articles for clean up. The type of folks that quickly jump into the high profile discussion are not usually the sort of people that are going to be easily driven away. The Community frowns on newbie biting and uses this approach to address the problem. Rather than discouraging new people from joining these important aspects of the Community, we need to remind the Community to welcome the fresh ideas and enthusiasm that new people can bring to Wikipedia. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Consensus

9) 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. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus can change

10) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus.

Support:

1. Last sentence tacked on per workshop note, it’s a valid point. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

11) 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 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I can not emphasis how important it is for users to not edit war over BLP content. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

12) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Talk pages

13) 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.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Talk page FAQs

14) The purpose of a FAQ for more active talk pages is to answer often-asked questions about the article, so as not to weigh down the talk page with answering the same questions repeatedly.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Attack pages

15) An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there is no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Criticism articles

16) All criticism articles must follow the same guidelines as other articles and use reliable sources. They are not to be used as POV forks or attack pages.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Added links to POV forks and Attack pages. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Vassyana is right that this also occurs within the same article, but the potentially for forking is larger when the audiences of articles are different, as I believe is the case here. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I appreciate the principle, but I feel the latter portion cannot be emphasized enough, that original research is a huge issue with such overviews, and that criticism sections contain many of the same problems. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. "Criticism of ..." child articles (and for that matter, subsections) should be deprecated, but that's my personal view. -- bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Deletion process

17) The deletion process is the Wikipedia process involved in recording and executing the community's decisions to delete or keep a page. If an editor is unsatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in regards to a deletion discussion, it may be brought to deletion review. The deletion review closer generally has the final word on the state of the article.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. It is polite to talk to the closing admin first. This can be fruitful in having an admin re-open to extend a deletion discussion. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Expanded an unexplained abbreviation. -- bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article sanctions

18) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fanning the flames

19) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removing talk page comments

20) Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. A user's removal of a warning on his or her talk page is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

Support:

1. A lot of the evidence I read accuses others of removing content from their own talk pages, hence why this is added in. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Very minor copyedit. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Scope of case

1) The scope of this case is the Barack Obama article, all related articles, and the involved parties’ conduct in relation to these articles.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Background

2) While there has been some disruption in the past on this article, a catalyst to increased disputes occurred on March 9, 2009, when WorldNetDaily published a piece labeling Wikipedia as a pro-Obama site, leading to a spike in traffic. [2] A proposal to include a "criticism" section or article followed the next day, [3], which was sent to AFD, speedily deleted, and sent to DRV. [4]. After the DRV began, edit-warring on an a FAQ relating to Obama began as well, leading to an ANI thread and this case. [5]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. I don't believe that the increase in traffic stirred the subsequent events though. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. (Made a few copyedits, not believed substantive, but Wizardman please check.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Though one can question the stated effect on traffic. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Articles placed on probation

3) The Barack Obama article and related articles were placed on article probation on July 29, 2008. Since then, a myriad of administrative actions have been logged under the probation, and several users officially put under probation.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of prior remedies

4) Although the aforementioned probationary measure was very effective for a reasonable period of time after it was implemented, during this year, it has proved difficult to enforce. While some sanctions have been applied under it, a number of noticeboard discussions have generally been intractable and unproductive, with many descending into arguments amongst disputants. Some editors have expressed concerns that the measure has failed to address, at least, some of the underlying issues, while others have suggested that there is a reluctance to enforce the remedy in some cases. Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation

Support:

1. Pretty complete look at the community article probation. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. (Very minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Apparent reluctance. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per the abstainers, would prefer diffs for proposals attributing points of view to editors (or here, asserting that points of view are held by some). -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I can't see the diff/evidence supporting the last sentence, apart from that I can see the rest ok. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not sure I see support for the bit about reluctance. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. per above. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Page activity

5) The main Barack Obama article and Talk:Barack Obama are two of the most active wiki pages, with over 17,000 and 29,000 revisions, respectively. [6]

Support:

1. To give an idea of what’s being dealt with. It’s certainly not just a small group of editors making all these revisions. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. (Might want to put in an "as of" date for the numbers, or update them before the case closes.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Per Brad, an "as of" would be useful. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

6) During the influx of traffic triggered by the WorldNetDaily report on March 9, as well as during other times, many IPs and new accounts have contributed to the main article and talk page of the Barack Obama article, often behaving disruptively. [7]

Support:

1. Single purpose accounts are actually one of the main problems with this series of articles. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Genuine single-purpose accounts; that is, accounts editing in a confined area with a disruptive motive. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Stevertigo

7) Stevertigo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and engaged in edit summary attacks on the Obama FAQ, [16].

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Though the edit summary attack was provoked (which does not excuse, but does explain). -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Per bainer. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

As Stevertigo is still commenting on the proposed decision on the talkpage, holding off on voting for another day or two until he's finished. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Have to call it a day sometime. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

7.1) Stevertigo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to mark WP:IAR historical, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. [17] [18]

Support:

1. Stems from the Obama edit-warring, but putting it in a separate finding since other arbs may disagree on the interpretation. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. The point seems clear. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 7.1.1 FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. He was making a point, but it wasn't disruptive. Being disruptive might have involved flagging the page itself as historical. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. That was a proposal made at the talk of the policy; he didn't try it or act upon it though. Anyone could ignore that in case he really was making a point. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I'd like to see the relevance. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Holding off on voting for now per my comment on 7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

4. True, but of limited relevance here. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Policy talk page seems remote enough. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

7.1.1) Stevertigo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proposed to mark WP:IAR historical in its talk page, asking other users to discuss his proposal. [19]

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Trivially true but what's the significance? -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. This does not rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I'd like to see the relevance. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Holding off on voting for now per my comment on 7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

2. As above. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Why do we need this? Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sceptre

8) Sceptre ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring [20] [21] [22] and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ. [23] [24] and engaged in edit summary attacks. [25]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. The last diff doesn't show a real attack although the language used is totally inappropriate. The rest is ok. My support vote is dependent of its removal (as in the case with a diff concerning Tarc below). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. The middle portion of this is the significant part: following Stevertigo to multiple venues in order to edit war. A better diff for edit summary attacks is this one (one of the ones listed under edit warring). -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Per bainer, and also noting that these diffs (and those for many of the other parties) are all a couple of months old at this point. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Grsz11

9) Grsz11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivil edit summaries during the edit warring. [26] [27]

Support:

1. Second diff may be questionable for the FoF, but the first diff in itself is more than enough. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. edit summaries like these are not helpful in a volatile situation. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I agree the first diff is sufficient. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Both summaries are absolutely inappropriate in my mind, but I'm not convinced they rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding. As a general matter, which has been confirmed in my mind through analyzing and voting on other recent cases, in these "mega" cases we find before us quite a number of users who have committed isolated instances if incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, etc., who would never have risen to the ArbCom level were it not for the conduct of other users who were involved much more deeply in hostilities or misconduct. I would not call such users "innocent bystanders," but I am not sure it's fair for this Committee to make an adverse finding of fact regarding a user's conduct unless that user's conduct rises to the appropriate level of seriousness. (I'm open to reconsideration here if more evidence of misconduct is identified.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Brad. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. The second diff is no different than the usual inappropriate edit summaries used by many. I suggest dropping it since the first one is enough before tweaking the rest of the wording to reflect that it concerns one uncivil edit summary and not many. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikidemon

10) Wikidemon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, teaming with Sceptre in removing comments, [28] [29] including adding comments back on a user talk page removed by the user. [30]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The diffs are isolated, three months old, and all from a single day (indeed, from within the same hour). The underlying disputes on policy pages were petty and but for this case would have been long-forgotten. Wikidemon's response to this proposal on the workshop suggests a good-faith editor who was exasperated for a few moments on a particularly contentious evening. Without more, I see no need for an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

10.1) Wikidemon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them. [31] [32] [33] [34]

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Repeated behavior. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Not an appropriate response. -- bainer ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. While talk page guidelines say generally not to remove comments, the state of the Obama talk page and the WorldNetDaily circumstances, as well as the comments themselves, make these diffs acceptable to me. However, proposing as other arbs might disagree. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. This is an issue for Wikiquette, not arbitration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. A tricky one, as on the one hand we are saying remove off-topic posts, and now we are examining Wikidemon's. However, the last one may have been netter answered than removed at least. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not sure that guideline warrants a FoF unless it was oft repeated behavior; there are cases where a quiet deescalation might be appropriate. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Tarc

11) Tarc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries. [35] [36] [37]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. The last diff has nothing to do with incivility. My support vote is dependent of its removal (as in the case with a diff concerning Sceptre above). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. That's not how I like to see Wikipedians talking to one another (or even to people they perceive as visitors or outsiders), but I'm not sure it rises to the ArbCom level either. As an aside to non-US arbitrators, there's a political context to the use of this term as quoted in one of the diffs. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

11.1) Tarc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them. [38] [39]

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As in 10.1, propose/oppose. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. These ones seemed reasonable enough to remove. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per 10.1 —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. The first diff discloses an inappropriate response, but the second does not. If there are more examples of this I would move to support. -- bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

ChildofMidnight

12) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and/or refactored comments made by other parties on the Barack Obama talk page, [40] [41] [42] [43], and engaged in attacking the actions of other editors. [44]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. In this case, I think refactored is an unseemly euphemism; I would prefer "altered" as more neutral. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Coren. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. "... the actions of..." could possibly be dropped. -- bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

12.1) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result. [45]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

12.2) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the appearance of templating other parties to the case. [46] [47]

Support:

1. Separating out per request. The last comment is noting that, while the responses aren’t templated themselves, they’re written in that style. The April 2009 header adds to that as well. Weakly supporting because this is admittedly a stretch. Wizardman 03:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Agree this is a stretch, but I tend to think this is worth noting as they are inflammatory edits in a volatile situation and hence highly unhelpful. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. "Templating", when used as a dismissive gesture, has more to do with style than with the technical method used or the exact verbiage. Writing a message that is obviously supposed to be interpreted as an impersonal template qualifies. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. There's no rule prohibiting editors from writing in a formal tone. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Gotta say I'm with Kirill on this one. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Poor manners, yes; sanctionable, no. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Per Kirill. -- bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. This is a slippery slope. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. 'You've been asked repeatedly not to post on my page unless you need to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page' being posted at someone's talk page is no different than receiving a similar note at your own talk page. However, I see no creation of appearance of templating. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Scjessey

13) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility and personal attacks, [48] [49] [50] templated established editors, [51] [52] [53] [54], removed pieces of an AfD discussion, [55] and appeared to stalk ChildofMidnight’s edits. [56] [57] [58]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Agree with all, though I can't see removal of AfD contents, but rejigging it is not a good idea anyway. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Support although dependent on the removal of the first diff. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. There is enough basis for a raised eyebrow here to support some sort of a finding, although some of the cited diffs are worse than others, and all are now three months old. I note that on the workshop, Scjessey has offered good-faith justifications for some of these edits while acknowledging that a few may have been over the line. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I support this save for the templating part, unless we're going to raise this essay to the status of policy by fiat. -- bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

13.1) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result. (Under “Blockery” tab, May 8th) [59]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. relegated to 2nd choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Where is the appropriate diff? I had a look at the block log but still not sure which one is related to the case. I am confused. Prefer 13.1.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Prefer 13.1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer #13.1.1. -- bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

13.1.1) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result. [60] Scjessey then requested unblock, pledged to avoid edit-warring and to take a voluntary 24-hour wikibreak if requested of him. [61] As a consequence, administrator Toddst1 unblocked him. [62], [63]

Support:

1. A more detailed sequence of events. Instances of people pledging to avoid edit-warring are worth noting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Equal pref. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. More detailed, which is nice. Lean first preference. Wizardman 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. My reading of the situation, based on Scjessey's comments on the workshop among other input, is that this is a good-faith editor who temporarily lost his cool in what he found to be a stressful situation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Baseball Bugs

14) Baseball Bugs ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, [64] [65] [66] and removed talk page discussions [67] [68] [69] while using the talk page as a forum himself. [70]

Support:

1. Given the last diff, I can support the removal of talk page comments irony. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The importance of the talkpage comments removal, in the context of this dispute, strikes me as slight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Grundle2600

15) Grundle2600 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] and was blocked during the case as a result. [77]

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:57, 19 June 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.

Article probation review

1) The probation on Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the Probation Reform subcommittee will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future (i.e. what are the terms of article probation, what constitutes being involved and therefore required to be under it, etc.)

Support:

I hope this works. Some say article probation’s going well, others poorly. Well, let’s let an outside group go through everything and find out. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Second choice. Be good to have an analysis of it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. Prefer 1.1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

4. Second choice; I hope "subcommittee" doesn't rattle any cages. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 1.1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I appreciate the idea, but it seems a bit bureaucratic. Additionally, this seems to touch on much larger issues than this specific case, such as defining involvement. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Now prefer 1.1. Wizardman 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 1.1.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1.1) The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future (i.e. what are the terms of article probation, what constitutes being involved and therefore required to be under it, etc.)

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Probably could've just copyedited the above, but yes, calling it a working group's better. Wizardman 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Ok. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Equal choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. Made minor copyedits. It might be well to better clarify whether this group is empowered to change the terms of the probation on its own, or just to make a recommendation to the committee or the community. My reading of the current wording is the former, which is fine with me. I changed the section heading from "Article probation reform" to "Article probation review" to match the actual proposal; any arbitrator please revert if undesired (my support will stand). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per the above. -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Reminder of talk page decorum

2) The Arbitration Committee, in recognizing the traffic and difficulty of handling the Barack Obama talk page, as well as per talk page guidelines, finds the removal of soapboxing and off-topic discussion acceptable and encourages its continuation.

Support:

1. Needed, given that that’s a big chunk of the problems with the area. If you oppose, that’s fine but please provide an alternate remedy to this. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Sort of standard policy anyway, as comments on article talk pages should pertain to the article and how it can be improved, not on the subject in general. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Practical solutions are needed to deal with the large amount of contributions to heavily used talk pages. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Fayssal. -- bainer ( talk) 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. In some instances, this may prompt more disruption than it is supposed to fix. Probably a more explanatory alternative is needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. True but there are examples of overzealous use of removal in this case. Needs more detail as FayssalF says. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Might be best to ask the working group appointed under 1.1 to weigh in on this issue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Editors encouraged

3) All involved editors in the Obama articles, parties or not, are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Minor copyedit—changed "the other side" to "others"—Wikipedians do not form "sides". Any arbitrator may revert if undesired; my support will stand. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Stevertigo admonished and restricted

4) Stevertigo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Arguably overbroad outside the context of the Obama-related articles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sceptre admonished and restricted

5) Sceptre ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Sceptre is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Sceptre is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Sceptre exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too restrictive, particularly outside the context of the Obama-related articles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Grsz11 reminded

6) Grsz11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Wikidemon admonished

7) Wikidemon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Tarc reminded

8) Tarc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

ChildofMidnight topic banned

9) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.

Support:

1. First choice. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice and only choice for topic ban. To run concurrent with 9.2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. In addition to, and not instead of, 9.2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. First.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChildofMidnight topic banned

9.1) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for three months, including talk pages.

Support:

1. Second choice. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

ChildofMidnight admonished and restricted

9.2) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, ChildofMidnight is subject to an editing restriction for one year. ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should ChildofMidnight exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. To run concurrently. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Yes, however other proposals pan out. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. In addition to any other restrictions. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Scjessey topic banned

10) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Equal first choice. a break might be good. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Only choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I find this excessive and unnecessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Given his sheer activity and (usually) good work on the talk pages, I’m reluctant to do this. However, at the same time a break from Obama articles might do him good. (CoM’s made 99 talk page edits to Obama, Scjessey 1350+, hence the abstain though I’m not trying to be biased at all in my rulings) Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Scjessey topic banned

10.1) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for three months, including talk pages.

Support:

1. As above, but support. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Equal first choice. a break might be good. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Equal choice to 10. To run concurrent with 10.2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose in preference to 10. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

5. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice, concurrently with 10.2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Second.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 10. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I find this excessive and unnecessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Scjessey admonished and restricted

10.2) Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Scjessey is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Scjessey is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Scjessey exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. To run concurrently. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. In addition to other remedies. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Overbroad insofar as it's not limited to the Obama-related articles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted

11) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted

11.1) ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Far more necessary than the one above. Wizardman 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. This is in addition to 11. and does not otherwise replace it. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Like the symmetry; both are problematic. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Baseball Bugs reminded

12) Baseball Bugs ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. I think stronger words are needed here. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Would support an alternative with more teeth. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Need to review again before deciding to support or offer an alternative. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (Move to support) FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Mentioning "talkpages as a forum" is unwarranted based on what appears to be a single edit. (I'll move to support if a pattern of such edits is identified.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

13) Grundle2600 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Grundle2600 is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Grundle2600 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to the Obama-related articles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Articles semi-protected

14) All articles relating directly to Barack Obama and their talk pages are to be permanently semi-protected, to be interpreted narrowly.

Support:

1. Seeing as how the single purpose accounts are the worst offenders, proposed. Flagged revisions would be great for this area, but they're not ready yet. Perhaps when the trial starts those could be used in place of this. Wizardman 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too broad for permanent semi-protection of both article and talk pages. We need to make it clear that some articles and their talk page can be semi-protected indefinitely by admin, but I don't think we should mandate that all are permanently. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. I see no need to decide this at the Arbitration Committee level, at least not at this time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

14.1) All articles relating directly to Barack Obama and their talk pages are to be semi-protected for one year, to be interpreted narrowly.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Okay. Wizardman 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The community can manage this. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per my comment on 14. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Any long semi-protection should be open to community review, lifting, or reimplementation. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral on this, a tad arbitrary so I propose 14.2 below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Cas. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

14.2) A low threshold for liberal and lengthy semiprotection shall be considered for all articles relating directly to Barack Obama and their talk pages.

Support:

1. Proposed as a guideline, much like liberal semiprotection for BLPs, as an alternative for 1 year semi-protection. Still allows for discussion on appropriate pages but gives extra guidance to admins considering semi-protection. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The community can manage this. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per my comment on 14; see also the committee decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

14.3) All editor and administrators are reminded that lengthy and liberal use of semi-protection for managing all articles relating directly to Barack Obama and their talk pages is within policy. The use of page protection is subject to review and discretion by administrators based on comments from the Community.

Support:

1. Within policy to keep both types of pages semi-protected indefinately as needed. But should be subject to view occasionally to see if the amount of traffic is lower to the point that the semi-protect is not needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Only choice. I note that this appears to be an excellent test case for flagged revisions. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Yes, best choice upon thinking about it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 01:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Alright. Wizardman 04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. I'll accept the consensus on this; see also the committee decision in the Sarah Palin case I've linked above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Though I otherwise agree with Vassyana. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. We need an enforcement, and this will do. If a lot of this enforcement is restricting administrators, an amendment should be requested. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Per Jayvdb. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too restrictive on administrators. Too many short blocks. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

General

Implementation notes

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.

Passing

• Pri : 1-6, 7.1, 8-20
• FoF : 1-13, 7.1.1 (concurrent), 12.1 (concurrent), 12.2 (concurrent), 13.1.1 (concurrent), 14, 15
• Rem : 1.1, 2-9, 9.2 (concurrent with 9), 10, 10.2 (concurrent), 11, 11.1 (concurrent), 12, 13, 14.3
• Enf : 1

Not Passing (Insufficient majority in Italics)

• Pri : 7 (due to 7.1 passing)
• FoF : 7.1, 10.1, 11.1, 13.1 (by 13, 13.1.1)
• Rem : 1, 9.1, 10.1 (by 10), 14, 14.1, 14.2
• Enf : None

Due to Carcharoth going inactive, majority is reduced to 7 from 8 which means it would meet proposed motion 1 now. Do we consider it passed at this point of time? - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

We could, but the motion's a moot point whether it's considered passed or not. Wizardman 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Does FoF 7 or/and 7.1.1 pass? FoF 7 is 11-0-1 and FoF 7.1.1 is 6-0-4.

Both since they are not contradictory of each other. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Also kindly confirm FoF 12.1 passes instead of 12 and 12.2.

No, all three pass. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

FoF 13.1.1 instead of 13 and 13.1 as well.

Two pass, 13 and 13.1.1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

For Rem 10/10.1, there are differences in first and second choices, which one should be preferred? - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

R10 (the first choice of 5 arbs) is preferred over R10.1 (the first choice of 3 arbs), and concur with FloNight above. Paul August ☎ 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Update: R10 is now the first choice of 4 arbs. Paul August ☎ 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that R10 clearly is the preferred choice now. While both have 8 support votes, 10 is the second choice of only one of the arbs supporting it and the rest give 10 pref or equal support to 10.1. The votes of support for 10.1 show less preference for it, (more 2nd choice votes). FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Note also that F11 is incorrectly listed above as not passing. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Done. Please check if the final figures are correct. Note that FoF 7.1 has reached a support majority, confirm that it is not passing due to 7.1.1? - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe that your listing above for principles, remedies and enforcements is correct. Here is what I think the situation is with respect to findings of fact:

Passing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.1.1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12.1, 12.2, 13, 13.1.1, 14, 15

Failing: 7.1 (due to 7.1.1), 10.1, 11.1, 13.1 (due to 13.1.1)

Paul August ☎ 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks Paul. Will close it up tonight if there are no changes to the net close figures. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Vote

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.

1. Close, everything passes in one form or another. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Close. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Close, but leave open for 24 hours to give few arbs a chance to finish voting. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Close. Wizardman 11:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Close. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Not opposing closing, but I've just finished my voting (I'd held off for a few days because a key party had indicated he would be posting additional material), and would like my colleagues to have some chance to see my comments on the proposals. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply