Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
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:

Temporary injunction
1) User:Yuber, using any account or IP, is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this arbitration until a final decision is made in this case.


 * Support:
 * Ambi 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (do not wait 24 hours)
 * David Gerard 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've added "or IP"
 * Fred Bauder 15:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 15:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 16:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
1) With respect to controversial topics Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a topic be fairly presented.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Categories
1.1) Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. In the instant case, inclusion of the category "Category:Geography of Israel" in the article Golan Heights is not an endorsement one way or the other of the status of the territory. Thus both "Category:Geography of Syria" and "Category:Geography of Israel" are appropriate and useful to a reader looking for information.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 18:32 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editing controversial topics
2) Certain subjects are subjects of controversy both outside the context of Wikipedia and within. Editing of articles dealing with these subjects requires extra effort and an appropriate attitude of tolerance and cooperation.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Competency
2.1) Wikipedia editors who are unable to successfully edit controversial articles may be banned from editing them or their manner of editing restricted.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Advocacy
3) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda, What Wikipedia is not.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Context
4. The work of a Wikipedia editor must be judged in the context of the work of the other Wikipedia editors editing in the same area. If the other editors are editing in a point of view way themselves and engaging in edit wars also, an attempt should be made to devise remedies which address the problem as a whole.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC) - I understand what this is getting at, but I don't really think this is good phrasing.

Edit warring
5) Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC) - absolutely
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sourced material
6) Information which references a reputable reference work should not be removed from Wikipedia without cause.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ethnicity and personal characteristics of scholars
7) It is inappropriate to characterize the authors and editors of references in an manner calculated to incite prejudice.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Right to make a counterclaim and to present evidence
8) Any user who has a complaint made against them has the right to make a complaint regarding other users who are involved in the controversy which gave rise to the original complaint and to present evidence regarding his counterclaim. Any others who are able to find evidence, including Arbitrators who discover it in the course of investigating the matter, are entitled to present evidence.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the term 'ability'. James F. (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Right of Arbitrators to investigate controversies
9) If a dispute has come before the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitrators have the right to investigate the controversy which gave rise to the dispute, and to propose remedies regarding all users who have contributed substantially to the controversy.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Sorry, I cannot vote for this. It is not a 'right', it is a duty. See below. James F. (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Duty of Arbitrators to investigate controversies
9.1) If a dispute has come before the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitrators have the duty of investigating the controversy which gave rise to the dispute, and to propose remedies regarding all users who have contributed substantially to the controversy.


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber
1), after establishing an account on March 28, 2005, has made point of view edits to a number of articles which relate to Israel and Arab and Islamic concerns, see, for example, one of his first edits, removing category Geography of Israel from Golan Heights , ,


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 13:31 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disputants
1.1) When began editing Golan Heights the article was in a state of conflict with  and  playing major roles, see Talk:Golan_Heights and succeeding sections.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 15:57 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Evidence of previous Wikipedia experience
1.2) As suggested by IZAK, Yuber appears to have prior experience in editing Wikipedia, either as an anonymous editor or as some other user, see his first edit.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 2, 2005 20:19 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:37 (UTC) - removing some categories isn't really suffeciently advanced to suggest a returning user.
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppet suspects
2) Based on typical edit comments and range of editing, does not appear to be a sockpuppet of either  or, or at least there is not sufficient evidence to establish it.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 3, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Continuing use of sockpuppets
2.1) It is reasonably believed by those who edit in the areas that Yuber edits in and those who are involved in this case that Yuber has continued to edit despite the injunction entered in this case.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Positive contributions by Yuber
3) In addition to participating in the editing of controversial articles, has made useful contributions.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 2, 2005 20:19 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:41 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Allegedly objectional edits
4) In addition to his first post removing Category:Geography of Israel from Golan Heights, has added Greater Israel to Names of the Levant ; removed material regarding Syria's withdraw from Lebanon in 2005 from Operation Litani ; removed Koran quotation and other material from Jizya ; restored Palestinian point of view language to Fatah ; restored apologetic language in Dhimmi ; removed emblems of the major Palestinian orgs from Israeli-Palestinian conflict ; removed derogatory point of view material from Muhammad ; changed BC to BCE in Phoenicia ; added Category:Zionist terrorist organizations to Jewish Defense League ; removed the section "Religious Police and Oppression" and references from Saudi Arabia ; removed apologetic language from Zionist terrorism ; removed derogatory information from Mordechai Vanunu ; removed Israeli point of view and inserted Islamist point of view in Suicide bombing ; inserted Palestinian point of view in Six-Day War ; restored links to photographs of Israeli settlers in Gaza Strip ; restored information about Palestinian refugees in Palestinian ; removed information regarding Slavery under Islam from slavery ; replaced Israeli with Palestinian point of view in Cave of the Patriarchs ; replaced Israeli with Islamist point of view in 1982 Lebanon War ; added material supportive of conspiracy theories to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories and added detailed information regarding Baruch Goldstein to Terrorism


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 4, 2005 00:30 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:41 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

The Saudi Arabia example
4.1) Detailed analysis at Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Saudi Arabia of Yuber's cited edit to the article Saudi Arabia and its context show that Yuber started off on the wrong foot by trying to remove POV material, but eventually began to work with its proponent, a sockpuppet of, an extremely difficult editor with an anti-Islamic point of view who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year, see . Problems include edit warring and failure to adequately NPOV the disputed section by adding Saudi or Islamist perspectives. To summarize, while Yuber's efforts were not optimal he dealt reasonably with a very difficult situation. It should be noted that he was subject to repeated personal attacks by Enviroknot in both in edit comments and on the talk page, see Talk:Saudi_Arabia, Talk:Saudi_Arabia, Talk:Saudi_Arabia and Talk:Saudi_Arabia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 4, 2005 00:30 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * "started off on the wrong foot by trying to remove POV material" makes no sense: removing POV material sounds like a good step to me &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that Fred meant "remove rather than refactor", but I'm not sure all the same. James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC) - agree with the above
 * Yuber tried to get rid of material which conflicted with his point of view violating NPOV which contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. Fred Bauder 13:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Six Day War example
4.2) Detailed analysis at Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War of Yuber's cited edit to Six Day War and its context show that Yuber after a brief discussion accepted Guy Montag's removal of the edit. However going forward in the page history of the article provocative edits by both Guy Montag  and Yuber  are found. Neither seems to have persisted when  proposed a solution.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 4, 2005 14:49 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Cave of the Patriarchs example
4.3) Detailed analysis at Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs of Yuber's cited edit to Cave of the Patriarchs and its context shows aggressive point of view edit warring by both  and  with minimal talk page discussion until the intervention of  who proposed a compromise and leaned on both parties requesting a resolution.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 4, 2005 16:15 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Jizya example
4.4) Great emphasis is placed in the evidence on Yuber's edits to Jizya. Detailed analysis of Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Jizya of Yuber's cited edits and  to Jizya and their context show profound problems with Yuber's behavior including edit warring, removal of sourced material, original research and a general inability to edit a controversial article in a civil way.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Guy Montag
5) states on his user page, "I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel." He has, in pursuit of that goal, engaged in disruptive point of view editing, see a detailed analysis of the editing history of Cave of the Patriarchs at Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Cave of the Patriarchs and the detailed analysis of the editing history of Six Day War at Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence/Six Day War.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of Palestinian
5.1) took the position that use of "Palestinian" as in "a Palestinian city" signified Palestinian sovereignty over the city in question, see Talk:Nablus. He backed up this position by repeatedly reverting the articles Bethlehem and Nablus, see Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Evidence. Eventually, he accepted a compromise which permitted use of the phrase "Palestinian population center".


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Deletion of evidence by Guy Montag
5.2) has removed evidence (allegedly placed there by a Yuber "clone") from the talk page of this project page.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very serious action. James F. (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber's use of sockpuppets
6) Following enactment of Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision Yuber continued to edit under a number of accounts. When asked regarding the matter he refused to respond accurately, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber placed on probation
1) is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article which relates to Islam or to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Yuber must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any article he is banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Yuber continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 21:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber to edit under that account
1.1) shall edit under that username and no other. Edits by other accounts or anonymous IPs which due to area of interest, style or manner which can be reasonably ascribed to Yuber shall be considered to be Yuber.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber banned for one year
1.2) is banned for one year.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't think that this is neccessary. James F. (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unneccessary. Neutralitytalk
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Guy Montag placed on probation
2) is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article which relates to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Guy Montag must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any article he is banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Guy Montag continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 21:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Guy Montag banned for one month
2.1) is banned for one month due to deletion of evidence in this matter.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I think that this is perhaps overly stringent for a single infraction. James F. (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2.2) is banned for three months from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


 * Support:
 * Probation seems unworkable in this case due to solidarity with him by other editors in this area. Fred Bauder 13:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Jayjg
3) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 21:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC) - I'm not really seeing a whole lot of evidence that supports this

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Procedure for banning
1) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that Yuber be banned from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Yuber on his talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Probation. The template may be removed by Yuber or any other editor at the end of the ban. See Probation


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 14:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Procedure for banning
2) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that Guy Montag be banned from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Guy Montag on his talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Probation. The template may be removed by Montag or any other editor at the end of the ban.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 14:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Yuber
3) Should Yuber edit an article he is banned from he may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder July 6, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 14:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Guy Montag
4)) Should Guy Montag edit an article he is banned from he may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 14:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Use of sockpuppets by Yuber
5) Should Yuber edit under any account other than Yuber (or other than incidental edits as an anonymous ip) he may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated violations. Edits by suspected sockpuppets of Yuber may be removed by any user without comment.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 16:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
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.


 * I think that this is closeable. James F. (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Pending after Slimvirgin's mention. James F. (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with James. &rarr;Raul654 02:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Oppose for the time being, based on Slimvirgin's comment on my talk page. &rarr;Raul654 03:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Second Attempt

 * Move to close &#10149;the Epopt 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are still items without a quorum of votes total, let alone in one direction or another. James F. (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Fred has convinced me. Close. James F. (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we have done as much as we can, Close Fred Bauder 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Closed. James F. (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)