Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Proposed decision

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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions
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:

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

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

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

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:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) We routinely have to remind people of this.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ... and this...
 * Deleted a word from the title of this standard principle as redundant (although I was the one who put it there in the first place). "Conduct and decorum" would also work well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

In general, users (and indeed the entire community) are expected to have figured this out. Those who have been around a while, should either shun disputes, or enter them only to help encourage them back into a calm editing environment within collegial norms. Not to escalate it.
 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ... and this.
 * With a reservation as to the last sentence, because it does not contain the usual caveat that exceptional circumstances may exist (compare proposed principle 6 and my comment there). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As in international diplomacy, there are two ways of settling disputes. The first involves setting up summits, going to the United Nations and discussing matters in great detail long into the night over fine wine and canapés. The second involves going to war with tanks, guns, shells and bombs. On wikipedia we prefer the fine wine approach. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Common sense
4) 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:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) WP:CLUE, although an essay and very brief, captures a concept that is central to productive editing on Wikipedia.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can legislate common sense. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam: As our repeated forays here show, we can't. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) What this means is, if editors in good faith, cannot agree on facts, cites, or article style (templates, layout, balance, etc), then that is a matter for wider community input. We do not make such decisions here. We do however rule on whether users have adequately complied with the norms that would lead to high quality collaborative editing, and on users conduct within the editing environment.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version"
6) Editors—particularly experienced editors—are expected to recognize the onset of an editorial dispute, and to work towards calming it rather than escalating or prolonging it. In particular, once it is clear that a certain revision or passage is disputed, it is unhelpful to revert it to one's preferred version until the dispute is resolved (with certain narrow exceptions).  All editors must be willing to allow the article to remain in "The Wrong Version" while dispute resolution is proceeding.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (Subject to some very specific communally agreed exceptions). Reasoning: - The essence of an edit war is that all versions are felt to be "wrong" by someone or other. So the demand to restore a "right" version before dispute resolution or page protection, will never normally be feasible, since that is the essence of the actual dispute itself.
 * Generally support, though with caveats. For example, at times it may be best to leave a disputed paragraph out of an article altogether until its content can be settled through a consensus or dispute-resolution process, rather than leave it in one or another of the contested versions; and while "don't edit-war" is a fundamental precept, BLP is not necessarily the only exception to this admonition that should be recognized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With the application of common sense, yes. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all good editors understand that the real objective is to contribute in such a way as to create a lasting improvement in our coverage of a topic. It is that smidgeon of "eventualism" - that editing for Internet posterity - that separates far-sighted sheep from goats applying the "greedy algorithm" for their POV. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With the caveats listed by NYB, yes, and common sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Casting aspersions
7) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) At times we need to take a much stronger line on users who indulge in such activity on-wiki. As much as personal attack, this can undermine the entire basis of collegial editing.
 * The qualification "continually" (an artefact of the original case in which this principle was developed) is probably not necessary; even a single instance of false accusations of this nature is misconduct, although continual accusations are certainly a more serious problem than an isolated ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Biographies of living persons
8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."  This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The policy Biographies of living persons refers to this, and lists examples of cases where it applies. The examples there may not be exhaustive and may change by consensus over time.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Administrators
9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) A balance between understanding and expectations.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Conduct on Arbitration pages
10) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill (prof) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Endemic conflict
1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Amnesty
2) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions
3) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are currently subject to discretionary sanctions, as outlined in the Digwuren case; these can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, and include a range of options, from site-wide blocks and page- or topic-bans to revert or other similar restrictions.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of readers not familiar with the earlier case, a brief description of what the "discretionary sanctions" regime means might be added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have expanded, per Brad's comment. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Heightened tensions
4) Because of the endemic, long-term conflicts plaguing this topic area, many editors have at times experienced regrettable—but understandable—difficulty with assuming good faith of their counterparts. In such an environment, it is unfortunately possible for certain actions to be regarded as provocative even if the actions are not problematic in and of themselves.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The implication here is that editors in a highly charged area should take extra care to avoid giving offense, even where no offense is intended. The corrolary is that editors should try not to be unduly quick to take unintended offense, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Externally coordinated editing
5) It is almost certain that externally coordinated editing—meaning an off-wiki, premeditated undertaking by several editors to perform certain agreed-upon (whether in specific or general form) edits—has taken place, and continues to take place, on articles within the area of conflict. However, because such external coordination leaves little or no direct evidence, it is generally difficult to distinguish among several possible scenarios:
 * (a) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A and B have explicitly coordinated their editing.
 * (b) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A has a personal relationship with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.
 * (c) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A shares a national, ethnic, or other viewpoint with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cf. certain sockpuppetry situations. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Involvement by security organs
6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting both 6.1 and 6.2 as complements, not as alternatives. I note for the drafter's consideration the talkpage suggestion that "regime" be replaced by "government." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both comments, per Brad; have also made the replacement of "state" for "regime". James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitration enforcement
7) Participation by various editors in Arbitration enforcement discussions related to this matter has at times been unhelpful, tending more towards the continuation and escalation of existing disputes than to useful analysis of the initial request for enforcement. Further, Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this matter have at times been inconsistently or inadequately applied, or inappropriately reversed.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Support the first sentence, which is apparent to anyone who watchlists WP:AE; would want to see specific examples adduced for the second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still would like to see some support for the second sentence if this is to become part of the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad; I find the patchiness plausible, but I doubt we need it in the finding and don't want to wear out the rubberstamp. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Newyorkbrad and Charles Matthews. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones
8) has edit-warred  and used Wikipedia as a battleground.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this user, although unblocked, has not edited since early September. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alden Jones' habit of suddenly appearing and jumping into the middle of disputes, leaving aside any claims of off-wiki coordination, denotes a serious problem in an editor. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * High proportion of reverts, otherwise not particularly active.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sam and YellowMonkey's observations. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Alex Bakharev
9) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex Bakharev's contributions are denoted by reasonable discussion of the issues. I think it is reasonable to mention it even without a serious accusation to the contrary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Flo, Sam. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brad's view that normally these 'findings of absence' should be avoided, but I've noticed this user being included amongst the targets of allegations on a number of occasions and so this particular finding bears including. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I agree with the finding as a statement of fact (and note that there was no disagreement on the workshop). It is completely appropriate to propose such a finding on the workshop page, so as to provide feedback to participants in the case, elicit any disagreement or counter-evidence, if any, and remind other arbitrators that they may propose alternative findings if warranted. However, unless an allegation has been widely publicized so that it is appropriate for the committee to "clear" an editor, I do not believe that this finding needs to be included in the final published decision, and would favor simply not mentioning this editor in the decision at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While normally it would not be necessary, I think it should happen it this case to show that the editor is question has been reviewed for problematic behavior and nothing significant was found. While editors with ethnic ties may have similar views and edit articles from similar points of view, not all editors with a particular point of view are engaging in disruptive editing. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys
10) has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering regarding potential efforts to undermine Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per Newyorkbrad. I do not see that Biophys has made a direct accusation against other editors; he stayed just the right side of the line. The general finding above is sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad, especially (to us) the point that he's agreed not to do it again. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary finding, IMO Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Borderline.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Although the cited comments were unhelpful, I do not see any intent to be disruptive, and Biophys has promised to refrain from further such comments in the future. I am not convinced that this comment, in itself, is of sufficient gravity to warrant an arbitration finding. (I do not exclude the possibility of other edits that cumulatively would warrant some type of finding.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think we need to be as complete as possible when we document the relevant events. These comment show a mentality that can be extremely problematic if not curbed. It is great that he says that he will refrain from doing it again. Addressing it in the case will be a reminder not to do something similar. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat
11.1) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included repeated edit-warring  and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 11.2) has used the Wikipedia email system inappropriately.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Although to the best of our knowledge, this was an isolated incident some months ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 11.3) There is no convincing evidence that and  are accounts operated by the same individual.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At least, none has been shown to the Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Morven. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Not sure this needs to be in the formal decision, but I agree with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim
12) has edit-warred.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was worried when I saw his essay on the subject. He is not the worst offender in this case by far, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and continue to see issues with edit war mentality per this situation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But in a much more minor fashion than many. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more minor than some, but we have voted above to support principles emphasising the importance of deescalation when editorial conflict arises. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm not seeing a bad editor here. We need to discriminate. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing from abstain, although the substance of my comments below stands. Upon further review of the total record, I am not convinced that this editor's conduct is such as to warrant criticizing him in an arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * This appears to be an instance of multiple reversions to the same article over a period of days, but there was some reasonable attempt at discussion, and the cited evidence pertains to only a single article. (One could, however, cite as an aggravating factor that the edit-war involving Deacon of Pndapetzim and Piotrus took place soon after this case, originally filed against Piotrus, was opened at the request of Deacon of Pndapetzim himself.) On balance, I am not convinced this series of edits warrants an arbitration finding absent evidence that it was other than an isolated situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue
13) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy  and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate soapboxing.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Halibutt
14) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on proposed finding 9, I agree with Brad's view generally but a slew of accusations have been made against a number of users in this case and this finding is worth making. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision, by de-emphasising 35% of the parties. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irpen
15.1) has repeatedly edit-warred.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The claim of "ownership" at Holodomor hardly stands up; but I'm unimpressed with the editing I've seen. The edit summaries, at very least, game our standards. If a template is a "coatrack", you are supposed to discuss that template, not simply exclude it from the page it centrally involves. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the edits to the article and the talk page discussions at the time leaves me distinctly unimpressed at most of those involved. Those removing the tags were also being disruptive but simply revert warring to restore them is not an appropriate strategy either. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Changing from abstain, although the substance of my comments below stands. Upon further review of the total record, I am not convinced that this editor's conduct has been such as to warrant formal criticism in an arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * The multiple reverts (although never close to 3RR/day) are obviously not best editing practice. However, they appear to relate to templates and dispute tags rather than article content. If article content is indeed disputed, to the point that a "disputed" tag is appropriate (as opposed to, say, an isolated user persisting in adding the tag long after the bona fide dispute is settled), it is hard to see how a user could keep the article flagged as disputed other than by re-adding the tag. On the other hand, in the case of the insertion of the "holodomor" template, I can imagine better alternatives than repeatedly deleting the template. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 15.2) The interaction between and  has continued to be confrontational, despite having been found wanting in the Digwuren case.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 15.3) There is no definitive evidence that is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Agree, but as per other "no evidence" or "insufficient evidence" findings, not sure it is necessary to mention this in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 15.4) There is no evidence that Irpen's advice to Biophys was offered in bad faith, or that the substance of said advice was in any way non-compliant with policy and community norms.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that there have been editors with outing concerns who have used this approach means that it can't be discounted, even if technically against policy. In the circumstances it was reasonable advice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I agree that there is no indication it was in bad faith, but I have to disagree with the second part of the proposal, not as any reflection on Irpen per se, but because I don't think this is an approach that should be encouraged. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * As with 15.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Koretek
16) No definitive evidence is available to link with any other account.  The Committee notes that Koretek is indefinitely blocked for his actions.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Not sure it is necessary to mention this (former) editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad, I'm not sure of the necessity, either. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True but I believe unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per above, unnecessary; user is long departed. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz
17) has edit-warred  and engaged in incivility and assumptions of bad faith.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With regret, because I detect a significant improvement recently. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Although these diffs do not display best editing practice or exemplary civility, and there is one clear instance of a personal attack that should never be repeated, I find these edits insufficient to warrant an arbitration finding. May reconsider if additional evidence is presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per NYB I don't think this rises to the level of needing a finding here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting is mild, and commentary while inappropriate is not of thet sufficient level.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad; and per Charles below, this does not seem to be a continuing problem. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Past three months don't seem a real problem. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

