all proposed

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.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 7 are away or inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

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.

Topical Probation for parties

1) Enacted on 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

Support:

1. Appears necessary, and so it may be unprotected. Dmcdevit· t 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editing

3) Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

5) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

7) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball discourages inclusion of information regarding outcomes, or other future events. Speculation by reliable experts may be included only in limited circumstances.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good faith acceptance of references

8) References may be used which are not available online. It is sufficient that that they may be found and verified using the facilities of an academic library or a service such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of demonstrated failure, a user is presumed to be able to adequately cite such references.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Optimum leadership

9) The role of a Wikipedia administrator extends beyond enforcement of rules to active support of other users in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Absolutely; we're a community. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dynamic content

10) Actively edited Wikipedia articles which concern current events are dynamic, that is, they reflect developing situations as they unfold. Optimal reporting includes adequate treatment of new or prospective developments.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reconciliation

11) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Though "fixed" might be better. ;-) James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and closely related articles, chiefly regarding the characterization of its constitutional status and relationship to Serbia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kosovar viewpoint

2) There are a number of editors who edit Kosovo from a Kosovar viewpoint, including Dardanv ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ferick ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hipi_Zhdripi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ilir_pz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kushtrimxh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tonycdp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vezaso ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This perspective typically emphasizes United Nations administration and settlement talks currently in progress rather than Serbian sovereignty [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] [6] and [7].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Content. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Content. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Tension regarding sources

3) There is tension between what Wikipedia:Reliable sources will permit and what is obvious to some observers, see Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#Real World.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

PerfectStorm edit wars

4) PerfectStorm ( talk · contribs), particularly under his previous username, C-c-c-c ( talk · contribs), has an extensive history of edit warring. [8]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

PerfectStorm previously banned

5) PerfectStorm, as C-c-c-c, was previously banned by the community for personal attacks and disruption, in addition to the edit warring. He returned as PerfectStorm. As PerfectStorm, he has continued his disruptive behavior, even equating other editors with Hitler and the Nazis. [9] [10]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bormalagurski edit wars

6) Bormalagurski ( talk · contribs) has an extensive history of edit warring relating to Balkans issues. He has been blocked several times for edit warring. [11] He has also continued to make reverts to the articles related to this case during the arbitration, and after the passage of an injunction.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bormalagurski is uncivil

7) Bormalagurski has a long history of making uncivil comments. [12] Three of his blocks have been regarding incivility of or personal attacks. [13]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hipi Zhdripi edit wars

8) Hipi Zhdripi ( talk · contribs), who frequently edits from dynamic IP addresses beginning with 172, has engaged in edit warring. [14]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hipi Zhdripi is uncivil

9) Hipi Zhdripi has made uncivil comments. [15] [16]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vezaso edit wars

10) Vezaso ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring ( evidence). He has been blocked once for edit warring. [17]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dardanv edit wars

11) Dardanv ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring (e.g, [18], for which he has received two blocks. [19]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ferick edit wars

12) Ferick ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring, for which he has been blocked twice. [20] He has also indicated an unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiation. [21]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ferick is uncivil

13) Ferick has made uncivil comments. [22] [23]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ilir pz edit wars

14) Ilir pz ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring related to Kosovo (e.g, [24]), for which he has been blocked three times. [25]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ilir pz is uncivil

15) Ilir pz has made uncivil comments. [26] [27]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Laughing Man edit wars

16) Laughing Man ( talk · contribs), previously known as Lowg ( talk · contribs), has engaged in edit warring [28], for which he has been blocked twice. [29]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Osli73 edit wars

17) Osli73 ( talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring related to Srebrenica massacre ( [30]), for which he has been blocked once. [31]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO edit wars

18) While to a lesser extent, ChrisO ( talk · contribs) has also engaged in edit warring, as well as inappropriate use of the administrative rollback button in content disputes. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tonycdp is disruptive

19) Tonycdp ( talk · contribs)'s actions constitute disruption. He has been uncivil [37], [38] [39], edit warred on Kosovo [40], including using an anonymous IP, confirmed by CheckUser, to make reverts [41] and assume a false persona to lend support to his point of view [42] [43].

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bormalagurski has used abusive sockpuppets

20) CheckUser shows that KOCOBO ( talk · contribs) is an abusive sockpuppet of Bormalagurski, used to engage in further edit warring. Srbijanković ( talk · contribs) and Svetislav Jovanović ( talk · contribs) are likely sockpuppets, and Bože pravde ( talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet. ( evidence)

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 05:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vezaso has used an abusive sockpuppet

21) CheckUser confirms that Palmucha ( talk · contribs) is an abusive sockpuppet of Vezaso, used to edit war and evade 3RR violation, during the course of the temporary injunction on Kosovo. [44] ( evidence)

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 05:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO

22) ChrisO ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has played a major role in the editing of Kosovo and related articles. His main thrust has been insistence on other editors following his interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This often results in removal of the point of view they are trying to express and produces the impression that he is opposed to that point of view.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)' reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dardanv and Vezaso

23) CheckUser evidence indicates that Dardanv and Vezaso, both parties to this case who have offered statements, are the same person. Semarforikuq was also created by the same user to circumvent the current injunction.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 01:27, 21 October 2006 (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.

PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c banned

1) For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bormalagurski banned

2) For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hipi Zhdripi limited to one account

3) Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, and Vezaso banned from Kosovo-related articles

4) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO warned

5) ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Probations

6) Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert paroles

7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Though unnecessary in the light of Probation. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kosovo related articles on Article probation

8) All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption.

Support:

1. Alternative remedy Fred Bauder 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Probably better. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I prefer 9.1 (aren't these two alternatives?). Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Tendentious editing by nationalistic editors

9) Editors of Kosovo and related articles who repeatedly engage in tendentious nationalist editing which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Alternative remedy Fred Bauder 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too restricted. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
3. We don't enforce content. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Modified

9.1) Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 18:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. This also works. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO

11) ChrisO ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dardanv banned

12) For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Apparently additional sockpuppeting has come to light. See #Dardanv and Vezaso Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Too strong. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

... for one month

12) For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Violations of the any bans or paroles imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 17:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Second choice Fred Bauder 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

2) Violations of the any bans or paroles imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. Blocks or bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. First choice Fred Bauder 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Bit strong, but, maybe it isn't. James F. (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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.

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.

1. Pretty much everything has passed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Close Fred Bauder 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Charles Matthews 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. close ➥the Epopt 19:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply