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 14 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 8 votes are a majority.

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Malcolm Schosha restricted

1) Due to his repeated failure to abide by reasonable standards of conduct in arbitration, Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the pages of this arbitration case. He may, at his discretion, send his comments directly to the Committee via e-mail.

Support:

1. As requested by the case clerk. Kirill  ^[pf] 18:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Enacted on 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC) KnightLago ( talk) 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {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 site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Standard fare. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Standard fare. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Standard fare. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. People being abrasive and edit warring, instead of moving forward slowly but surely, is one of the problems here. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-warring

4) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Standard fare. It is also worth nothing that both the edit warring and three revert rule policies make it explicitly clear that less than 3RR is still blockable. (See here and Wikipedia:3RR#Not_an_entitlement. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Far too much reverting and edit warring going on here. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. I will note further that bold, revert, discuss is an essay only, and is not necessarily applicable for known controversial topic areas and specific articles. In such cases, the "bold" part of this essay is generally unwise, and frequently leads to edit wars. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Per Risker. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Common sense

5) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. In the spirit of WP:RAP and WP:SENSE. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Though in situations like this, some mob/battleground mentality seems to have appeared. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Legislating common sense has long been cited as a classically pointless idea. That doesn't mean the sentiment is wrong. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Good faith and disruption

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

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Key point to support the later remedies. Disruption outweighs good faith here. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. This is the reason why we have the Arbitration Committee. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recidivism

7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. This one is important. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Applies at all levels, from vandals through to functionaries, from new editors to experienced ones. Even if you disagree with sanctions placed against you earlier, the correct response is to appeal the sanctions or findings, not to repeat the behaviour. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors with privileged access

8) Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. I agree with the principle that those holding advanced tools should be held to higher standards than ordinary admins. Cool Hand Luke 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. As admins to editors, so functionaries to admins. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The principle is reasonable but the precise wording needs careful thought; it would be good if clear guidance for those concerned was available. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of conflict

1) The conflict centers around the use of certain disputed terminology (notably "Judea and Samaria") in articles, and is an outgrowth of the broader disputes prevalent throughout the entire area of articles dealing with aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Wizardman 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 03:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

2) All articles involved in this conflict are subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   This should have been an abstention. 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Would prefer a finding of fact to result from this, as to whether or not discretionary sanctions has helped here. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

8. Risker ( talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Switching to abstain: Would prefer a finding of fact to result from this, as to whether or not discretionary sanctions has helped here. On it's own, this bald statement merely states what is already known. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Canadian Monkey

3) Canadian Monkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 04:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

G-Dett

4) G-Dett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ( [6]), as well as repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18])

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Examples of the first portion of the finding: [19] [20] [21] [22] -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Although I think this is stems from the finding below. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. See my comments below. Risker ( talk) 04:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

G-Dett and Jayjg

5) G-Dett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unduly followed Jayjg's edits, and by doing so has aggravated and escalated the present dispute ( [23]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Following another editor to revert their edits and oppose their positions in an area where the dispute is often acrimonious and bad blood abounds certainly has an aggravating effect on a dispute. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. While noting Risker's reservations, I have no difficulty supporting the thrust of this finding about escalation.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker has a point, definitely. But editing somewhere you haven't just to go against another user just doesn't sit well with me no matter what the rationale. Wizardman 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. I agree with Risker's first point that the initial involvement was not necessarily undue; I think this edit for example demonstrates that G-Dett's concern was genuinely grounded in the content question. That said, the important part of this proposal is the latter part, and I think that is made out based on the latter portion of the evidence cited. -- bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Having looked at the evidence closely, I see that there was very good reason to start following Jayjg based on the problematic nature of the edits he was making. While this is not a preferred method of addressing POV editing across a range of articles within a topic, there has historically been little reason for editors to believe that the community and administrator corps would deal with the issue or the editor directly. There is a very strong perception that the community does not do a good job of addressing this type of POV editing or repeated edit warring on the part of editors who are also administrators, which can be evidenced when comparing this editing pattern to this block log. I believe the bulk of the points here are covered in the finding of fact above. Risker ( talk) 04:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jayjg (I)

6) Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Noting that people really must use talk pages to talk, and not talk to each other through edit summaries. Instead of a long edit war with chatty edit summaries, a 'bold, revert, discuss' cycle would see at most two edits and then discussion on the talk page. When people think they can use edit summaries to talk to each other, they are missing the whole point of talk pages. Though I do appreciate learning what a pleonasm is. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jayjg (II)

7) During discussions with other editors, Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming his position ( [38], [39], [40], [41]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. my thoughts on this event, in the last paragraph. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Support for now. Will revisit if alternative wording is suggested. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Per Flo.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. This would be better if the diffs were spliced off to found another more specific finding of fact, to be referenced along with the ones above and below as the basis of the conclusion made here. I'm not going to propose an alternative at this late stage though, and this will suffuce when push comes to shove. -- bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Upon reconsideration, I must oppose this finding. While the sentiment seems accurate to me and my comments below are still valid, I cannot help but feel that this will communicate an inaccurate message (in part, in agreement with CHL's concerns). -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Risker and Vassyana and CHL. Support the spirit of this finding of fact, but am opposing because while this behaviour is not acceptable, what should matter here is the overall background (as shown in the other findings of fact), and those other findings of fact alone are enough to conclude that Jayjg "has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming his position". Essentially, I support the finding, but not the diffs used. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

The flippancy is certainly undesirable, serving to increase tensions and illustrate the disrespectful atmosphere. I also agree with the general point of the finding. Nonetheless, I am still left with several reservations. The separate presentation of the finding is undesirable to me, as it is not simply the recent comments that have been unbecoming and I feel the presentation may lead some editors to view this as the main or sole justification for related remedies. As another example, I would much prefer that the behavior being cited were better described for the sake of clarity to the community (for example, noting it was flippant and disrespectful). While I am not keen on the presentation, the finding is essentially accurate, thus I am abstaining instead of opposing. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

1. I agree with Vassyana. Perhaps we could include diffs in another heading, but this standalone finding invites people to imagine that the capricious ArbCom sanctioned Jayjg for beer. I'd like to preemptively avoid that meme. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Me too. I have been mulling over this one for a day or two. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Additional diffs of unacceptable behaviour are needed for me to supoort; even reference to some of the other editorial behaviour (e.g., the repeated edit warring, any personal attacks) would be helpful here. Risker ( talk) 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Per Vassyana. Exactly which position is relevant to making sarcastic replies in an editing dispute? Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Switch to oppose. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayjg in arbitration

8) Rulings regarding Jayjg's conduct were previously made in CharlotteWebb, where he was "reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue"; Israeli apartheid, where he was "admonished not [to] use [his] administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute" and "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur"; Yuber, where he was "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and "advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"; and HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg , where he was placed under an editing restriction.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Wizardman 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

MeteorMaker

9) MeteorMaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [42], [43]) and has attempted to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national, ethnic, or ideological lines ( [44]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Vassyana has a point, but the main point of the FoF is still valid. Wizardman 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Per Wizardman. I agree with Vassyana that the example chosen in the last diff is not a good one, but there needs to be a finding that edit warring has taken place here. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I am abstaining in no way because of wording, accuracy or general presentation, which I find to be all quite satisfactory. I am simply uncomfortable with the example chosen for the latter portion of the finding. There are many cases where discussing the nature (or view) of a source (whether Israeli, fundamentalist Christian, sociological school of thought, or so on) is entirely appropriate and necessary in the context of appropriately balancing articles and judging their relative reliability. (I am making no comment about this particular case.) I fear that the finding may be misused to cast appropriate discussions of this nature as disruptive behavior. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Vassyana. Risker ( talk) 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per Vassyana. -- bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Nickhh

10) Nickhh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [45], [46]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Weakly per Risker, the block log leads me to support though. Wizardman 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Per Wizardman. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. The incidents for which Nickhh was blocked both involved reverting across multiple articles, and reverting continued after each block, so I think this description is valid. -- bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I am seeing some edit warring, but don't see it reaching the "repeated and extensive" level. Risker ( talk) 05:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I think I'd have to agree with Risker on this one. Have been mulling over it a bit. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Nishidani

11) Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [47], [48]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ( [49], [50], [51]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Some of the comments are borderline, but the situation is delicate and enraging opponents unhelpful. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Particularly when I see reverts like this [52]. The latter examples I don't find as serious (the first of which was later determined to be a mutually understood comment to another editor inappropriately placed on a public page rather than a user talk page), and there is a certain irony in using as evidence of incivility and personal attacks a comment that points to the same editors and editing patterns identified in this proposed decision, with a recognition that it would likely be used against the editor in this case. Risker ( talk) 05:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

NoCal100

12) NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [53], [54], [55]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 05:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Though I think the suggestion of reverting contrary to consensus is the more damaging impression created by the evidence, rather than the volume. -- bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure this rises to the level of "repeated and extensive". Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Pedrito

13) Pedrito ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated and extensive edit-warring ( [56], [57]).

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Area of conflict

1) For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Second choice. 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Equal to 1.1   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Second choice. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The broader scope proposed below is better. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I think this needs to be expanded to include edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on all pages, including other articles and talk pages, and throughout the project. I shall develop an alternative. Risker ( talk) 05:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Risker, better below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Area of conflict

1.1) For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project.

Support:

1. First choice. Risker ( talk) 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Better. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Equal pref. to 1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Okay. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Equal to 1   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. this is better. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Wizardman 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. First choice. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Canadian Monkey restricted

2) Canadian Monkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second First choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Wizardman 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. Unfortunately Canadian Monkey has been confrontational on talk pages as well as edit-warring on articles. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In the absence of a finding regarding misconduct in discussions or related behavioral concerns, I cannot support this measure. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Canadian Monkey restricted

2.1) Canadian Monkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. I am not opposed to this and think it could work. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Risker ( talk) 06:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Second.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. Wizardman 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

G-Dett restricted

3) G-Dett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. She is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

G-Dett restricted

3.1) G-Dett ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. She is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Behavior in discussion precludes this option, in my view. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Wizardman 21:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(Comment - added for consistency only, not voting at this point. Risker ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)) reply

Jayjg restricted

4) Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too extensive. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jayjg restricted

4.1) Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg has editwarred on articles but his contribution to talk pages has been at the most sarcastic rather than disruptive. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Behavior in discussion precludes this option, in my view. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

MeteorMaker restricted

5) MeteorMaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second First choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Wizardman 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. prefer 5.1 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Same spirit as my other opposes. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 5.1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I would prefer a clearer example of soapboxing or similar offense as asserted in the findings before supporting this measure. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

MeteorMaker restricted

5.1) MeteorMaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Edits on talk pages appear more constructive. problems much more solely linked to article contribs. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Wizardman 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Casliber. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Nickhh restricted

6) Nickhh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   :# First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

4. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Equal preference. Wizardman 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. On consideration, I think it best to be consistent here. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In the absence of a finding regarding misconduct in discussions or related behavioral concerns, I cannot support this measure. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Has admitted some unsolicited recognition of behaviour, so too harsh. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Too harsh, per Casliber. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Would appreciate a link to the recognition of behaviour mentioned by Casliber before determining my position. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to support reply

Nickhh restricted

6.1) Nickhh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Am considering something mre lenient but this is acceptable in forming a consensus. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Equal preference. Wizardman 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Nishidani restricted

7) Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Wizardman 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nishidani restricted

7.1) Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Behavior in discussion precludes this option, in my view. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Wizardman 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

NoCal100 restricted

8) NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Wizardman 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In the absence of a finding regarding misconduct in discussions or related behavioral concerns, I cannot support this measure. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

NoCal100 restricted

8.1) NoCal100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Wizardman 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Pedrito restricted