M.K
18) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on proposed finding 9, I agree with Brad's view generally but a slew of accusations have been made against a number of users in this case and this finding is worth making. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

M0RD00R
19) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on proposed finding 9, I agree with Brad's view generally but a slew of accusations have been made against a number of users in this case and this finding is worth making. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
20) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on proposed finding 9, I agree with Brad's view generally but a slew of accusations have been made against a number of users in this case and this finding is worth making. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Martintg
21) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the contributions from this user that I have seen amongst the relevant talk page discussions have typically been among the most constructive. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthead
22) has edit-warred  and engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Was once true, but is no longer so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is still, but old.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam, and moreover the user's recent contributions appear to be very productive. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Historically true, but Matthead appears to have changed the focus of much of his editing, and I do not see any problems in recent months. (Again, I am prepared to reconsider if additional diffs are cited.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam, Brad, but would support with "previously" inserted before "edit-warred". James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Molobo
23.1) has repeatedly engaged in edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though this must of course be read in tandem with the next finding, and the observation that to date Molobo has stuck to the restriction. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 23.2) is currently subject to a voluntary editing restriction, as outlined below: "Upon conditions, as we agreed. These are
 * That you stick to a limit of one revert per page per week, and that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page. If you violate this limit, you may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.
 * That you stick to the Digwuren restriction: if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week.
 * After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block I originally placed will be reapplied."


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Accurate. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reformatted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I wrapped the quote of the restriction in quotation marks. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Novickas
24) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication of any significant allegations against the user either. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus
25.1) has repeatedly edit-warred.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these multiple reverts may be defensible, but not all of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

 25.2) has at times used his administrative tools and status inappropriately; for example, he has used threats of administrative action to further violations of BLP policy.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad judgement is obvious in the diff. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Insufficient evidence cited thus far (though I am open to the possibility that additional evidence will be adduced). Regarding the cited diff, Piotrus has stated on the workshop that he overlooked the BLP issue in the edit he restored and would not do the same thing in the future. Not convinced at this point that Piotrus' administrator actions warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad, Sam; perhaps a finding of abuse of his status? James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of one admin mentioned on this page who does this routinely, and blocks people he is in dispute with.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * The instances of abuse of administrator status (including declaring intention to use powers) are occasional; the instances of abuse of administrator powers are very few. I might support a watered-down version of this finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Sam Blacketer. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. Perhaps an alternative that merely discusses status? --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 25.3) There is no definitive evidence that is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the reason for the case and it is a bit of a pity to have such a weak and mealy-mouthed finding, but there it is - if the evidence existed, a more definite finding could be written, but it doesn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Agree, and I note that as stated above in a principle, "definitive evidence" of off-wiki coordination may rarely be available. (The "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety" principle I drafted and the committee adopted in the Cla68-FM-SV case may be relevant in some of these situations.) Not sure that this needs to be formally included in the final decision, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 25.4) Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit. There is no evidence that anything related to said activity constituted a violation of policy on the English Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is possible that some problems from the Polish Wikipedia spill over into Wikipedia English, since these editors are regular Wikipedia English contributors, it is not clearly a matter of them importing the disputes into Wikipedia English. For us to sanction for problems in another Foundation wiki, there would need to be evidence that serious harassment was happening. I see no evidence to support anything along these lines. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We must caution ourselves against thinking the English wikipedia is in some way superior to that in any other language. The Polish Wikipedia is capable of running itself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with Brad's comments. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I have to disagree. In general, it is of course true that activities on other Wikimedia projects are matters for those projects, but as Flo observes, those activities may be relevant to this project if they constitute importing an external dispute here - and for that matter exporting a local dispute to that other project. The so-called 'black book' was a compilation of material such as diffs from this project, apparently in preparation for anticipated dispute resolution activities on this project. As Brad discusses below, there is disagreement about the proper approach to such cahiers (example), and as such I will not be making any alternative proposals here, but I do not think this should not pass. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * We have held in the past (for example in the Jim62sch case) that off-wiki comments toward or about a user can provide grounds for on-wiki sanctions in extreme circumstances. I would not agree with any suggestion that nothing that a user posts on another wiki could support a sanction, in a sufficiently serious case, on this wiki. However, there is some disagreement within even the English Wikipedia as to exactly how far a user may go in posting "lists of grievances" or "evidence compilations" in userspace at a time when no dispute resolution is pending; that being the case, I would not support action against Piotrus for the page he apparently maintained about Irpen on Polish Wikipedia. However, given that Irpen was apparently very serious upset by Piotrus' actions, I hope that they will not be repeated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 25.5) There is no evidence that is connected with or has edited on behalf of Armia Krajowa or any other organization.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * As above, no disagreement, but do not think it needs to be mentioned in the formal decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 25.6) On the whole, there is no convincing evidence that has acted in bad faith, or that he is motivated by anything other than the best interests of the project.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I completely agree that Piotrus thinks that he is acting in the best interest of the project, but unfortunately he does make assumptions of bad faith about other editors. I have faith in Piotrus's ability to overcome this tendency if he gets a good mentor to work with him and shows him where he is doing it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Flo, Brad. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like James I agree with both Flo and Brad. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Although I have no objection in principle to such a finding as this (compare the decisions I wrote for the committee in Cla68-FM-SV and my unsuccessful proposed finding of good faith in Sarah Palin protection wheel war), I am reluctant to make this finding about one particular editor when it is surely true about many of the other users also mentioned in this decision. Compare negative pregnant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with the finding as proposed but on this occasion I do not think it should go in the final decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent
26) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based not just on the cited diffs but the overall record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment also is unacceptable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't like at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Relata_refero
27) has repeatedly edit-warred.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above at finding #15.1; there was disruption by many concerned but this was still a poor strategy. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Changed from abstain, although the substance of my prior comment stands. Upon further review of the record, I do not find sufficient or sufficiently recent misbehavior to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Same comment as with respect to Irpen at finding 15.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sciurinæ
28) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * This editor appears to be barely mentioned on the evidence page. In the absence of anything further, I find the cited diff insufficient for an arbitration finding. (As in all cases, I remain open to changing my views if additional evidence is adduced.) Addendum: I just noticed that I missed a block of evidence about this editor because the username was misspelled. However, most of the diffs in that section appear to be years old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the evidence in support of this finding to be very thin. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After review, move to oppose. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the evidence establishes this. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Abstain for now. Need to do more checking before final decision. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7
29) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground and engaged in otherwise grossly unacceptable commentary.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, there are a series of inappropriate comments rather than a few isolated ones. It would be helpful, however, to know whether any such comments are of recent vintage; many of the diffs in the evidence section cited go back months and in other cases years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the examples cited in evidence appear to be recent, true, but they do occur over a sustained period of time, and the battleground description seems to be more appropriate here than in relation to any of the other proposed findings of fact. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Changing from support based on the continuing lack of evidence of recent violations. I trust that this editor will not see any lack of a finding or remedy against him as license to return to his former behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Per Newyorkbrad's comments. There is not much evidence of recent problems. Is his editing endorsing a point of view? Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing editing problems, I'm seeing tendentious talk page comments. I'm chary of the "battleground" wording on what I have come up with so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything recent enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tymek
30) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by has been presented.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Substantially per proposed finding 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins
31.1) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel is open to current English Wikipedia administrators and former administrators in good standing.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) move to abstain.
 * True. (Note to clerks: this and the other "background" paragraphs about the channel should only be included in the final decision if substantive findings about the channel are also made, not if it would merely be free-floating here by itself.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse Brad's caveat. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I fully agree with the wording but on second thought I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 31.2) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel was created to facilitate discussion among Wikipedia administrators, with the intent being the creation of a forum where:
 * (a) administrators could obtain real-time or near-real-time feedback from other administrators
 * (b) matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed
 * (c) a limited set of users would create a forum with a high signal-to-noise ratio


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. IIRC, the channel was formed to give The Office (Danny) a way to quickly reach admins. At that time OTRS was not functioning well and an alternative way of dealing with sensitive issues was needed. move to abstain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs)
 * (Same request to clerks as 31.1.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cautious support. These were indeed the reasons why it was created, but are they necessarily the reasons why it continues to exist? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Sam Blacketer. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I fully agree with the wording but on second thought I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ill-informed myself, not an IRC user. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 31.3) The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Wikipedia community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators (which includes some members of the Committee acting in a private capacity).


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) move to abstain.
 * (Same request to clerks as 31.1.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I fully agree with the wording but on second thought I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. I should note that I'm curious as to the source of ambiguity. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure 'Ambiguous' is the right term here. 'Disputed by some' perhaps. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 31.4) Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 31.2(b).


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) move to abstain
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * but not sure if this is solveable. People gossip.  People enjoy drama and stirring pots. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I fully agree with the wording but on second thought I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 31.5) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel has been the subject of repeated complaints and scandals which have adversely affected the well-being of the broader project.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) move to abstain.


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 31.6 and 31.7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The more specific #31.6 and #31.7 are preferable. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I fully agree with the proposal but on second thought I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefer 31.6 and 31.7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Newyorkbrad.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

<div id="#wikipedia-en-admins (31.6)"> 31.6) There have been numerous instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which administrators or former administrators have made inappropriate comments in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Although this channel is not part of Wikipedia proper, and at times the attention paid to particular individual comments can be significantly overblown, such comments can nonetheless reflect negatively on the administrators who make them, on administrators as a whole, and on the project. From time to time, the channel operators have led initiatives to improve the tone of discourse in the channel.


 * Support
 * No pride of authorship; please suggest improvements to the wording. (We may need an associated principle as well.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We might add something to principle 9 about administrators not doing things which reflect negatively on the project, etc. Kirill (prof) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill (prof) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to add a word of comment on the oft-expressed objection (particularly by Giano) that #wikipedia-en-admins constitutes policing wikipedia from an external site. If the admins as police analogy is accepted then #wikipedia-en-admins is the police radio system - it takes place on a public waveband but the police now go to some efforts to stop anyone else listening in. Any officer who hears a report over the police radio, rushes in and takes action, is doing so in their own capacity and is personally liable if they have exceeded their power or used it incorrectly. They may need later to justify in court that they had reasonable suspicion someone was breaking the law; just saying that they accepted what they heard on police radio is not likely to impress the court. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Sam's analogy is a good one. We've previously held that only on-site discussion is relevant in assessing consensus in relation to matters of content or policy; the same goes for assessing consensus in relation to administrative issues. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * I fully agree with the proposal but I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

<div id="#wikipedia-en-admins (31.7)"> 31.7) There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether or not in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. While it is understandable that an aggrieved user would seek the immediacy of IRC contact rather than have to post a concern about another user on a noticeboard that might be backlogged or unattended, these types of requests still raise serious issues of process and fairness.


 * Support
 * Same comment as 31.6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill (prof) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By analogy with English law, going to IRC is in effect an ex parte application to a Judge in chambers. If at all possible the issue should be open for other people to comment before it is decided. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be discouraged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * I fully agree with the proposal I abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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.

Alden Jones mentored
1) Should resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support both this and 1.2 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With 1.2. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Alden Jones prohibited from reverting
1.1) is prohibited from reverting any article to a previous version. If any of his edits constitutes substantially a revert, he is required to justify his changes on the article talk page.


 * Support:
 * Proposed as an alternative. Mentoring is unlikely to be successful for an occasional editor such as Alden Jones. The key issue is his reverting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn in favour of supporting 1.2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both work for me. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Prefer 1.2 FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A revert limitation is in order for this editor but the wording of the proposal is contradictory: he's not allowed to revert (first sentence), but if he does he must explain (second sentence). I will propose the standard 1RR wording as 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad. Kirill (prof) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically a ban.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Alden Jones restricted
1.2) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Support, together with 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Kirill (prof) 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both this one and 1. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I will defer to the majority and have it as additional to 1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With 1. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain
 * Shouldn't be necessary with mentorship. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys admonished
2) is admonished to avoid engaging in unhelpful public commentary.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In line with finding of fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per FOF comment above and per Sam Blacketer. Might support an appropriate remedy if other evidence of misconduct is adduced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat banned
3) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate having to vote to ban anyone (as I know do all the arbitrators), but the evidence and the block log are egregious. I have considered proposing an alternative remedy but would need to see a commitment by this editor to an immediate and definitive improvement in his behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Now second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Boodlesthecat banned, mentored, restricted
3.1) (A) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 30 days.
 * (B) Should Boodlesthecat resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * (C) Should Boodlesthecat make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * (D) Boodlesthecat is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * (E) Should Boodlesthecat engage in further acts of gross misbehavior, he may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year, or indefinitely, by consensus including at least three uninvolved administrators on Arbitration enforcement.


 * Support:
 * Proposed for consideration in light of talkpage discussion. The comprehensive set of remedies, proposed as a package, provide him with a time-out to reassess his editing methods followed by steps to address each of the problems identified with this user's editing, and a quick path back to the edit if he relapses into serious misconduct. First choice for me at this time, though I know that this will be regarded as softheartedness by some. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Ban too short to give the Community and Boodlesthecat the break needed let editing restrictions work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice, though mentorship may be useful in either case. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Ban too short, per Flo. James F. (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished
4) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the evidence and per my recent comment on related Fof, I continue to support the admonishment. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As Sam Blacketer says above, not the worst offender in the case by far, but this precatory remedy is acceptable to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comment on finding of fact #12, an admonishment alone is apposite. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Upon further review of the record as a whole, I do not find a formal arbitration remedy to be necessary for this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Greg park avenue banned
5) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only mitigating factor is an apparently (and surprisingly) clean block log. Otherwise, same comment as remedy 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Now second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Greg park avenue banned, mentored, restricted
5.1) (A) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 30 days.
 * (B) Should Greg park avenue resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * (C) Should Greg park avenue make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * (D) Greg park avenue is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * (E) Should Greg park avenue engage in further acts of gross misbehavior, he may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year, or indefinitely, by consensus including at least three uninvolved administrators on Arbitration enforcement.


 * Support:
 * Proposed for consideration in light of talkpage discussion. The comprehensive set of remedies, proposed as a package, provide him with a time-out to reassess his editing methods followed by steps to address each of the problems identified with this user's editing, and a quick path back to the edit if he relapses into serious misconduct. First choice for me at this time, though I know that this will be regarded as softheartedness by some. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. I think both Greg park avenue AND the Community need a long break from the problems associated with this editors conduct. I want to consider editing restriction for his return AFTER the break, not now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, equal preference. I do see a chance for redemption for Greg park avenue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Re Kirill's concern, BLP matters would be a significant and essential part of the terms of any mentorship arrangement. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * This really does nothing to resolve the major BLP concerns. Kirill (prof) 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ban too short, per Flo. James F. (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Irpen restricted
6.1) is prohibited from interacting directly with or commenting about  under any circumstances.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Now second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice to #6.1A. Note that these pairs of alternatives (6.1/6.1A and 6.2/6.2A) are probably to be considered as alternatives within each pair, but otherwise cumulative. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * An absolute prohibition with no exceptions is overbroad in this case. Proposing 6.1A in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Irpen restricted
6.1A) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about  under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Support conditioned on the reciprocal remedy for Piotrus also passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we are not making it an absolute ban from interacting, and allows indirect contact, their overlap might cause them to be involved in dispute resolution on the same topic. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice over #6.1. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * If they're not going to interact with each other, then there's no legitimate reason for them to need to resolve disputes between themselves, or to have both of them involved in a third-party dispute. Kirill (prof) 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Irpen restricted
6.2) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a one revert per page per week restriction is too restrictive and could be a big aid in keeping him out of conflicts. I'm willing to revisit the issue in a 3 or 4 months. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Third choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice to #6.2A. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Much too restrictive for this editor given the limited nature of the "edit-warring" established (e.g., replacement of "disputed article" tags). See my comment on the finding of fact. Proposing 6.2A in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Irpen admonished
6.2A) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Not at all certain this is necessary, but substantially better than 6.2 on the basis of the limited evidence cited. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Kirill (prof) 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice over #6.2. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Not needed. The reverting isn't particularly heavy, and Irpen doesn't mind having a fluid editing arrangement with his content opponents anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Lokyz restricted
7.1) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page.  Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One revert per page per week is not too restrictive and has the potential too keep the user out of conflicts. Can revisit in 3-4 months if appropriate. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Due to recent improvement in approach. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam Blacketer and my comments on the FOF, but 7.1A proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem necessary. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Lokyz admonished
7.1A) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.


 * Support
 * I am not certain that a case of edit-warring has been made out, but should a majority support the finding of fact above, this is the appropriate remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Kirill (prof) 03:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Lokyz restricted
7.2) Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May be necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not certain this is necessary, but if the FOF above is adopted, this is the appropriate remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Matthead restricted
8.1) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page.  Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In line with finding of fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my comment on the FOF and per Sam Blacketer. I might support an admonition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per position on finding of fact #22. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

8.2) Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relapse prevention. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Flo, Brad. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per position on finding of fact #22. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * The problems are some time ago, and the editor is to be commended for his improved behavior, but this remedy would not be an unreasonable precaution against a relapse. Undecided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi commended
9) is commended for his diligence and dedication in arbitration enforcement work.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Moreschi wades into difficult situations on some of Wikipedia most controversial topics. His work at arbitration enforcement is greatly appreciated, but I don't support singling him out for mention. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Brad, Flo, though Moreschi's actions are indeed very much appreciated. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * The committee generally doesn't issue "free-floating" compliments; but see the first two sentences of my comment on remedy 21. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of the French mathematician who said he'd give a medal for something, "non pas de Fields, mais du chocolat". Charles Matthews (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus urged
10) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about  under any circumstances.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Now second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Need an exception for participation in dispute resolution; 10.1 proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

10.1) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about  under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * Conditioned on the parallel remedy for Irpen passing as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my reasoning on Irpen's remedy. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my comment in the identical Irpen remedy above. Kirill (prof) 03:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Piotrus reminded
11) is reminded of the need to comply with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy at all times.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support including this remind remedy (with reminds being the least severe remedy we give). This is an example of how on occasion Piotrus lets his biases come through in his editing. BLP is one of our most important policies. And additionally, given the dynamics of the situation, Piotrus was not the best person to be reverting in any case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Unnecessary; Piotrus acknowledges he momentarily overlooked the BLP implications of Greg park avenue's edit. Normally removing other user's comments would be blockable as vandalism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam Blacketer, unless there is additional evidence that I have overlooked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Hopefully Piotrus will have taken away the point that BLP must be considered at all times without the need for this. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus cautioned
11.1) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, given the lack of a strong finding, this is more in the vein of a general reminder than a sanction for specific misconduct. Kirill (prof) 02:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A lot worse than this goes on a daily basis, in reference to cite in FoF.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 07:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Uncertain whether this is needed; will read through the evidence again. (Note: "powers and status" changed to "powers or status"; Sam or Kirill, please revert if you disagree.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus admonished
12) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Piotrus mentored
13) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice, and particularly in avoiding further involvement in edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen mentoring be used successfully to prevent healthcare professionals from losing the licenses. Firm expections and instructions are useful, yes, but singling out someone to give the instruction can greatly enhance the chances that they will work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm afraid I see this as a ludicrous remedy. Piotrus has been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and an administrator since January 2005. If his understanding is such that he still needs a "mentor to assist him in understanding policy" now, then he is never going to understand it. Better to give firm instruction as to future conduct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam Blacketer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I should note that this stronger line will lead to the eventual departure of many of our community. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't understand this comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Poeticbent mentored
14) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also wondering about civility patrol. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam Blacketer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Not convinced we shouldn't look at a ban here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Relata_refero admonished
15) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially revert-warring. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per comments on the finding of fact above, it's a matter of choice of tactics in the face of disruption. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * After a further review of the record as a whole, I find insufficient evidence of misbehavior, especially recently, to warrant an arbitration remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Borderline evidence; not sure this is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sciurinæ admonished
16) is admonished to avoid treating Wikipedia as a battleground.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Insufficient evidence, unless there is more out there that I have missed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After review, now oppose. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per position on finding of fact #28. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * Not convinced, as per finding of fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still undecided. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Move to Oppose. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7 banned
17) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per finding of fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears much too harsh in the absence of demonstrated recent misconduct. Open to reconsidering if additional evidence is adduced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentorship might be more appropriate here. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * For now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors reminded
18) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't hurt. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure of efficacy, per Kirill. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But why not put such things in the principles? No one can disagree, but to call this a remedy is optimism. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * These general reminders haven't been at all effective in the previous cases dealing with this area, but I suppose they can't hurt. Kirill (prof) 06:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we are beyond the point of making these general statements the only remedy, but I think they have their place at the foot of the decision. If reading the peroration could help start even one editor on a better path, it's worth the try, IMHO. (On the other hand, I probably deserve some pushback from Kirill after the way I've nitpicked his draft.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors counseled
19) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But as my comment above. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice of approach to one's own editing is something of a theme in this case, with respect to many editors. I hope all the parties take this to heart and that we do not end up here again through further poor choices. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * As in 18 above. Kirill (prof) 06:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins deprecated
20.1) The Committee recommends that use of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel be discontinued.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of the discussions in the channel can occur on site or in the Wikipedia or Wikipedia-en channels. More participation in the other channels and on site noticeboards will give more users greater access to and contact with admins. For types of issues that require privacy, #wikipedia-en-admins is not suitable because security lapses are too common. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC) modified word FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) move to abstain.
 * Is broken in a certain sense, not in others. It is nearly two years since I first thought it should be somehow rebooted. This has not been the approach, while piecemeal reforms have been implemented. All quite understandable, but the albatross factor hasn't been cancelled so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It no longer seems to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, and with respect to those attempting to make reforms, I do not feel that they have been terribly effectual. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I do not believe the admitted issues involving the channel warrant this remedy. In any event, if #admins were abolished, something else would quickly take its place, and for better or worse, I doubt it would be a well-functioning on-wiki noticeboard. Our having promised in the IRC case to institute guidelines for channel governance and then having failed to do so is unsatisfactory, but again, does not call for abolishing a communications medium that at least some administrators find useful or enjoyable, and not for nefarious purposes. Proposing 20.3 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I agree with the remedy but abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only once a suitable on-wiki replacement is functioning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. I am, however, going to note that this is unenforceable, given the lack of jurisprudence. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

20.2) The Committee will propose a restructuring of the current scheme of administrators' noticeboards in order to provide a suitable on-wiki replacement for those aspects of the channel which do not require privacy; see findings 31.2(a) and 31.2(c).


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)move to abstain
 * Not sure about the word 'propose'; it's more a technical matter of ascertaining how to set up real-time communication between administrators. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Same comment as 20.1. Proposing 20.3 in lieu. I would be glad to consider any ideas for revitalizing and streamlining the noticeboard system, but that is a separate question from abolishing the #admins channel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent that we are pre-empting the admins' own input, this seems the wrong way to go. Noticeboards in general bother me, and AN seems to have issues that may anyway require some more radical thoughts. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a monopoly on good ideas here. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I agree with the remedy but abstain since some people may think that I'm too close to the situation to be impartial. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins users reminded
20.3) Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
 * (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
 * (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
 * (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Disclosure: I am an occasional (but by no means everyday) participant in this channel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Kirill 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. As a suggestion, however, why not phrase this as directed as all sysops who engage in off-wiki activities related to their on-wiki presence, with a warning to avoid bringing themselves and the project into disrepute? Offered for consideration, at least. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain per other remedies related to IRC. People that frequent IRC need to understand that they are speaking to a limited number of people and that the opinions expressed are not representative of the wider community. Arbitrators and other people in positions of trust should take great caution to prevent channel participants from biasing their decision making about the greater Community. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement reform
21) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The committee appreciates the work of those administrators who assist regularly in the thankless task of monitoring and taking action on reports at Arbitration enforcement. There have been times when it seemed that substantially all the work on this very difficult assignment has been performed by just one or a small handful of administrators. As I have noted before, the regime of "general sanctions" effectively transfers authority, with respect both to sanctioning users already identified as having misbehaved as well as those who may edit inappropriately going forward, from this committee to the admins working on enforcement. The jury is still out on whether this is a good or bad thing; an RfC on the enforcement process may provide useful input in addressing this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Content dispute resolution reform
22) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will propose reforms to the content dispute resolution process.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In favour of 22.2. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefer #22.2. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Prefer 22.1 22.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution reform
22.1) Following the conclusion of this case and of the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.


 * Support:
 * Two changes made to Kirill's proposal. First, any development of a new dispute-resolution process should be community-based. Arbitrators should participate actively in the discussion but the responsibility of developing proposals is that of all interested editors. (On the other hand, to maximize the chance that something worthwhile comes out of the discussion, perhaps some time limit on the discussion should be set.) Second, because there is only so much community time that can or should be devoted to dispute-resolution meta-issues at once, I would hold off on beginning this process until after the upcoming elections are over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * If this is going to occur after the elections, it is properly the remit of the newly constituted Committee to determine whether it considers this to be a priority at that time. Kirill (prof) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree with the rewording if I dropped the provision about waiting? Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I suspect that any community discussion will last long enough to make it a moot point. Kirill (prof) 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 22.2 proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Content dispute resolution reform
22.2) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.


 * Support:
 * Per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill (prof) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitration guides
23) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can be done without making it a formal remedy in the case, but I suppose no harm done to say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one already but it needs updating. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Overdue. Should include things like "free speech is not a right on WP; and even if it were, we all know that free speech is not the same as the right to have anyone listen to what you say". Charles Matthews (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Case pages blanked
24) Following the conclusion of this case, all case pages, with the exception of the posted final decision, shall be courtesy blanked by the clerks.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * We don't need a formal remedy for this; let's not get into the habit of giving people the expectation that we do. James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * This can be done in any case, where circumstances warrant, by any arbitrator or clerk. A formal remedy to this effect is not necessary, and could be read to imply that courtesy-blanking may not be done in other appropriate cases, which I know is not intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need a formal remedy for this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been many different allegations made in association with this case, many of them unsubstantiated (indeed, we may well have made findings of fact to the effect that some are unsubstantiated). However, I think this can be left to the usual procedures. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General

 * Even though I have disagreed with some of his proposals, I would like to thank Kirill Lokshin for the enormous effort he put into organizing and analyzing the evidence in this case and preparing the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. You did an excellent job reviewing the evidence and writing proposals. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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.''

"Case pages blanked" not carried but ought to be implemented by the closing Clerk. Wise decision to not pass: passing a formal decision on this seems to run contrary to the spirit of courtesy blanking of "minimum attention for a sensitive matter."

AGK 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's try this again (I'm confused..)
 * Principles 1-10 all pass;
 * FoF 1-9, 11.1, 13, 15.1, 23.1, 26, 27 passes (11.2, 11.3, 12, 14, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 16-22, 23.2, 24, 25.1-5, 29, 30, all of 31 except 31.5 all have more favor votes but do not meet majority at this time)
 * Remedies 11.1, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23 passes (1, 1.2, 3, 3.1, 4, 5, 5.1, 6 (all), 7 (all), 10 (all), 15, 20.1, 22.2 all have more favor votes but under majority)
 * Enforcement 1 passes.

-- Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion on the talkpage re number of active arbitrators and required majority. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a clerk please revise the implementation note to make it more clear at a glance what is or is not passing, perhaps by listing the subject-matter of each proposal next to the number in table format (e.g., Finding 7 (Alden Jones) etc.). Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More notes
(From the talk page, and now this page.)

My recommendation is that all Committee members revisit this case. The proposals here are convoluted in nature; a total re-visit and casting of votes on every proposal is the most helpful solution I can think of.

A number of other proposals are passing already, or have received zero or little support and/or much opposition. Furthermore, a number of proposals have been added quite recently (most seem to be proposed alternatives from Newyorkbrad); it would seem that it is necessary for each Committee member to re-visit this page and vote on those proposals.

AGK 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The PD talk page say that Deskana and FayssalF are inactive, making it 11. Is that wrong? --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. That is indeed correct.
 * That's two major errors in the ACA page. It's a shame Ryan hasn't been able to be active with this case; this sort of thing is caught easily if a clerk can manage time for the case, but is often otherwise missed (I know—I often make mistakes like this—so I don't blame Ryan). This changes everything yet again.…
 * Do we know if Deskana is planning to vote? If not, the majority will change downwards yet again.
 * AGK 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He stayed inactive on the case, so I doubt he is. Charles and Newyorkbrad both sent messages to the list about winding up the case, so he knows what is up. Unless he started reading the case already, if will take him days to read the evidence and vote. I say we go ahead with the 6 majority unless he votes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Move to close. My assessment is that we have made as much progress as we reasonably can in this case. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close 24 hours (at minimum) after an implementation note is posted above for review. Several proposals have changed votes and abstains making them prone to mistakes in tallying the votes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close on the assumption that findings with five in favour and two abstentions are passing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close effective 48 hours from this vote, to give arbitrators a final opportunity to review and cast or update their votes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose temporarily, until a Clerk can prepare an implementation note to reflect what is passing and arbitrators have an opportunity to review their votes and to vote on the newer proposals. However, I agree that the case needs to wind up soon and hope it can be closed by no later than this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a short time; I have promised to take a second look at some of the findings and remedies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)