9) Pedrito ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. A complete break from this area of editing is best for all participants and for the encyclopedia. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. first choice. Wizardman 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In the absence of a finding regarding misconduct in discussions or related behavioral concerns, I cannot support this measure. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. My sense there is some flexibility with this editor, and maybe a 1RR sanction is a better alternative. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Pedrito restricted

9.1) Pedrito ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice - my sense there is some flexibility with this editor, and maybe a 1RR sanction is a better alternative. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. Wizardman 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Usually support editors being allowed to stay on talk pages, but not in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges

10) Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access; namely:

(a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;

(b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and

(c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Second Choice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Edit warring and the conduct on article talk pages is not acceptable. Noting here that if there are concerns that the checkuser and oversight tools have been misused, those should be directed to the audit subcommittee to carry out a review. My vote here relates solely to removing these tools and access levels to ensure trust can be maintained in the body of people carrying out checkusers and oversights. The edit warring and other behaviour is not compatible with that. If a subsequent review finds no misuse of the tools, and Jayjg works towards having his restrictions successfully lifted, and avoids repeating the behaviour that has got him sanctioned here and in the past, I would not oppose him standing in a future checkuser or oversight election. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer alternative below. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per FloNight. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Per FloNight. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. After a great deal of consideration, I move to opposition. I have deeply conflicted feeling about this remedy and the supporting findings. I agree with the underlying principles driving this remedy. Regardless, I am also deeply concerned with issues of presentation and impression. Jayjg has not misused the tools to my knowledge and I do not believe a small "thank you" appended at the end will be sufficient to correct misconceptions to the contrary. While acknowledging misconduct undermines the trust invested in various administrative roles is a great principle to communicate, I cannot help but feel that the numerous misunderstandings of the intended message (which vary in substance, rationale, and perspective) must be considered. For these and other reasons (this is already long), I feel this remedy would be counterproductive to our intended goals. -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   The "thank you" is for his years of service. The introductory clause is the more relevant addition to my proposed finding: "Due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust..." We are not removing the privileges due to misuse of these tools, but because an editor who repeatedly behaves in a controversial manner (see several ArbCom scuffles) ought not hold a position of unusually high trust in the community. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I understand what we're trying to hold functionaries to a higher standard, but I would like to explicitly disclaim the conspiracy theories about this user. Jayjg does not, for example, use checkuser in a partisan manner (going back years, from what I can tell). If he is removed, I would like to thank him for his years of service—personally, if not from the committee as a whole. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. per CHL. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayjg stripped of status and privileges

10.1) Due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust, Jayjg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access; namely:

(a) His access to the CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list;

(b) His access to the Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list; and

(c) His access to the functionaries-en mailing list.

Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

Support:

1. Proposed as an alternative. I aim to clarify the reason for this decision—I am not relying on any non-public evidence (nor am I aware of any significant non-public evidence). I believe that rumors about Jayjg are grossly misinformed and false, and I would like to disabuse his critics of any contrary impression. That said, we should hold checkusers and oversighters to a higher standard of conduct than other admins, and I don't think Jayjg currently meets that standard. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. This helps to clarify that prior use of the tools is not in question. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

10. Second choice. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In line with finding of fact. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per my oppose to 10). -- Vassyana ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. The first version is sufficient in my view. Tacking on a line of thanks doesn't really send the right message. As I said above, the audit committee can review the use of the tools and issue thanks for the service, and elections are there to find out the views of the community on this. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Moving to abstain. I have been thinking about this, especially given Wikipedia:Functionary's appearance, which tells me we're really moving into uncharted territory. As such, it is (possibly) not a given that the proposal is in line with community wishes (although likely). Maybe this is worth a separate RfC and is more apt for the community to decide than us. Still mulling over it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think we need to act on the situation we have at present, which is that the Arbitration Committee is currently accountable for ensuring that the editors who have access to these tools are, at minimum, in good standing within the community. I do not believe that an editor who has been sanctioned by this Committee on so many occasions can be considered to be entirely in good standing. Whether or not Wikipedia:Functionary receives the support of the community at some point in the future, we have to carry out the responsibilities that we have today. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well-phrased. Ok, I am convinced. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Lifting of restrictions

11) Editors subject to editing restrictions as a result of this case may apply to have them lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   I think we may need to put some timeframes in here. Suggest that requests will be considered after six months, with additional reviews no more frequently than six months. Risker ( talk) 03:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   Okay, done. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

2. As a general comment, I am opposing the talk page participation of everyone involved. I would like to see these editors return to being involved in related discussions, as they are knowledgeable and valued, but I believe that we need to give the community the ability to enter this topical area, review the lingering debates and unsolved mysterious omissions, and if necessary restart old discussions which have been improperly handled in the past. Uninvolved people are more likely to do this if they are not going to be pounced upon by involved people. The uninvolved people may miss some crucial aspect that has already been discussed, however in that scenario, the restricted editors can still mention that on a user talk page of someone who is uninvolved. i.e. the prevention from entering "community discussion" would not extend to small comments directly to another user, however prolonged engagement in a discussion on a user talk would. Entering the fray of an existing user_talk discussion to support another editor would also. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I like this idea. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Participation in the good article project (producing and/reviewing) would be on the same note. Additionally, besides content work, there are plenty of other opportunities to achieve the same demonstration. For example, various dispute resolution steps are often in need of additional volunteers (such as MedCab) and would serve the intended purpose very well. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Flexibility and discretion. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Though this is not meant to be anything new. Asking for sanctions to be lifted on the basis of behaviour elsewhere has, I believe, always been possible. The alternative, of time-limited sanctions that expire after a period of months or a year doesn't always work so well. I'm not fond of indefinite blocks or bans that require an appeal to be overturned, and prefer definite block/ban lengths of escalating amounts, but in this case, appeals are better as there are editors who would quite happily sit out a ban and then return as if nothing had changed. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Many of the editors involved in this current dispute have demonstrated they have the ability to work effectively in other areas of the encyclopedia. I strongly encourage all of them to take the time to explore the many possibilities that come with editorship, whether working within another area of personal interest, developing new skills such as image improvement or template development, pitching in on new page patrol, or helping to find references for poorly sourced BLPs and other articles. Risker ( talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Wizardman 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Good idea. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Suspension of restrictions

12) Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area. The Committee will consider each request individually, and will rule on a suspension no later than 14 days after an application is received.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per my previous comment. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 06:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Wizardman 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
13. bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community asked to come to a consensus on the preferred names

13) The community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case, without further disputes or rancor. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. Any editor who makes disruptive edits risks having their contributions ignored and being barred from taking part. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

Support:

as nominator. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Supporting 13.1 instead. reply

1. Wizardman 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   Risker ( talk) 02:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Supporting 13.1 instead. reply

4.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Equal preference with 13.1. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 13.1 is better. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. In favour of 13.1. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Wording needs to mention that reliable sources must guide the consensus. No point having a consensus if it contradicts common usage in reliable sources, or contradicts our naming convention policy. See also here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. My first inclination was to happily sign this, but Carcharoth makes a good point. This is not an elaborate sort of vote. Cool Hand Luke 05:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Community asked to come to a consensus on the preferred names

13.1) The community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case, without further disputes or rancor. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing, fringe views Neutral point of view and naming conventions. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. Any editor who makes disruptive edits risks having their contributions ignored and being barred from taking part. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

Support:

1. (reworded with the extra sentence on RS and FRINGE. Is this enough?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Good change. Risker ( talk) 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 06:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Minor edit for the sake of prose. Lacuna noted below. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. This satisfies me. Cool Hand Luke 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Wizardman 01:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Equal preference with 13. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I support the change noting reliable sources, but I can't sign something that implies that Judea and Samaria Area, let alone Judea or Samaria, are fringe views. The former is a recognised term in actual use within Israel, even if not as widespread as West Bank outside Israel, while the latter are terms with a long and established history descending from antiquity. WP:FRINGE was orignally written for science articles, and I see no reason for it to apply here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I just re-read the guidelines and realise WP:FRINGE was some what stricter than I meant. Nevertheless, the above motion is not supposed to imply that any term is a fringe view, just that RS and a broad (rather than narrow) view needs to be taken. My intention was that to derive consensus, broader (rather than narrower) sourcing needs to be weighted according to common usage. Ultimately, the term then does not come into play if no terms are deemed to fall within it (which is determined by participants, not us). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I need to spend my time reviewing the evidence for the remedies, rather than discussing this, but my objection here stands. I'm not going to insist on rewriting the remedy, but I do think mention of WP:FRINGE was wholly unnecessary here. Would you have used it for other naming disputes? If a name is verifiable and in actual or past use, it cannot be a fringe view. What can be a fringe view is that (for example) any one name is the only name and other names do not exist. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Good point. Do you think WP:RS is sufficient? I have re-read it and it discusses fringe (i.e. not WP:FRINGE) in the sense that I had originally meant. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

That change is fine, thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It was a good pickup. Anyway, I think all the policies that pertain to it are listed now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion:

• What happens if the community fails to find a resolution after two months? -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I was planning on monitoring progress and seeing how it unfolds. Hopefully, with some admins as overseers we can keep it focussed and avoid disruption; a well structured page layout with an evidence/discussion section and a tally area should not be that hard to hammer something out. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user violate a topic ban or an editing restriction imposed in or under this case, that user may be briefly blocked, up to one week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Better to have a series of blocks showing recidivism, rather than a single long block appealed to us. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Per Carcharoth. Risker ( talk) 06:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
11. bainer ( talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As I have before, I oppose block enforcement wording with specified block lengths. They needlessly fetter administrator discretion and encourage wikilawyering against "too long" blocks that would otherwise be appropriate. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1.1) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and editing restrictions imposed in or under this case. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Proposed. -- Vassyana ( talk) 12:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice; specifying the expected block lengths up front will make things easier for the enforcing administrators, if nothing else. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 13:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   I must disagree, because it is exactly this sort of provision that discouraged me from becoming more active in arbitration enforcement as an administrator. I have seen, and spoken with, other admins who were similarly discouraged. Aside from that, I must be clear that I do not find the specified block lengths reasonable. If someone is earning a third block for a topic ban evasion, we should be looking towards an indefinite block, not hedging admins into a relatively slap-on-the-wrist one week block (with another tepid one week block to follow if there's yet another violation). -- Vassyana ( talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

3. Second choice Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice, having guidelines helps. Wizardman 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I agree with Kirill. I think our best rules are the unambiguous ones; more certainty for both the party in violation, and the admin who volunteers to enforce the sanction. Broad discretion is actually the road to wikilawyering and reversals, not finding 1. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per Cool Hand Luke. Guidance can help here. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Having spent some time last year on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, the guidelines were certainly helpful, especially when first participating. I think having some clear delineation of scope is more likely to bring new admins to participate in this area. Risker ( talk) 06:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. per all above. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Per Cool Hand Luke. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

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 at this time:

• Proposed principles: 1-8
• Proposed findings of fact: 1-13 (7 due to abstentions)
• Proposed remedies: 1 (though fails in lieu of 1.1), 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (due to abstention), 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 11, 12, 13.1
• Proposed enforcement: 1

Not passing at this time:

• Proposed principles: none
• Proposed findings of fact: none
• Proposed remedies: 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10, 13
• Proposed enforcement: 1.1

Wizardman 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Rem 13 not passing but is a new addition. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Now 13.1 is, 13 isn't. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 11 May 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.

Support

1. Close, we're done here. Wizardman 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Close. but allow time for remedy 13 to be voted on. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Close. 13.1 is passing, so I am content. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Close. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Close. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Close. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Close. Now the remedies are solid. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Done now. 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Still voting. Should be done soon. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose until I get the last provision I just placed sorted or scotched. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ok, sorted now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Same reason as Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Now finished voting. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply