After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

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

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.

Disputed article movement/renaming injunction

1) No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related moves/renames can occur as prescribed in the final decision.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that ArbCom won't say what the name(s) should be, but that we will almost certainly be laying out a framework, or urging that a framework be set up, for achieving a lasting resolution to this issue (or at least for a set period to allow editing energies to be productively channelled elsewhere for that period). Discussions on how to resolve this should still continue, but no moving or renaming (with obvious exceptions such as typos on newly-created articles). Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With minor copy-edit. Roger Davies ^talk 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a delay in opening the case, this proposal seems sensible as there was likely to be a similar injunction proposed soon after the case opened. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can just move this to the injunction, no need to revote. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be no need for another vote. This motion covers the situations. We are doing it this way instead of an injunction because of the delay. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:18, 19 April 2009.

Amendment to motion 1

2) Motion 1 above is amended to include prohibiting edits that change how Macedonia is referred to within those articles.

Support:

In order to reduce the drama. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That includes "incorrect" entries. --Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is overly broad and would prohibit even edits necessary to preserve factual accuracy. I also share the concerns raised by the abstainers. I would prefer to move toward finalizing our decision on the merits of the case rather than expand the temporary injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

This strikes me as going a bit too far in the direction of content management rather than behavioural management; I am willing to be persuaded, but haven't seen sufficient evidence to support at this stage. Risker (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sympathetic to this concern. I would agree with an alternative measure encouraging administrators and the community to nip any brewing edit war over such a conflict in the bud with topic bans and blocks. (I would even indicate my preference for such a measure over this one.) Would you be more supportive of something along those lines? Regardless, I do feel the area needs some increased management going forward. This is bound to be a large case with numerous parties that will take a fair bit of time to resolve. I would like to see a stop-gap to prevent disruption involving this limited issue. --Vassyana (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first motion is needed because pagemoves are especially troublesome, and they usually set of updates to other articles to reflect the new page name. However I dont think we need to put strong limits on editing. It should be suffice to say that disruptive edits in this topical area will be become evidence in this case, and recent evidence usually results in strong remedies. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

If this motion is passed, enforcement needs to be discussed. I don't want to see half the potential participants to the ArbCom case blocked by admins who are also participating at the ArbCom case because the editors in question have been edit warring over wording in the articles while the case is in progress. Uninvolved admins are needed to deal with this. I have noted the evidence that such changes are indeed taking place, so I suggest the examples in question are presented as evidence in the case. Crucially, the editors who are making such changes need to be told to stop and explain their changes at the arbitration case. If the motion is amended to make such enforcement explicit, I will support it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of making this an absolute requirement because the current arrangement of articles is complicated. Suppose someone writing articles about sports contestants writes one about a sportsman from the region of Greece known as Macedonia. They write it as "from Macedonia, Greece". This is the wrong link but if this motion was passed, editors would be prohibited from piping it to the right link. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed repeated two sentences. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might use some minor copyediting, as "other purposes" in the third sentence is now separated from the "purpose" defined in the first sentence, but a quick fix is not coming to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Etiquette

2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could stand to be copyedited further. It would be useful, incidentally, to have a clearer and more succinct "code of conduct" available to provide an overview of the various conduct-related policies for new users. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia's governance

3) Wikipedia is governed by its internal editorial policies, not by the conventions of any external agency. Wikipedia is not subordinate to the points of view of any state, international organization or group (although it is bound by certain applicable laws of the United States and states of Florida and California), and their views or conventions do not dictate Wikipedia's editorial approach to an issue (other than as directed by Foundation policies concerning legal issues).

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the tempering note that our editorial policies are often informed by external agencies (in particular, normative standards may affect or guide certain editorial choices). — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. We should not be swayed by external agencies, but we should not ignore them either. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per Newyorkbrad and bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one misses the mark, as noted by NYB, bainer, and Vassyana. This case isn't about our governance system, nor about WMF's legal jurisdiction. I think this finding means to say that the views of government (or other "official" sources) are not decisive on our content. I would support such a finding, but this is not it; this finding sounds like we've been provoked and are contemplating withdrawing our diplomats. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from abstain to oppose. --bainer (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I understand the point being made here, but this case primarily concerns content disputes (naming issues are a species of content dispute), not project governance. In addition, while the views or conventions of governments do not "dictate" Wikipedia's approach to any issue, the names that states apply to themselves and one another are an important factor to be weighed in community discussion of naming issues, pursuant to the relevant naming conventions. It is quite true that they do not "dictate" the resolution of any issue, but we should not risk implying that they may not be considered at all. Finally, Foundation policies that we are bound to follow as referenced in the last sentence extend beyond merely implementing existing legal requirements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the intent here was to say that "Wikipedia's content is governed by its internal editorial policies". Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wording has an aggressive tone that I don't think is desirable, and per Carcharoth's comment to Brad, it would be better to be clear that we're talking about content. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to oppose. --bainer (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cool Hand Luke and others. I am adding an alternative below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's content governance

3.1) Wikipedia content issues —including naming conventions— are governed by its internal editorial policies. Although the points of view of individual states, international organizations or groups, and their views or conventions supported by official sources may be taken into account, they should not constitute a basis for Wikipedia consensus themselves.

Support:

Per Arbitrators' comments above. Principle is renamed. I looked for some clarity and simplicity supported by links while avoiding questionable tone. The Consensus principle is also introduced. 'Individual" and "official sources" are key terms to this dispute so I added them. Tweak the wording if necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal to 3. --FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal to 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This addresses my concern with 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3. We shouldn't really be linking to categories in proposed decisions (they are too unstable and change over time), and I fear that this principle misses the point that even informed consensus can be shown later to be have been wrong or misleading, usually due to misunderstandings or misrepresentations of an issue. But in practice, either of these principles will do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal to 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely put. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus can change

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, so no decision is immutable; but consensus does not change overnight, so constantly and excessively pressuring against a consensus decision can be disruptive. Judging when the time is premature to renew discussion of a previously contentious but currently dormant issue, versus when the issue has become ripe for reexamination, is one of the more sensitive tasks Wikipedians face. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to remember that this, in no way, encourages or endorses repeatedly raising the same issue in order to get one's chosen result by chance of who happens to have participated. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren and Brad. As an editor, I would support moratoriams being laid down to restrict discussions of such issues to set periods (such as 2 years). In between those times, people should focus their energies on improving articles. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I prefer alternative 5.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change

5.1) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, repeatedly raising the same issue, without cause, in order to get one's sought result is inappropriate.

Support:

Grabbed some of Coren's wording while commenting above. With cause, I support this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for this version. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rlevse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support self; first choice. — Coren ^(talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now first choice. Wizardman 02:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I prefer not including the last sentence since it is an invitation for people to ignore consensus and immediately restart the discussion claiming that there is not consensus since they disagree with the decision. People believe that there is cause to keep re-opening the discussion. To a large extent, the problem is that as the Community has grown, the past methods for determining consensus for deciding Community wide issues no longer works well. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I don't think either of these principles get to the core of the issues here. If there is good reason (i.e. a change in circumstances) to challenge a long-held consensus, that should not be a problem if approached in the right way. I suspect the real solution would be to require a preliminary step of requiring some consensus (with a suitably low bar) that a new discussion is needed. The key criteria would be: when did previous consensus stabilise? What has changed and when? All too often, discussion continues regardless of whether consensus has been reached or not - kind of like some people prefer debating an issue to actually getting some form of conclusion. And instead of rehashing old discussion, carefully worded summaries of previous discussions should be pointed to. If nothing new is being said, the discussion should be terminated. The other point is that two discussions on the same issue, with the same evidence, held at different times, can get different results, purely due to who has participated. I don't know of any real solution to that. The key, in my view, is to get people involved who are experienced at judging consensus. Requiring the participants to agree on consensus on an issue like this will never work. Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Forum shopping and gaming the system are better handled as a separate principle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

There is a line between holding a particular wikiphilosophy, or expressing such a view in discussions, and beating a poor deceased equine to everyone's frustration. I agree with the basic principle expressed here, but I fear as phrased it will be abused to punish the former and excuse the latter. --Vassyana (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator standards

6) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a principle around here that administrators are not indispensable. Keeping admins active in certain areas despite other failings does a dis-service to the project. All admins should be able to step back and participate as editors if need be. And other admins should not shy away from helping out or asking for more admins to help. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

7) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started but have not yet completed my review of the evidence in this case. My support for a principle in the abstract should not be read as indicated that I have yet determined that it will (or will not) come into play in this specific case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Yes as a principle but I still have to review administrators' actions one by one. This recent ANI thread was closed after no consensus for 'admin intervention to take care of the questionable admin intervention' was reached though there were many administrators supporting the actions of the administrator in question. I, therefore, abstain for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrator tools in a dispute

8) Administrator actions pertaining to enforcing Wikipedia's conduct policies, such as the sockpuppetry policy, the biographies of living persons policy, the vandalism policy, the civility policy, and WP:BATTLE, do not make an editor involved in a topic. Administrators are not empowered to enforce content policies such as the neutral point of view policy and the verifiability policy by using administrative tools. Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. Administrators who are unsure whether they should take an action should defer that action to an uninvolved administrator.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking can be done according to WP:BLOCK. However, editing of an article to restore NPOV should be left to editors. If there are no editors around to do this, then Wikipedia has more fundamental problems than can be solved by consideration of WP:INVOLVED. Admins can take their admin hats off and get involved in discussing and editing an article to help guide it to NPOV, but if they do so they should be careful when contemplating later admin actions, and they should consider whether they had taken admin actions in the past in relation to the article. Ancient actions may possibly be OK, but full disclosure should be given on the relevant talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the names of the policies instead of using shortcuts. Jargon should be avoided in the text of our decisions, they need to be understandable by everyone. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The second sentence is overstated. Administrators frequently, and properly, block editors for severe and sustained POV editing that continues after warning. That is a use of admin tools to enforce the NPOV policy. Additionally, as a matter of editing, the last sentence might want to clarify the meaning of "unsure whether they should take an action," to make clear the reference is to uncertainty based on potentially "involved" status, not just that a particular decision is a borderline call. Also made some minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We block users and protect pages for problematic editor conduct, not for pushing a particular point of view. For example, if an editor repeatedly edit warred to return an article to the NPOV by reverting a fringe pov, they will get blocked. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or persisting with such editing against a consensus that they should stop. If you're right Brad, then the admins doing this need to stop. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators may (and, indeed, are expected to) help enforce all our policies, this includes NPOV. There is an important distinction to be made between enforcing NPOV and using tools in a content dispute which this proposal does not make. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB and Coren. Call it soapboxing, promotional editing, disregard for community norms, or whatever you like, but I believe an expectation exists that such editors will be shown the door if they cannot or will not abide by the basic policies. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this is true. Especially if "content policies" includes BLP. We've explicitly required admins to enforce that policy by any means available. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Alternative added below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Yeah, I can see NYB's point with 2nd sentence, and I can also see why the sentence was included as well. Maybe a reword? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind this, but would definitely prefer a reword. Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrator tools in a dispute

8.1) Administrator actions are intended to help enforce all of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. Administrators who are accused of being involved in a topic must seek the community opinion on the matter of their involvement instead of ignoring or downplaying the intensity of the accusations while pursuing intervention in the said topic. Failing to address concerns regarding the degree of involvement would be enough for an administrator to be deemed as involved. Apart from dealing with obvious vandalism or blatant and severe BLP violations, involved administrators are restricted from taking any administrator action in a topic.

Support:

An alternative to 8. I also consider this as an alternative to 9 below. I believe this principle would serve as a basis for a long-overdue remedy concerning admin involvement. Again, please reword if necessary. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a mention of BLP though I am not sure if the link to the BLP noticeboard can be seen as ambiguous. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly/weakly yes. Still ruminating on the wording. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This should cover vandalism and socking and recognize that most admins are involved in a dispute long before someone accuses them of being involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I don't think that this is workable do to the frequent reaction of heavily pov pushers to accuse every admin of being involved when they make even the most modest caution or action (such as protecting an article) as an admin. Often an admin will find himself hammered by both sides of the dispute in the course of mediating a content dispute, or using the tools as needed such as to protect to stop edit warring. So, no, I don't think every admin should put their involvement up for review at the request of involved parties. The noticeboards would be too heavily clogged with these reviews. But if they are not making headway, after an appropriate period of time, looking for additional assistance from other admins is an excellent idea. And if the admin notices that multiple experienced users are commenting that they are too involved, then a sanity check is a good idea. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, as written, this is too gameable. — Coren ^(talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per FloNight and Coren. --Vassyana (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't quite work for me. I would note here that admins, while they have the experience to mediate disputes, should know better than to use tools when acting as a mediator. In principle, it should be standard to separate mediation, actions taken to address user conduct issues (using the relevant administrative tools), and editorial actions, but in practice it can be difficult to fully separate these actions in same cases. Carcharoth (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Better, but probably still too inflexible. Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators

9) In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions typically to either the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard for endorsement or review. This does not comply with policy. In such circumstances, the 'involved' administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by an uninvolved administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with an administrator who is unsure about whether he or she took the right action raising the matter on a noticeboard for review. The point here is that an administrator who is involved in a dispute, and thinks an admin action (especially a block) is needed, should raise the matter on the noticeboard in the first instance, rather than act despite his or her involvement and post to the noticeboard after the fact. As the last sentence observes, common-sense exceptions may be made for emergency and blatant situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB, who sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that there are rare cases where involvement should not prevent immediate action (egregious vandalism, for instance, or blatant and severe BLP violations). Normal or "routine" administrative action, however, cannot qualify. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Asking for review doesn't 'save' an otherwise bad action. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I prefer 8.1 which can be an alternative to this and 8 as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator communications

10) Administrators are required to explain their actions. When an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proper communication is an absolute requirement for administrative acts. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial should not be confused with involved. If involved, don't take action. If controversial, explain the action. If controversial and involved, well, the answer should be obvious. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recidivism

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

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started but have not yet completed my review of the evidence in this case. My support for a principle in the abstract should not be read as indicated that I have yet determined that it will (or will not) come into play in this specific case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit wars considered harmful

12) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

13) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as will be addressed in the fact findings, application of this principle must be a bit more nuanced than usual in this case, because in the case of this particular dispute, there are instances in which use of the most common name would be objectively (not merely subjectively) incorrect in particular contexts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view 2

14) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

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

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare my oppose vote on proposed principle 8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict between that proposal and this one. This particular conduct issue simply has a non-conduct aspect to it that needs consideration by editors before there is scope for administrator action. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but admins are not always best placed to make these decisions. Sometimes the community of editors are better placed to resolve this by discussing someone's edits and topic banning them, and having that decision endorsed and enacted by an admin. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Naming Conventions

16) Wikipedia:Naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Articles should report the objective fact that such names are used; if another nation or group disputes the right to use that name, then information about that dispute (if it is notable) should also be given in the appropriate place. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia:Naming conventions also deprecates the use of full formal names in article titles.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to my comment in proposed principle 13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Names can be complex things sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although of course specific conventions can be developed for particular topic areas. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This goes in line with the way I interpret Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Most of important of all is that whenever there is a genuine and notable naming dispute in the real world Wikipedia must state it and support it with reliable sources. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Naming disputes

17) Protracted naming disputes are not a highly productive form of encyclopedia building and should be avoided if at all possible. Effort spent on actually improving articles as opposed to engaging in disputes over their names is highly encouraged.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular when that naming dispute itself is part of a larger conflict of points of view; dispute over the name is ipso facto a POV dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disambiguation

18) The purpose of disambiguation, as defined by Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB), is to resolve "conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." For primary topics, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase ... then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." The guideline goes on to state: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." Disambiguation is not a means of promoting, endorsing or rejecting the point of view of any party or parties to a naming or other dispute.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some copyedits, particularly last sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should proceed on the principle of "least surprise". That is, when a reader types a name, the article or page reached should be the one that is least surprising to the greatest number of readers. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding when there is no primary topic is tricky, but key to some disputes. Sometimes surprise is unavoidable. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always considered Mercury an excellent example of the approach to disambiguation. The element, the planet, and to a lesser extent the figure from mythology, are all highly prominent and recognisable topics within their own particular context. But there is no way to guess the context a reader has in mind when typing in "Mercury", and no other obvious way to distinguish a 'primary' topic among them, so Mercury is reserved as a disambiguation page. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the example by bainer. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

19) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all cases, the spirit beats the letter. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose. 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) This cuts both ways. Stonewalling can be resorted to after a BOLD move as well as before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Spirit v letter is an accepted principle, we already have wording to express it, and it could certainly be proposed in this case too. Conversely this is a badly worded and/or poorly understood piece of behavioural guideline. It's basis is that editing contrary to consensus is disruptive, which, as a piece of policy, has long been accepted and enforced. In practice it gets twisted into service to push down on people with unpopular opinions. I would rather not conflate the two like this. Into the mix is also thrown obstructing consensus-building. These ideas would be better addressed separately. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On consideration, switching to oppose per bainer. May support alternative wording if proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I think I want to give this formulation some more thought. I may propose an alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping for a better alternative. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for an alternative per bainer and Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

20) Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With emphasis on the last sentence. Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it is not courteous and collegial to disclose information that is redacted, but it is not outing to repeat what is commonly known. We should not encourage users to think that they can use account names that are similar to their real name or linked to their identity and it will not be known and discussed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be made clear that, while downright rude (and possibly incivil by Wikipedia standards), repeating information voluntarily disclosed by another editor cannot be construed as "outing" in any reasonable reading of that term. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wizardman. Last sentence is important. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo and Coren. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Gratuitous reference to a user's real-life identity should be avoided, unless the user routinely discloses that information, even if he or she has mentioned the information previously or it is possible to connect publicly available breadcrumbs that lead to the information. "Outing" or gratuitous publicization of users' names, addresses, etc. which they have chosen not to disclose is considered a serious breach of Wikipedia norms. References to general information that does not personally identify a user, such as his or her nationality, do not raise the same types of concerns such as fears of real-life harassment or retaliation as unwanted disclosures of identifying information. Unnecessary reference to these characteristics should still be avoided, because for example they can be read or misread as ethnic stereotypes or suggestions that the quality of an edit is related to the personal background of the editor. However, there may be some limited occasions on which mention of a user's nationality or linguistic background may be appropriate. I believe it may lead to confusion to use the severely condemnatory term "outing" to refer to disclosure of this type of non-identifying information, and WP:OUTING does not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Additionally the "soft" language of the close seems too weak in relation to firm language preceding it. The community has generally treated such instances as cases of outing or on par with such. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This line troubles me. Many users have identified at one point, but we say blandly that the non-use of their real name should be respected. The emphasis of this finding is wrong—it dismisses claims of "outing," as if the term for the conduct mattered more that the conduct itself. I would only support the last sentence, with a much weaker statement that it's not technically "outing." Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per others and my objection given in 20.1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

need to think on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

20.1) Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected and any further outing would be deemed inappropriate.

Support:

First choice. More emphasis on the last sentence and going a bit more forward; without that, the principle looks rather descriptive. I'll leave the rest to Newyorkbrad if he wishes to add some of his thoughts to this alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference. Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More palatable to me with that last clause. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While we should counsel users to respect the wishes of another user to be called by their new user name, and not have the redact information discussed, I do not think it is outing if the information is discussed. This is especially true if the person makes no or little effort to minimize the link by continuing to edit in the same topic areas, or discussing details of the link themselves with a select group of editors off site. I prefer the wording of 20 which does not set up the unrealistic exception that the information is going to be kept off site once redacted. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, the use of "Per WP:Outing ..." and the wording in general which doesn't clarify whether the "outing" being referred to is the person outing themselves and someone else outing them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per FloNight. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the original 20, though I do prefer this formulation to that one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "outing" is considered a grievous attack, we should not expand its definition to wide. — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The information groups are rather broad. I tend to think the use of national and ethnic groups as a label in discussions generally reflects a battleground mentality than an outing issue. (Naming a city, other specific region, professional details, specific group associations, etc would be more in line with what we call outing.) In reponse to FloNight's oppose, the community has generally treated (and called) revealing redacted information "outing". Whether or not the expectation that the information will be kept off-site is unrealistic, expecting that in such cases the act of divulging that information will be treated as an act of outing is realistic (in the sense that it falls in line with community norms). The main exception to this general trend is revealing the alternate and previous accounts, as well as IPs directly used for editing, of editors evading blocks or bans, and of editors repeating disruptive patterns. --Vassyana (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some members of the Community do consider it outing and some members of the Community do not. It is not uncommon for someone to put an email or link on site that contains information that verifies the link. Depending on who see it first, the information may be praised since it proves a COI, redacted, admin deleted, or oversighted until the situation can be sorted out. I don't think there is a single clear cut way that we handle these situations. When the issue is not clear cut, then the Committee should not be endorsing one way of managing the issue, especially a way that misleads people into thinking that we can prevent it from happening by making an outing policy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

21) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some transition words might help clarify the relationship among the various ideas in the paragraph. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Coren but in most cases, both things go together. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

This needs to be split; I see two distinct principles here that do not overlap neatly. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial pagemoves

22) Controversial pagemoves should be discussed first on pertinent talk pages to reach a consensus or be handled at WP:Requested moves. Protracted disputes should be handled in accordance with #Stalemate resolution.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Contingent on #Stalemate resolution passing. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

The "principles" in a decision should generally consist of statements of existing Wikipedia policies or norms, or background facts relating to the project as a whole outside the scope of a particular dispute. These may be drawn from prior arbitration decisions, policy or guideline pages, the norms of conduct followed by good-faith editors, or occasionally arbitrators' extrapolations of best practice based upon their collective experience drawn from their years of editing Wikipedia. The "principles" section is usually not the appropriate place to introduce a new policy mechanism that is being proposed in the remedies portion of the very same decision. In addition, as Kirill implies, doing so introduces a certain element of circularity into the decision. (Also changed "moves" to "pagemoves" in the title and text, for clarity.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Wizardman 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might work as a remedy. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. The principle here should be something like "the most protracted of naming disputes may not be suitable for being handled through requested moves". Then pick up that train of thought in the stalemate remedy. Technically, stalemate over disambiguation should default to the page being a disambiguation page. The crux is whether the stalemate is genuine (reflecting real-word uncertainty) or whether it is a manufactured stalemate. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer #22.1. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Does start to veer into remedy territory? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial page moves

22.1) Any page move that is or is likely to be controversial should be discussed beforehand on the page's talk page, and/or at any other pertinent location. The methods outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves represent a best practice approach for such circumstances.

Support:

Proposed as alternative to #22. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best practices. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Request for comment/User conduct

23) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited last sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sanctions and circumstances

24) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with earning "misbehaviour points", and everything to do with "targeted remedies". Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said here, this should not be misconstrued. Past conduct will be relevant where it informs us on the prospects for the success of various types of remedies. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Coren's oppose and feel very strongly about the principle he espouses. However, I do believe this is a valid principle. An otherwise productive editor that is disruptive in a single area is more likely to receive a focused and limited sanction, where a disruptive editor lacking much positive editing history is more likely to head straight to a full site ban. Judging the potential for reform, positive contributions, or continued disruption requires taking into account the factors noted here. I do not believe this is handing out "get of jail free cars", but rather examing the situation in context. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to build an encyclopedia. When someone has an established track record of excellent work, we should give them more finely nuanced and targeted remedies in hopes of retaining their contributions. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose on principle; I never believed you can "earn" misbehavior allowances in one part of the encyclopedia to be "spent" elsewhere, and I think the very concept is poisonous. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Moved from oppose. Vassyana makes a compelling argument, but I still think such accolades are poor form. Perhaps being a bit more explicit in the remedies would serve that aim better? — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts

25) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it might be better if we changed "their focus on one topic is non-neutral" to something like "they are unable or unwilling to edit on their chosen topic from a neutral point of view" or something of that nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of neutrality factor makes this a good and balanced principle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This places too much of a burden on editors who may only wish to contribute on one or a few topics. New editors in particular should be given time to diversify, but even those editors who never move beyond a narrow focus of topics should be treated as any other editor. It is the quality and reasonableness of their contributions that matter, not whether they are a single-purpose account. Also agree with Brad's suggested change. The word "neutrally" is too often misinterpreted to mean "in the middle" between two sides, when that is not what NPOV means. Putting aside the Wikipedia jargon, we expect all editors to contribute without bias and to work towards a good quality and balanced encyclopedia article, rather than promoting an agenda or particular viewpoint. I would also state, in the strongest possible terms, that all accounts are expected to contribute lke this, not just those considered to be single-purpose accounts. Holding new editors and SPAs to a higher standard than other (longer-established) accounts is not acceptable. All editors should be held to the same high standards, with new accounts given time to learn how Wikiepdia works. If an SPA shows signs of understanding how Wikipedia works, then they should absolutely be encouraged to diversify and build up a track record in a less controversial area. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth, and per Brad. Everyone is expected to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy, regardless of how diverse or confined their editing interests are. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I certainly appreciate the concerns of Carcharoth and bainer, but I cannot oppose this measure. "SPA" is used almost as a dirty word in contentious areas, both among the participants and enforcing administrators (largely due to the mean behavior of SPAs in those areas). For better or worse, I do not think it can be effectively disputed that the community norm is to view SPAs in heavily disputed areas with some suspicion and hold them to somewhat higher standards for edit warring, soapboxing, and similarly prominent concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

26) The recruitment of editors for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although recruiting new editors for the purpose of editing—adding good content to Wikipedia—should never be discouraged; we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always believed that MEAT belongs under CANVASS, not SOCK. Emphasis on the recruiting is correct. Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Canvassing

27) Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable summary of our guideline against canvassing, so I can support it. I have long been concerned, however, that our norms against canvassing are sometimes too readily invoked or applied in a mechanical fashion, without regard to the purposes served by the guideline. Every time that one Wikipedian draws the attention of a second to an ongoing discussion, that does not mean that canvassing is involved, even though there will often be reflexive shouts to that effect. (This is a general observation, not specifically tailored to this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. --bainer (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return of access levels

28) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOP — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice. --Vassyana (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) While the disputes presented in this case are very similar to issues in the first Macedonia arbitration case (Wikipedia:ARBMAC), the core dispute in this arbitration concerns Macedonia as defined in #Four Macedonias. While focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, these issues are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

It would be equally valid to group this with Ireland and other naming disputes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

It surely is, regrettably, true that for various reasons there have been a number of extended on-wiki disputes and arbitration cases concerning various conflicts related to the Balkans and to Eastern Europe more generally. However, I think the issue concerning use of the name "Macedonia" is sui generis. Therefore, I'm not sure how helpful it is to pull in references to those other disputes in describing the locus of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. A possible undue weight linking this particular dispute to a much wider set of conflicts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate precursor of dispute

2) The immediate precursor to this arbitration was two edits by ChrisO (talk · contribs), an administrator with a long involvement in the debate: on April 14, 2009, he moved a disambiguation page from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation), stating that this was a "minor change".[1] This required him to delete the previous page at that location, [2]. Then, on April 16, 2009, he moved a country article from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. ChrisO made this pagemove without prior discussion, arguing that this was the solution best in line with existing policy, and that in these very exceptional circumstances prior discussion would have been useless because the expected stonewalling from the Greek editors would make consensus-forming impossible. The article had previously been move-protected for a very long time, and has remained so since; hence, administrator rights were required to move it. Reactions to this move, including reactions from previously uninvolved outside editors, were mostly critical of the process, but partly supportive of the result. [3], [4], [5] ChrisO did not change "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" anywhere else. He also acknowledges he is aware of the importance of the timing due to Easter holidays. [6] He also states the move was delayed because he was on international travel. [7]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically fine, though a bit ambitious for one paragraph of findings. :) I did some minor copyediting which does not change the substance in any way. A recheck to make sure all the diffs are lined up as intended would also not go amiss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this case had had big chances to reach the ArbCom level regardless of the admin's cited actions. But, yes, technically this FoF is correct. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Some of the cited diffs appear to be in the wrong place, and there is a quote that's not supported by a diff. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added diff for "minor" quote. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Macedonias

3) There are four meanings for "Macedonia" pertinent to this arbitration:

Macedonia (region): A historical/geographical region, today split between Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and the independent Republic of Macedonia (part of Yugoslavia until 1992)
Macedonia (ancient kingdom), also called Macedon
Republic of Macedonia: The independent state by itself which was part of Yugoslavia
Macedonia (Greece): Three Greek provinces collectively referred to as Macedonia, though it is not actually a political entity in itself.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Macedonia Manual of Style

4) The disputes regarding Macedonia related articles go back several years, to at least October 2003. On May 11, 2007, several users, including ChrisO (talk · contribs), NikoSilver (talk · contribs), and Pmanderson (talk · contribs) began writing a Manual of Style guide specifically for Macedonia-related articles, henceforth WP:MOSMAC. Four days later, frustration was already apparent. MOSMAC and MOSMAC2 are essays, not Wikipedia policies.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was musing on adding "currently" before the "essays" above, but probably redundant. Still one can live in hope there will be an agreed-upon naming convention. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although not sure about the heading, given the content of the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Macedonia status-quo

5) Since circa 2006/2007, there was a relatively stable status quo, though not a consensus, that was respected by most regular editors in the field. Part of this status quo was that the "Former Yugoslav" form was used in the Greece and Greece-related articles. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

This is hard to show as this is shown by an absence of diffs so here's another view:

[19] (proposed guideline text, as of October 2007: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece. [...] when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is." This was stable since October 2007.)
[20] (ChrisO's attempt at summarising the status quo: "in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of Greece […] use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia")
[21] (Subsequent discussion about that summary: "The consensus was […] that there is no consensus, and that's what the body of the guideline text correctly describes. There is an agreement that status quo should remain stable; there most emphatically is no consensus that that status quo currently predominant in most Greece articles (using "fY...") should be mandated as obligatory for new content.")
[22] (tweak to summary at MOSMAC, which subsequently remained stable)

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how second diff relates, but first diff is history showing reverts to acronym. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting in the expectation that any rearranging of the cited diffs will be taken care of. Made a minor copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to FPAS for providing the links and context. --Vassyana (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support following new diffs. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FPaS. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~The diffs have not been clarified and I do not see how they support the finding. --Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~per Vassyana John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

Not sure what the diffs are intended to refer to. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. This finding should have more diffs and should show the status quo, not the edit waring. This was originally combined with the following finding, so I think these two diffs got left here, not moved down to the next finding (they are down there as well). Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added more diffs — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. There are still some ambiguous diffs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Challenge to the Macedonia status-quo

6) In late March 2009, the status quo at the Greece article was challenged by a number of editors, who proposed switching to the "Republic of..." convention. During the ensuing controversy, editors of both sides supported their respected views with great tenacity, and often exhibited inappropriate behavior such as disruption, filibustering, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks/ad hominems, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, by both those supporting and opposing the change. This resulted in protection of the page. A straw poll held in parallel ended in a polarized roughly 50/50 result: about half of the respondents, mostly self-identified Greeks, advocated "former Yugoslav..."; the other half, mostly from elsewhere, advocated "Republic of". read the summaries, shows how it spilled to non-Greece articles, straw poll results

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment as 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "aforementioned" as this FoF can stand on its own without depending on FoF 5, which isn't enjoying as much support. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not sure what the diffs are intended to refer to. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~yes, I think the links are not updated in this one somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
added more detail. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter 119

7) Abuse Filter 119 was set up on March 30, 2009 to track instances of the link "republic of macedonia", or the name "FYROM" and "Former Yugoslav", being added or removed from articles. It has been triggered over 500 times as of 25 May 2009.[23]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added more details and date to avoid dating of finding. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted a link with a limit of 500, rather than 250, since it's the former number appearing here. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not sure the description of the filter is quite right. My understanding is that it tracks addition or removal of terms such as "former Yugoslav" and "FYROM", not the word "Macedonia". I could be misinterpreting, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC) On further review, I think the description of the filter in remedy 28 below might be used here as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Polarization

8) Articles relating to or simply mentioning Macedonia have been and are being subjected to frequent vandalism and disruptive editing, characterized by ethnic polarization, in an effort to promote one side or the other's particular view.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Previous attempts to reach consensus have failed

9) Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) was proposed to find a common approach to this naming issue, but failed to achieve consensus. WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBMAC2, read the summaries, how it spilled to tangential articles, straw poll results, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, though why are the former case and this case being referred to in the abstract with those links? --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Carcharoth's point could be addressed with a minor rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New diffs convince me that MOSMAC is disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~Not sure what the diffs are intended to refer to. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

see notes added. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support after new diffs added. 03:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) ~~The last three diffs don't show failure to reach consensus. They showing continuing edit warring.~~ The two arbitration cases in themselves don't show failure to reach consensus on MOSMAC. To demonstrate failure to reach consensus, you need to look to where the MOSMAC proposals have been discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added MOSMAC diffs

ChrisO

ChrisO's change of a template

10) ChrisO (talk · contribs) changed text in a protected template, {{MKD}}, after several days of discussion in a topic in which he was heavily involved.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
technically support, but prefer alternative below as encompasses action better.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider an alternative proposed by Carcharoth, if offered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~This seems about right to me, but I am open to better alternatives. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Switching back to oppose - prefer alternative. 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ~~Moving to abstain - no time to propose alternative. 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Specific explanation seems to be here. The edit to MOSMAC that precipitated this seems to be here. Not convinced yet that the wording does justice to what happened here. It may not be as bad as it looks. It may be worse. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer alternative. --Vassyana (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Switching back to oppose as prefer alternative. 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Still not convinced about what happened here. Moving to abstain as not time to propose alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can always take a couple of days to consider new alternatives if it makes for a better decision in the end. There's no need for haste if a relatively small amount of time will improve the result or create a better consensus among us. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting an alternative below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO's change of a template

10.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs) changed text in a protected template, {{MKD}}, after several days of discussion in a topic in which he was heavily involved. ChrisO then edited the MoS leaving 'template convention, mirroring RoM guideline' as an edit summary.

Support:

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Describes episode more completely, and the last action is important. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. --Vassyana (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice as more on point. — Coren ^(talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO's plan to move Republic of Macedonia was pre-disclosed

11) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) confirmed he had prior knowledge that ChrisO was considering article and disambiguation page changes. [33], [34], [35], [36]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made a tweak, hope it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as worded, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May not mean too much, but yes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted a jargonistic abbreviation with the full word. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With minor modification to header. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Future Perfect's statement is that he knew that ChrisO intended to make the change a day or so before it was made, but did not express support for the change. Perhaps he could have responded differently, but I am not convinced this warrants an arbitration finding. Also, the use of the plural in the heading is not fully supported by the reference in the text to disclosure to a single person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a conspirator here. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and Cool Hand Luke. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Added diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO moved Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia

12) While ChrisO (talk · contribs) subsequently gave a rational explanation of why he moved Republic of Macedonia, which was move protected, to Macedonia, he did so without first obtaining consensus. [37]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to explanation on talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although in fairness, consensus (in any direction) might never have been attainable, as explained elsewhere in the findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO's involvement in Balkan-related articles

13) ChrisO (talk · contribs) was found to have edit-warred and have heavily edited Balkan-related articles in the Kosovo arbitration case of 2006. As a result of that, he was advised not to engage in edit warring and not to use rollback in content disputes. edit warring, involvement, warning

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed third link. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the decision also noted constructive editing (pressing other editors to use reliable sources) by ChrisO on the articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I concur with Newyorkbrad's comment. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO's was previously admonished by the Arbitration committee

14) ChrisO (talk · contribs) was admonished for abusing his admin tools in the Israeli apartheid case of 2006.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, 14.1 better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 14.1, and see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too imprecise. Prefer #14.1. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also prefer 14.1 to this wording. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO previously admonished

14.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was previously admonished in the Israeli apartheid case not to use his administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, nor to use them so as to continue an editing dispute.

Support:

Better to be precise. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. As a further clarification, I would say that ChrisO was "one of a group of administrators admonished"; there are no explicit findings of fact against him, though a skim of the casepages reflects what happened. (I put to the side the nit of draftsmanship that the heading of the section is a whole sentence instead of a phrase.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More precision goodness. First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 02:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO's admits being an involved administrator

15) ChrisO (talk · contribs) admitted on April 16, 2009 that he is an involved administrator and acknowledged he should not take administrative actions in this topic. [38]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't think his candor is a bad thing. He's involved whether he admitted it or not. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per Carcharoth. Not that it matters anyway, because if he wasn't aware that he was involved, he ought to have been. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I think he is saying here that after performing the move he considers himself involved, so this shouldn't be taken as an admission that he was involved when he moved the page (though on balance, I think he was). Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth, it's not clear exactly what is meant here, and the paragraph probably isn't essential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate a clarification from ChrisO. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO restricted in the Scientology arbitration

16) ChrisO (talk · contribs) agreed to a voluntary restriction limiting his editing and banning his use of sysop tools in Scientology-related articles. Findings of fact, restriction

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntary, to avoid non-voluntary sanction. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Background maybe, but not strictly relevant. I don't think voluntary agreements should be used in findings like this. And from my reading of it, the voluntary restriction was on the back of a long period of little involvement in that other topic area anyway. My concern here is more the repeated arbcom warnings and mentions in other arbcom cases. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The voluntary agreement was done to stop a likely sanction in the Scientology case. Additionally, rather than add remedies to desysop him in two simultaneous cases, the stronger sanction was deliberately deferred to this case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. If the objective of this is as Flo states, then have the relevant findings of fact repeated or referred to here. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per other opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per preceding votes. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. I disagree with Cool Hand Luke... We cannot say that he did it to avoid non-voluntary sanction. We are not sure and that would only be an assumption. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Added finding of fact. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Future Perfect at Sunrise's behavior

17) Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) has been incivil, intimidating, and insulting. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], (in summary), (in summary), (in summary)

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own style in drafting is to give a more balanced assessment of the pros and cons of the work done by an experienced contributor such as Fut. Perf. (and this goes for ChrisO as well, and several of the other editors discussed below). I would also use wording that puts the diffs a bit more in context (compare the JzG-related findings in the C68-FM-SV case). But I can't deny that there is a good deal more incivility in those diffs than one would want to see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with Newyorkbrad. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's redirection of Macedonians (Greeks)

18) Macedonians (Greeks) was the subject of an AFD that closed on April 18, 2009 as "no consensus". After that closing, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs), who had participated in the AFD, redirected the article using the summary "consensus at AfD was that this page as it currently stands is not useful. Redirecting again, until somebody writes something better". On April 21, 2009, he redirected the article again using the summary "rv, the article is worthless". At the time of the second redirection, this is what the article looked like. It presently looks like this.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as far as I can see, no admin tools were used here. This was an editorial dispute that was resolved when Shadowmorph, among others, took up the challenge and worked to produce what looks like a very good article. I would encourage Shadowmorph, Future Perfect, and others, to do more work in future like this on articles. No admin tools needed for that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is taking an action known not to be supported by consensus (which of course is not the same as taking an action in the absence of any assessment of consensus). --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, I agree with Future Perfect's explanation on your talk page. A fuller finding would note that Future Perfect has not contested the expanded article (thus demonstrating that he was acting in good-faith) and has even helped by performing a history merge, an excellent use of the administrator tools. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per other stated concerns. While this is factual, it does leave out a bit of context. --Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this; considering. Added "'s" in header. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statements made here are factualy accurate, as background, but I don't necessarily reach a conclusion that is adverse to Fut.Perf. in light of his explanation here which constitutes a good-faith explanation of the actions taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise was put on 1RR

19) As a result of this 3RR report of April 18, 2009, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) was put on 1RR on Miladinov Brothers by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for edit warring on the article. sanctions here.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from what I said above about working on articles: please do so without edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to clarify that the 1RR was on the particular article, not project-wide or topic-wide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's stated intent to edit war and get a group of users banned

20) In an April 2, 2009 ANI thread about edit warring at Greece, "The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned." When asked about this he responded "I totally mean it...As long as Wikipedia doesn't find a way to reduce the power of local POV cliques, I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them." Yannismarou (talk · contribs) also admitted to edit warring here but expressed his regrets. The thread was closed as "no consensus".

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:BATTLE mindset. This is most concerning in an admin. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Equal preference with 20.1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~I'm not sure I see those statements as threats to edit war; though they do display a regrettable battlefield mindset. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

See "I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them." above in the finding. — Rlevse • Talk •

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point; but I still think this should be interpreted as "This means WAR" rather than "To hell with policy" (as a threat to editwar normally is). Mind you, this is not acceptable either and I might propose a differently-worded alternative later today. — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence seems to lack verbs, and the first quote comes from Talk:Greece, not ANI. There are also other illustrative statements of intent made on that day, so proposing #20.1. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 20.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 20.1 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's stated intent to edit war

20.1) On 2 April 2009, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said at Talk:Greece that:

"...there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned."

He later responded to replies to that comment by saying that he was:

"...perfectly willing to make this a test case. Either the Wikipedia community surrenders to the power of local national factions, or it fights them."

After the first comment was raised in a discussion at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, Future Perfect at Sunrise said there that:

"...[a]s long as Wikipedia doesn't find a way to reduce the power of local POV cliques, I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them."

He later removed a three-revert rule warning template from his user talk page with the edit summary "LOL, I'm perfectly aware of what I am doing, thank you very much for your kind concern."

Support:

bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More explicit. — Coren ^(talk) 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Fut.Perf.'s exasperation with the situation, but this was not the right way to articulate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with 20. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Sadbuttrue92 and warning by an arbitrator

21) On April 21, 2009, the day before this arbitration opened, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) blocked Sadbuttrue92 (talk · contribs) because Sadbuttrue92 was harassing him. FPAS took it to ANI for block review since he was involved. Most reviewers felt Sadbuttrue92 did deserve a block but felt someone else should have done it. FPAS's response was to blank the entry by Sadbuttrue92 with an edit summary in Greek that roughly means "fuck off, you wanker", but FPAS thought it meant "go to hell". FPAS was warned by arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) not to do this again.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the ANI discussion. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted as background information. This Committee has issued contradictory rulings on whether an administrator may block a user for harassing the administrator himself or herself (for example, compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Combatting harassment with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango#Meatball:Defend Each Other). Given this tension, I would not base any sanction on this incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's protected his own version of an article

22) On November 29, 2008, FPAS edited the revision history of Greek alphabet back to his own version and then protected it. While the user he reverted was a banned user's changes, the edit summaries he used were trolling and mocking. See Nov 29 edits between 18:14 and 19:15 in history here, [50], [51].

Support:

~~— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Striking this one based on new evidence on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit summaries: Future Perfect, please don't encourage banned users. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise's User Conduct RFC

23) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) was the subject of a user conduct Request For Comment during August-November 2008 that primarily focused on concerns about incivility, assuming good faith, how he handled images, and tendentious editing. While he did make an effort to address some of the concerns, he also argued at the conclusion of the RFC to the point that the conclusion was moved to an outside view vice placing it in a closing template which was the practice at that time. The closing admin, now an arbitrator, stated "...just because one works in a difficult area does not give a user the right to attack another. As a result, I caution FPS to be more civil and to avoid personal attacks...". FPAS also stated "I mean, does anybody seriously expect I'm still reading it?"

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
made a tweak. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although if I were drafting this I might have noted that there were many positive or mixed, as well as negative, comments on the RfC regarding Fut.Perf.'s administrator work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, and after reading Future Perfect's rebuttal on the proposed decision talk page. Both positive and negative comments were made. The key here is the reaction by Future Perfect to the concerns, and the ease with which frustration came to the fore. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reviewing this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Review done. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise is an involved administrator

24) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is an administrator involved in this dispute.here, 3RR report, [52], [53]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this as a statement of fact as of now, but I do not read it as a statement that tools have been misused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet that he has been using his tools in this dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per carch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per Carch. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter and Taivo

25) John Carter (talk · contribs) has been disruptive during the arbitration case; specifically [54], [55], [56] and sent a very demeaning email to Taivo (talk · contribs) via wikimail on May 14, 2009. Taivo subsequently released the email without permission to two other users.[57], [58]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The instances of rudeness on the case pages, while regrettable, are not beyond our common experience as arbitrators. The inappropriate e-mail and the equally inappropriate publication of its contents, while also regrettable, appear to be isolated incidents and I would not publicize them further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper7

Personal attacks by Reaper7

26) Reaper7 (talk · contribs) has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks by accusing other editors of bigotry, utilizing terminology conveying ethnic hatred, and accusing other users of lying and ignorance. [59], [60], [61] and [62] (note "Fyromian" is considered offensive by many), [63], [64], [65]; and [66] where he thinks FPAS is Greek and asks if he is of "Greek blood".

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, many of those attacks were calculated to be extremely offensive. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A pattern of unacceptable comments, although "ethnic hatred" is not exactly the term I would use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I agree with Newyorkbrad but abstain since 'conveying ethnic hatred' is a strong statement. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper7 engaged in canvassing

27) Reaper7 (talk · contribs) engaged in inappropriate canvassing after being warned about original research. User:Avg [67], User:SQRT5P1D2 [68], User:Shadowmorph [69], User:Yannismarou [70], User:AndreasJS [71], User:Tasoskessaris [72], User:Giorgos_Tzimas [73], User:Dragases [74].

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my reservations about overuse of the term "canvassing" whenever two people with a common interest talk to each other, this is as blatant an on-wiki WP:CANVASS issue as one will see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

SQRT5P1D2

SQRT5P1D2 solicited meatpuppets

28) SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) has solicited meatpuppets, specifically Greek-speaking Usenet users, to support his position on Wikipedia. [75]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to the translation of the message on his talk page. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

SQRT5P1D2 is a Macedonia-focused single-purposed account

29) SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created SmartGeometry Group and User:SQRT5P1D2/LOCMAC. See also comments here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This FoF makes sense only if taken in parallel with the previous one 28. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Many month-old accounts would have a similarly narrow spread of editing. The "single-purpose account" label is clearly understood as a pejorative one within the community (regardless of attempts to cast it as descriptive) and I would rather limit its use to users with a disruptive agenda. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bainer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radjenef is a Macedonia-focused single-purposed account

30) Radjenef (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account (see contribs) whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shows some diversification here and has a draft article here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per Carch, is diversifying now, but initially, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per comment in the previous section, I'm not going to support the application of this label other than in the context of users editing within a confined area with a disruptive agenda. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bainer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this is different than the case of FoF 28 and 29. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick ts has edit-warred

31) Nick ts (talk · contribs) has edit-warred disruptively on 2008 Greek riots and has continued to edit war after a block ended. Contributions here, block log here

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the user was blocked again for that, but yes. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

This user has a grand total of 27 edits (including deleted edits), none in the past month. I think we can leave him or her for admins to deal with if he or she resumes editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are just stating the facts. There's a potential risk of having Nick ts wikilawyering with the admins in case we omit this FoF. The 'no FoF concerning me' would be a good reason for wikilawyering. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfadog777 is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account who has edit-warred

32) Alfadog777 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case. He has edit-warred disruptively on List of national animals to push a Greek nationalist POV. [76], [77], [78], [79]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No diversifying at all. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cf my comments on the preceding two proposals. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my previous comment to Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

This user has made a grand total of three mainspace edits and less than 50 overall edits in his or her entire participation in the project. While the proposed finding is true, I'm not convinced this rises to the level of warranting this Committee's attention, as opposed to calling for routine administrator action if problems continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avg

Avg's disruption

33) Avg (talk · contribs) has disrupted the project through years-long systematic advocacy editing in issues of Greek national disputes, including the Macedonia naming issue. He has a battle ground mentality and has threatened to edit war without compromising. [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] (calling opponent's edit vandalism), [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] (during these proceedings)

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is long-term behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He actually had to be blocked for disrupting the arbitration case itself. We don't do that lightly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the diffs are great examples but this is certainly a long-term issue. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with bainer. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avg's assumptions about other editors

34) Avg (talk · contribs) is prone to exaggeration and showing lack of good faith in the motives of other editors. intent to edit war til banned, [98], in the case workshop he calls an attempt at updating guidelines "sabotage"; calling an obvious alternate account, User:Former Abbreviated Username of Future Perfect at Sunrise a "disruptive purpose" sock; accusing others of an intent to deceive, [99] (insinuating opponent might abuse oversight to get rid of allegedly embarrassing material). He also accused Greece666 (talk · contribs), who self-identified as Greek but disagreed with him on the Macedonia question, of lying and calling him "FYROMian" and "leftist", often writing in Greek. See User talk:Greece666#If you are Greek, I'm Martian. More evidence of lack of assuming WP:AGF and wiki-lawyering: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous instances of unacceptable comments. (Although I'm not sure where "wikilawyering" fits in.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overlaps somewhat with the previous finding. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kekrops' disruption

35) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs) (Kekrops) has disrupted the project through years-long systematic advocacy editing in issues of Greek national disputes, including the Macedonia naming issue. He has shown a pattern of persistent and excessive wikilawyering, edit-warring and multiple instances of ad hominem personal attacks. [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136] [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]. He has also at times shown respect for those who oppose him and willingness to compromise [148].

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though again I'm not sure that "wikilawyering" adds anything here. (Am I being too sensitive?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it would be preferable to split the long list of diffs into shorter lists following each point made in the finding. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Shadowmorph is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account

36) Shadowmorph (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case. [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155] It is also noted that Shadowmorph has recently started broadening his areas of interest and working on improving articles.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has created Emmanuil Xanthos, Athanasios Tsakalov and Hellenoglosso Xenodocheio, done good image work here, and has several draft articles in his userspace, including one on Super Solar Flare. He has also created Macedonian Greek, Kostas Zouraris, and Makedonikos Stadium, as well as creating several redirects. He has also made other useful contributions outside of this topic area. The work on Macedonians (Greeks) was mentioned earlier. This is actually fairly impressive for a new account. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also per carch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This finding is a stick to diversify further. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Given that there is no citation of any inappropriate edits, and Carcharoth's demonstration that the editor's interests are broadening, I don't understand the purpose of this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably to encourage continued diversification and to prevent backsliding into excessive focus on Macedonia articles. It is normal for editors to start off editing in areas they have expertise in, or have great motivation to contribute to, but if they run up against resistance, they (in practice) need to to elsewhere to gain non-stressful experience of standard Wikipedia practices, and to demonstrate general ability to contribute constructively. In an ideal world, this wouldn't need to be done. But in a topic area where socks and disruptive SPAs are two-a-penny, more evidence is needed to be able to assess an editor's overall contributions. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, and per my comments on similar proposals above, I'm not going to support the application of this label other than in the context of users editing within a confined area with a disruptive agenda. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above on similar proposals. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editors have disrupted Wikipedia

37) IP editors from both sides have been disruptive by changing articles to a particular POV without a consensus to do so. This is often done on pages which have no direct connection to Greece, Macedonia, or their peoples, languages, or cultures. The effect disrupts Wikipedia, overshadows legitimate IP edits, and leads to a battleground mentality among registered editors. [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], a set from an IP, [161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168], but also in unrelated or loosely related ancient/Byzantine Greek pages, e.g. Cyril and Method example[169].

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Yannismarou has edit warred

38) Yannismarou (talk · contribs) has edit warred. [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. He has also expressed regret for it. [176]

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very parenthetical expression of regret ("I also reverted there twice in two days, which I regret") in the middle of a long ANI report on someone else edit warring and beng incivil. It would have been better to also express the regret outside of that venue in an attempt at reconciliation, not during an escalation of the dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

All these diffs are more than a year old. Absent a more recent incident or some other reason to anticipate further issues with this editor, this is too stale to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brad that the evidence presented with respect to this user is stale. But here's a couple of reverts with Future Perfect at Sunrise from last week: [177], [178], [179]. Though right now I don't think this is a representative finding, I think this could warrant further consideration. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

39) Over several years, many editors have represented an identifiable opinion faction with regard to Macedonia-related articles. While many of the editors concerned have undoubtedly acted individually in good faith, and the individual conduct of most of them did not reach a level of disruption that would normally call for individual sanctions, their actions taken together have taken on a collectively disruptive form. The stance of these factions, as represented by a small number of core regular editors and a larger volatile group of occasional supporters, has had the collective effect of permanently blocking regular consensus-seeking mechanisms. Many of these editors have shown a willingness to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to pursue their national political interests. The collective net effect of this is to create a bloc whose influence is at times disproportionate to its size and at times has the result of negating Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia's goal is to create a neutral and factual encyclopedia in a consensus-based environment. Methods used by these factions include: wikilawyering, overt appeals to political considerations, "refusal to get the point", hyperbole, filibustering, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, external lobbying, and edit warring. Several outside editors have over time turned away from the dispute exasperated by the immobility of these opinion blocs. Users turning away: [180], [181], [182], [183]. Nationalistic fervor and insulting others: [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], and [195]. Search and replace tools are often used: [196], [197]. It has even come from official sources such as the Greek Parliament: [198], [199]. Specific types of examples:

Replacing all instances of "Republic of Macedonia" with "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215].

Similarly, but replacing "Republic of Macedonia" with "FYROM", to remove any mention of Macedonia, even if there is no ambiguity or if the term FYROM is inappropriate in that context. [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221] (note edit summary), [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227][228]

Replacing "Republic of Macedonia" with invented POV or pejorative terms (e.g. "Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia", "Vardarska", "Slavomacedonia", "Republic of FYROM", "Republic of Skopje", "Bananadonia" and "Monkeydonia"). [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238]

Replacing the term "Macedonians" with POV or pejorative terms such as "Fyromians", "Skopjans", "Pseudomacedonians" or "Slavomacedonians". Also replacing mentions of the Macedonian language with related POV or pejorative terms. [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246].

Examples of disruption with an anti-Greek focus. [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257].

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few diffs I wouldn't have used in this finding, but the pattern is clear. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. (I changed "foment" to "pursue" which I find more idiomatic in that sentence; Rlevse or any other arbitrator please feel free to revert if you disagree.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why we're here again. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cool Hand Luke. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

ChrisO's administrator status

40) ChrisO resigned his status as an administrator on June 6, 2009, while this arbitration case was pending, and just prior to that gave himself rollback rights. [258], [259]

Support:

Obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply noting the current situation. — Coren ^(talk) 02:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a principle that goes with this too, if anyone wants to go back and add it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Seek neutral outside opinion

1) All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MedCom and the other mediation vehicles may be appropriate places to go as well. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I doubt that Medcom— because of its strictly voluntary nature— is likely to help very much in cases of entrenched nationalistic disputes. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally, yes. Some naming guidelines will be beneficial here as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the dispute resolution system is indeed geared towards channelling broader, more impartial external editorial input into otherwise insular disputes. However, it's an all-too familiar characteristic of these protracted disputes that this goal is not achieved (or sometimes, not pursued). --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I actually have the same sort of concern as NYB. I don't think anything this sweeping can be a true remedy. I therefore consider this remedy to be precatory and more akin to a aspirational finding. That said, I do support the message. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

It's good advice, but I don't think we can "direct" "all" editors on the articles to obtain advice. And there are plenty of editors on these articles who are not involved in the naming dispute, to whom this would not necessarily apply. Proposing 1.1 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need for the people that edit controversial topics to modify their approach. While in other situations bold actions are fine, we truly need for people to understand that using the same approach in these situations is really unhelpful. If someone is going to be a frequent contributor to this topic then they need to understand that a pattern of reverting edits or page moves to get your preference in the articles is counterproductive to achieving stable NPOV content. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seek neutral outside opinion

1.1) Editors involved in editing articles relating to Macedonia (however defined) are strongly urged to obtain advice from neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN) when issues relating to the Macedonia naming dispute arise, rather than resort to edit-warring, incivility, or other tactics that will aggravate the dispute without resolving it.

Support:

Proposed. Once we see what's passing, I may also have some suggestions about rearranging the order; for example a statement that the discretionary sanctions from the former case remain in effect should probably precede anything else. (By the way, it's late; any arbitrator who has ideas for copyediting this or my other proposals should feel free to implement the edits; I may do a little tweaking tomorrow also.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference. The difference between the terms "directed" and "strongly urged" is semantics, in my view. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice per FloNight and bainer below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice per FloNight and bainer below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I prefer that we "direct" all the editors of this topic toward the appropriate venues for dispute resolution early. We need for the people that edit controversial topics to modify their approach. While in other situations bold actions are fine, we truly need for people to understand that using the same approach in these situations is really unhelpful. And if someone is going to be a frequent contributor to this topic then they need to understand that a pattern of reverting edits or page moves to get your preference in the articles is counterproductive to achieving stable NPOV content. Even if they are not extremely rude or engage in long term edit warring on the article, they can undo the work of the meditation that is happening if they unilaterally make changes. I'm not suggesting that we heavily sanction these people if they are unaware of the problem, but if articles are under probation and editing restriction can be applied, then we need to give helpful directions upfront about how to handle conflicts instead of having the editors get into problems later and receive editing restrictions from an admin. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially leaning towards supporting this as a second choice (and I do like the added last sentence), but as Flo says, the dispute resolution system has failed to be properly utilised in this dispute, and that has to change. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Area of conflict

2) The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go overbroad than miss a critical set of articles in this case; there is, at any rate, no area of the encyclopedia where such collective behavior is acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As far as I can tell, this is not referred to in the substantive remedies, which use the narrower definition below. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this "remedy" is for. It sounds more like a "finding". Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing 2.1, which I think makes the purpose clear, and also more tailored directly to the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at FoF's locus of dispute. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Undecided. Not sure how this remedy helps over and above the remedies listed below in identifying relevant articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of remedies

2.1) The remedies in this case shall apply to any disagreement among editors concerning the proper use or designation of the names "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or any similar or related reference in any article in Wikipedia.

Support:

This may help tailor what we are driving at. Same comments and permission as in 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal to the other one. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, though we could also say that the remedies could apply to anything covered by a future version of MOSMAC that gains consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avoids the problem of trying to select which articles to target by having the remedies follow the dispute, wherever it is taken. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable, though I fear it is so narrow as to be too easily gameable. — Coren ^(talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support but note per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

All related articles under 1RR

3) All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, WP:BLP violations, WP:SOCK violations, and efforts to GAME the system by tactics such as tag-team reverting may be reverted without penalty. Editors enforcing a case where a binding #Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.

Support:

Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too broad as framed. I am not sure that 1RR is needed on the articles about Macedonia or Greece except specifically with regard to the naming dispute itself. For example, there must be hundreds of Greece-related articles that mention Macedonia (one or another definition) in passing, but I don't think we need the whole article under 1RR just because one sentence implicates the naming dispute. Perhaps there is a case that the broader topic-wide 1RR is needed to address wider issues, but I'm not yet convinced. More clearly, the remedy is phrased too broadly as applied to articles that are not primarily about Macedonia or Greece but mention Macedonia in passing. List of peninsulas contains a reference to Macedonia (I just picked an example at random using "what links here"); the sentence referring to Macedonia should be on 1RR, but the whole article needn't be. I'll wait for consensus on my other suggestions and these comments before proposing an alternative, but "all articles or portions of articles within the scope of 2.1 are subject to 1RR". (And then we should define 1RR; the meaning of the term is sometimes disputed or misinterpreted). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This same remedy worked quite well in the Ireland articles. These ethnic wars need strong remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an editing dispute on the topic happens on the article then 1RR is needed. But if no one even notices that Macedonia is mentioned in the article, then of course 1RR is not needed or used. I think we can use common sense to sort it out on a case by case basis. Pinning down the details could cause more problems because it gives an editor room to make pointy edits on the topic and later claim that the article was not covered. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad, this will incur too much collateral damage; it should be confined to edits relating to the dispute, which would have the additional benefit of extending the restriction to any otherwise unrelated article to which the dispute is introduced (and per the findings above, this has been a problem here). Moreover, giving unqualified exceptions for "WP:SOCK violations, and efforts to GAME the system by tactics such as tag-team reverting", in the context of this dispute, is asking for trouble. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and bainer. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad as defined - prefer alternative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned

3.1) All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding #Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.

Support:

Addressing the concerns above. I added 'whenever the dispute over naming is concerned' and removed 'when in doubt, assume it is related' as moot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though I would still prefer a broader emphasis on MOSMAC disputes in general. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naming issues do happen on any page where the name is mentioned. So, we need to enforce it where needed even if the main topic is not related to Macedonia. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice as better tailored to the specific dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tagging articles

4) As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to the remedies contained in this decision, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages and edit notices of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template on talk pages that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Remedies|1RR]]''', as laid out in the final decision of the "Macedonia 2" arbitration case. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}} Similar edit notice wording should be used.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, it should be noted that an article that falls within the scope of this decision but which had not yet been tagged confers no exemption (though it should be tagged once the oversight is noted). — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though the initial warnings after 1RR are still needed before blocks are issued, even if the article was tagged, and especially if the article was not tagged. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be implemented on a common-sense basis; an article containing a passing reference to Macedonia should only be tagged if actual issues arise on that article. Minor copyedits made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

5) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision or the earlier decision in the first Macedonia arbitration will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added "or the earlier decision in the first Macedonia arbitration". Colleagues please feel free to revert if undesired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed to 'abstain'. ~~Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

After a second thought I believe this has been tried before and we are still getting cases before us to just repeat the same remedies in vain. I prefer the below alternative since ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators involvement and a special noticeboard

5.1) The community is encouraged to establish a special noticeboard to discuss whether a particular administrator is involved or not. Administrators who are accused of being involved in a topic may seek the community opinion on the matter of their involvement in the said noticeboard. After the closure of every discussion, all administrators and editors are urged to respect the decision.

Support:

First choice per my support of alternative Principle 8.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why both this and 5.0 can't both exist. Those active at this noticeboard will need to be cognizant of those who use the noticeboard to game the system. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a good idea. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't think we need yet another noticeboard; we have far too many to follow already. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel such a thing would be a massive drama magnet, creating more sound than fury (and much misery). And per Kirill. --Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a noticeboard, admins who are acting when involved in a dispute should be taken through dispute resolution and eventually brought to ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per omnes. I do think it might be useful for there to be a mechanism where an administrator could ask for a second opinion on whether he or she has gotten too close to a situation and should allow another admin to do any administrating that might be required, but a whole new formal dedicated noticeboard would be overkill in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is compatible with 5 (as Randy says), but over-compartmentalized. I suspect there are already too many noticeboards. We need eyeballs, not acronyms. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Stalemate resolution

6) When the net effect of blocs of editors with a shared agenda disrupts the achievement of consensus over, and/or negates the application of, Wikipedia policy to the point that it is harmful to the encyclopedia, and appropriate steps of the dispute resolution process have been unsuccessful, the community should designate a neutral uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators, agreeable to all sides of the dispute, which should review the situation and resolve it by applying Wikipedia policy. All sides should faithfully adhere to this decision. Any uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators, including those who made the binding decision, may enforce the decision. Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon.

Support:

New approach worth a try, especially in ethnic disputes. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth trying. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have doubts that finding an administrator that is agreeable to all parties is likely, but it's certainly worth trying. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)~~ (Moved to oppose, see below) — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially for contentious material which is not strictly a naming dispute (and hence could feasibly be covered by naming guidelines). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would make a good kernel for an essay, I particularly like the metaphor. Stalemate is precisely what some edit warriors strive for. Maybe it would be better presented through policy-making, but I do think it's highly relevant to this case, and I support it as an experiment. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Based on comments below, still cannot support this as it stands. Would require that more than one admin be designated, and that non-admins (i.e. experienced editors) also be considered as capable of helping to break a stalemate. Would also prefer to leave to the discretion of those requesting a review of an alleged "stalemate", the option of restarting discussion (and setting ground rules to prevent disruption by bloc voting), rather than trying to review what might be a messy discussion. All-in-all, I think the details of this sort of proposal need to be worked out by the community and worked up to a guideline, rather than imposed from above. The aim should be for the community to produce a guideline for how to resolve protracted "single point" disputes of this nature (as opposed to general disputes). Naming disputes are a good example of disputes that can be very protracted, but may be amenable to enforced arbitration by following a carefully guided process. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the place of ArbCom to impose binding content decisions, nor to create policy or process for such a purpose. It certainly might be worth a try, but any policy or process for imposed binding content decisions needs to come from the community, not from us. While I appreciate the sentiment, this is extremely improper in my view. --Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This puts content decisions in the hands of administrators, and seems to be seeking to legislate project-wide policy, and I cannot support any proposal that does either of those things. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per bainer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 29.1.1 provides a better method, in my opinion. While not strictly exclusive, I would tend to prefer that approach on its own. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Leaning towards supporting under the caveat that this should be discussed by all involved parties in an appropriate place as Remedy 5.1 refers to. Also, I'd rather see a group of admins instead of one. If no-one comes up with an alternative remedy I'd do it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about announcing this as part of an arbitration decision; we'll be (somewhat rightly) accused of unnecessary commandeering and policy creation. However, I wouldn't be averse to the idea of starting an RfC on whether this type of mechanism should be created and, if so, how it should work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

How about adding "experienced users agreeable to all sides may participate in resolving the dispute" or words to that effect? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I have here is that sometimes the side of a dispute that has a "bloc of editors with a shared agenda" might actually be the "right" side. What should really be done is to take the block vote or influence out of the equation and then see if objective and uninvolved editors appear to support the position previously supported by the block vote. It is possible that other editors may have not wanted to get involved, or thought it was not necessary because consensus was getting the "right" result. What I'm warning against here is an automatic assumption that the side with a "block" nationalist vote is always wrong. In some cases they will be right and we should avoid the system being gamed both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy with the potential that a single administrator may end up imposing a binding resolution. Imposition of binding resolutions should be done by the community. A community discussion to establish whether a bloc vote is distorting the issue in a particular case would be better than admins making these decisions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and/or negates the application of, Wikipedia policy" is a key here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avg banned for six months

7) Avg is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Wizardman 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice (switching to six months for all bans) ~~Second choice.~~ Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I have carefully considered Avg's comments on the talkpage and weighed them against his past conduct as summarized in the findings of fact, which I have supported. It is my impression that despite past problems, his comments in the face of an impending ban are sincere. Avg claims that he loves the project and the encyclopedia and that he is ready to make contributions in areas outside the topic of dispute. I would impose some form of topic ban combined with a civility restriction or probation and thus give him an opportunity to prove his sincerity by allowing him to continue to edit on topics unrelated to this controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban instead. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Avg banned for one year

7.1) Avg is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
First. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comments on 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. --Vassyana (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, switching to only support for 6 months. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Avg topic-banned for one year

8) Avg is topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.

Support:

First six months to run simultaneously with the site ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, to run concurrently with any bans. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 8.1. --FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per FloNight. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

If he's completely banned a year and it runs concurrently, it defeats the purpose. Wizardman 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, he could appeal the siteban and come back early and still be topic banned. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wiz. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avg topic-banned indefinitely

8.1) Avg is indefinitely topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR.

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears needed. First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In the past, topic bans were passed and also site bans. This makes it clear that a topic ban will be in place if the banned user returns early. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to later appeals. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the event that one year is not longer than any ban imposed (currently, he appears to be banned for one year, so I support this finding). Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cool Hand Luke. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~I don't see the need behind mentioning 1RR unless there's an explicit mention of an appeal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Prefer 8; see also my comments on 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kekrops topic-banned for six months

9) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Kekrops) is banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for six months.

Support:

Second — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. My real first preference would probably be one year, though I don't think it would be useful to post another proposal for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not strong enough. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

As stated above, would defeat purpose if concurrent. Wizardman 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment at 8.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kekrops topic-banned indefinitely

9.1) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Kekrops) is indefinitely banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR.

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice. Wikipedia is emphatically not a soapbox for nationalistic disputes. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to later appeals. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First. Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~Per my comment at 8.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Kekrops banned for three months

10) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Kekrops) is banned from the English Wikipedia for three months.

Support:

Second — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Distant second choice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Wizardman 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that this coupled with a topic ban and civility restriction would suffice, should this user decide to return to editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too short. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Kekrops banned for one year

10.1) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Kekrops) is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. See my comment on 10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to oppose (supporting six months for all bans). Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Kekrops banned for six months

10.2) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Kekrops) is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months.

Support:

First choice. This is relative to the user's behavior in comparison with others. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, coupled with a topic ban and civility restriction. See my comments on 10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Wizardman 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First and only choice. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too short. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per Kirill. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

Reaper7 banned for six months

11) Reaper7 is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for longer if this behaviour is repeated after that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon return, I expect that any repeat performances will be paid with significant, if not indefinite, blocks. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recent acceptable editing, albeit under the shadow of the ban, leads me to think that a topic ban coupled with a civility restriction might be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper7 topic-banned for one year

12) Reaper7 is topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR, for one year.

Support:

First six months to run simultaneously with the site ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to run concurrently. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: a six month topic ban after the siteban expires. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nick ts admonished

13) Nick ts is admonished for edit warring.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put user on notice in case of return. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I find it incongruous for this Committee, as the last step in dispute resolution, to enter a formal sanction (even an admonition) against a currently inactive account with 27 total edits. Any further issues involving this user, whether involving this or another account, can be addressed by administrators as a matter of routine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. A finding is enough "admonishment" here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth - and did Brad's signature get lost there somewhere? --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed missing sig. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admonishing would probably be necessary if Nick ts resumes editing maintaining the same behavior. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

In accord with my abstention from the accompanying finding. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfadog777 admonished

14) Alfadog777 is admonished for edit warring.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments on the corresponding finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put user on notice in case of return. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I find it incongruous for this Committee, as the last step in dispute resolution, to enter a formal sanction (even an admonition) against an account with about 40 total edits, including just three in mainspace. Any further issues involving this user, whether involving this or another account, can be addressed by administrators as a matter of routine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. A finding is enough "admonishment" here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at remedy 13. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

In accord with my abstention from the accompanying finding. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SQRT5P1D2 admonished

15) SQRT5P1D2 is admonished for soliciting meatpuppets.

Support:

Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Wizardman 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not adequate; bringing in nationalistic supporters in order to subvert and destroy the editorial process is unacceptable. Alternative below. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Strike and indent while I mull over if the admonishment is correct for this problem. Might switch to support or abstain. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SQRT5P1D2 banned

15.1) SQRT5P1D2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months.

Support:

This behavior needs to stop. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Wizardman 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Indenting while I mull over if the topic ban is best as a replacement for a site ban. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to #15.2. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

In view of more recent appropriate editing, including to an extent in unrelated areas, I would impose a topic ban combined with the admonition (whose wording I might strengthen). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really prevent soliciting meat puppets. Support NYB's proposed course. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SQRT5P1D2 topic-banned for one year

15.2) SQRT5P1D2 is topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.

Support:

First choice. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already getting a complete ban, but probably needed. Wizardman 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban might be a better way to deal with this. Not sure of preferences, yet. Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm support this as the best way to address the issue either with or without a break from on site editing, too. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~I am not sure about the reason behind mentioning the 1RR since that applied to all editors. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

--Vassyana (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou admonished

16) Yannismarou is admonished for edit warring.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the admission, the admonishment on the record is warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The finding is enough "admonishment". Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per position at this time on the corresponding finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bainer and per my comment on the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

No longer needed, as he's already acknowledged being at fault. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the edit-warring was a year ago and he's been regretful of it, I'm willing to forgive. Wizardman 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wiz. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter admonished

17) John Carter is admonished for disruption and incivility.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been done in the heat of the moment during a case, but is still not acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comments on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In accord with my abstention from the accompanying finding. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo admonished

18) Taivo is admonished for releasing private correspondence.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been done in the heat of the moment during a case, but is still not acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. I doubt it would happen again but an admonishment is still warranted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This appears to be an isolated occurrence in response to the inappropriate e-mail that Taivo received. It would not have reached the level of requiring this Committee's attention but for the happenstance that the case is already before us. Given the nature of the incident, I would prefer not to publicize it further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO admonished

19) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for changing a protected template and moving a protected article in disputes in which he was heavily involved as an editor without obtaining consensus.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that neither #20 nor #20.1 pass. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO is a dedicated administrator and has good subject-matter knowledge relating to this issue, but he should have understood that his conduct here both contravened policy and expectations and that it would inflame rather than resolve the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO desysopped

20) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been admonished or made subject to restrictions in the course of three prior arbitration proceedings by the Arbitration Committee: Israeli apartheid case, September 2006 for abuse of administrator tools; Kosovo case, October 2006 for edit warring and rollback abuse; Scientology case, May 2009 for WP:BLP violations and inappropriate sysop actions. Combined with actions in this case, this is a long-term pattern. ChrisO is desysopped as a result. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but with three sanctions, simple supervision does not seem adequate. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he's been admonished plenty in the past so many times leads to this. Wizardman 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a pattern here. This is enough, in my view, for desysopping. The community needs to judge whether he can get the tools back. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in this dispute over several years (albeit typically in a rational constructive way, viz. his efforts to create a manual of style guideline for the topic) he used administrative tools to advance his position. More than anyone Chris ought to have appreciated (if he did not in fact appreciate) the bitterness of the dispute and the exacerbation such an action could only cause. Alone it might be attributed to a mere brain explosion, but with the background discussed I don't think it can be dismissed that easily. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. --Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 20.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO is a dedicated long-term administrator who has made substantial contributions. These contributions must be evaluated alongside his repeated failures to recognize when he has become too embroiled in a content dispute to utilize administrator tools with regard to it. Unfortunately, this may be a bit of an occupational hazard for some of our most dedicated hands-on administrators who spend their time in our most contentious and disputed topic areas. Although it is a close question, and ChrisO must understand that his margin for error in this regard is now virtually nonexistent, I would step back from imposing this sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren but I'd prefer to add "an appeal no less than 6 months" to be added per a recently closed case. See alternative Remedy 20.2 below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

tweaked wording. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO to undergo administrative supervision

20.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is required to undergo administrative supervision.

Support:

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Only if the desysopping motion fails. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support in the alternative that 20 fails. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There were plenty of opportunities to correct in the past which were not heeded. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an inexperienced admin or an young person that lack life experience about how to respond in this role. Rather, ChrisO does not have the judgment about how to carry out the duties of the role. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments on #30 below. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a formal "administrative supervision" measure makes sense in the case of such a long-term administrator, although I am supportive of the suggestion that he obtain ongoing advice and input as needed from one or more colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer 20.2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now moot as has resigned adminship. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now moot. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO desysopped and to undergo administrative supervision

20.2) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been admonished or made subject to restrictions in the course of three prior arbitration proceedings by the Arbitration Committee: Israeli apartheid case, September 2006 for abuse of administrator tools; Kosovo case, October 2006 for edit warring and rollback abuse; Scientology case, May 2009 for WP:BLP violations and inappropriate sysop actions. Combined with actions in this case, this is a long-term pattern. ChrisO is desysopped as a result. He may regain his adminship either through RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case. In parallel, ChrisO is required to undergo administrative supervision.

Support:

Oppose:

The structure of administrative supervision doesn't make sense when applied to someone without admin tools. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True but please refer to my comments on the proposed structure below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on 20 and 20.1. Either ChrisO has the message now, or he does not. If my colleagues feel that there is no chance he has figured out that his well-intentioned actions here backfired and illustrate the soundness of our "involvement" policies, then the consequences follow. If we credit that he now, however belatedly, understands the issues and will avoid any recurrence of these problems, then I would give him a final opportunity to show it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Senseless. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, this remedy does not appear coherent. In particular, the provision that administrative supervision (which implies access to admin tools) is to be parallel with a desysop is self-defeating. — Coren ^(talk) 03:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per Kirill, intent is good but I think this is redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

This is a mix of 20 and 20.1 with some extra appeal limitation. Leaning toward support while waiting for a clarification from him. (see FoF 15). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make clear that resysopping requires administrative supervision. Such supervision is pointless while desysopped. Carcharoth (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. However, though ChrisO has said he will not ask for the tools back, the option should not be forgotten in future. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO topic banned

21) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for 30 days.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should still contribute to articles and talk pages as an editor. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is de facto banned from moving these pages, but I trust he recognizes that already. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate symbolic bans. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Mulling it over. Wizardman 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain per my comments regarding the need of a mention of 1RR.~~ -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for 90 days.

Support:

First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should still contribute to articles and talk pages as an editor. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Mulling it over. Wizardman 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain per my comments regarding the need of a mention of 1RR~~. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21.2) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for 6 months.

Support:

— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be this long. Wizardman 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely that these problems are going to be sorted out quickly. Removing some editors from these articles is needed to reach a suitable decision. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should still contribute to articles and talk pages as an editor. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain per my comments regarding the need of a mention of 1RR.~~ -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise admonished

22) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. This is inappropriate for any editor, but especially for an administrator.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those incidents may be more forgivable than others, but despite the strained situation they are unacceptable in the aggregate. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that #25 does not pass. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise topic banned

23) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for 90 days.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a 90 day ban will acheive anything. Hoping supervision will work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should still contribute to articles and talk pages as an editor. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although he should improve his level of civility on these pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that topic ban is usually an appropriate remedy for civility issues. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise restricted

24) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dislike civility-related sanctions, especially for an admin (who should know better), but this needs to be addressed somehow. If incivility continues, and is related to the use of admin tools or aggressive responses defending admin actions in this area, suggest summarily desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ideal, but is preferable to none of the 25 passing. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 25.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~25.1 should do the trick in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Move to support. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Changed to Support.[reply]
Per Carcharoth's comment, if not his vote. Last chance here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise desysopped

25) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been displayed long term incivility, resistance to listening to the concerns of the community, declared an intent to edit war and get users banned, and abused his admin bit. Future Perfect at Sunrise is desysopped as a result. Future Perfect at Sunrise may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the arbitration committee.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of administrators to work to deescalate and resolve disputes, not to inflame them. Administrators are meant to be an example to other users. Future Perfect at Sunrise has been abusive and combative, and has acted inconsistently with the standard of behaviour expected of an administrator. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also withdrawing to allow more consideration. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warriors should not be admins. Their status in the community can be demoralizing and lead to the impression that Wikipedia is a MMORPG battlefield. This is a prolific user, and I'm sympathetic to those who say that the loss of his bit would be a loss to the project. That said, I don't think this user can be effectively supervised (though I support it in the alternative). The attitude and behavior displayed in this case convinces me that this is the best course for the encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offsetting for now to avoid hasty close. I still think this is the right course, but I like Carcharoth's suggestion on 25.1 below. "Future Perfect should ... agree not to take any non-routine administrative actions in this area." If this occurred, I would prefer it to either of these alternatives. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 25.1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25.1 should be sufficient. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Hasn't reached the level for desysopping for me. Further repetition of any of this behaviour in the next year would lead me to support a motion to desysop. Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth, and in many ways per my comments regarding ChrisO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
abstaining - on thinking about it, I am aware of the difficulties of editing and using admin tools in the area, and I am lineball about whether these difficulties justify FPAS behaviour. I am supporting some compromise remedies below, but can't in good faith oppose if the majority of my fellow arbs regard the behaviour as incompatible with adminship period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise to undergo administrative supervision

25.1) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is required to undergo administrative supervision.

Support:

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support (only if 25 does not pass). Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the alternative if 25 does not pass. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

FPAS's comments and conduct during the case towards other parties, arbs, clerks indicated that he is not a good candidate for an supervised admin. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per FloNight and because this sends the wrong signal. What Future Perfect should do is agree not to take any non-routine administrative actions in this area (e.g. page protections, deletions and blockings). Am concerned that administrative supervision will be gamed for Future Perfect to take administrative actions in this topic area "with approval". Future Perfect is too involved in this topic area and should not be taking administrative actions (and to be fair has not taken many, from what I can see, other than routine housekeeping). The 'involved' block mentioned above, while unfortunate, was the wrong person taking the right action. Future Perfect's actions outside this topic area look to be OK, and I think he can carry on outside this topic area without supervision. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on #30 below. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth and per my comments on the same proposed remedy as to ChrisO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recusing from anything FPAS-related due to involvement in his RfC. Wizardman 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped

25.2) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will be restricted for three months. During this period he will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or extend the restriction.

Support:

First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a one year restriction (no desysop) or a 3 month desysop + 9 month restriction. I don't like temporary desysops, but I think this is more palatable than 25. Cool Hand Luke 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No reason to think that in six months that FPAS will be able to caution or block users in this topic area and have it been seen as something done by a neutral admin. He needs to abstain from using his tools about issues related to this topic for much longer than six months in order for the people involved to disengage. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am expecting that six months will be sufficient time for him to be formally restricted, and to know when he should refrain from using the tools. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is necessary, per other comments on this page. However, I would favor it over outright desysopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mark it as your second choice then? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded "baggage" can be shrugged off in three months. (And typo in header) Roger Davies ^talk 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support temporary desysops. — Coren ^(talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Additionally, under a normal desysop he can regain the tools at any point by appeal to ArbCom or via RfA. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flonight. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse per other FPAS-related things. Wizardman 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped

25.3) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction.

Support:

Second choice. Per our usual practices, I prefer 25 followed by a RFA or a request for return of tools to the Committee after several months of collegial editing. But I can support this with the indefinite restriction on using admin tools in the topic area. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equal first choice. FPAS has indicated on my talk page that he is open to this approach. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
open to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, to go with the civility restriction. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my vote on the other temp desysop meaure. --Vassyana (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per 25.2. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I seem to have missed voting on this item before the case closed, but I would have opposed per my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse. Wizardman 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts advised

26) Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, at a minimum. Editing just one tiny area is always a recipe for disaster - diversifying it strongly encouraged for me. Wizardman 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a "strongly" to the encouraged above actually. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we were working on some relevant language about SPAs in the Scientology case; perhaps that could be incorporated here as well. There is also useful language in Israel-Palestine (pointing out that editors who find themselves in a rut edit-warring or feuding about one aspect of a topic may benefit from moving their editing to another aspect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I liked the Scientology language better. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my approach to the related findings of fact above. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary topic ban

27) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Macedonia topic, as defined in #Area of conflict. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Redundant to the existing discretionary sanctions in WP:ARBMAC; I see no need to confuse the matter by passing a second, narrower version. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the ARBMAC sanction covers this. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Moot since it's struck though. Wizardman 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

Striking, see enforcement 2.1 — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tighten the abuse filter

28) Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a try. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Opposing on principle. This won't stop the abuse (I won't go into details), and the abuse filter shouldn't be used this way. It is a slippery slope to using the filter to control content. If this passes, I predict a wave of poorly-designed filters and an escalating "arms race" between filter designers and vandals. This may also antagonise the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Carcharoth's concerns although each case should be handled and approached with all its particularities in mind. However, what is more important is that the community is free to arrive to this conclusion/remedy itself. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an implementation detail, which is best left in the hands who know what they are doing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Vassyana (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed article movement/renaming injunction extension

29) No Macedonia-related article, as defined in #All related articles under 1RR, shall be moved/renamed until after the community comes to a solution for the naming dispute. If any unauthorized move does occur, any uninvolved administrator may expeditiously revert it.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this applies to article names only, not to the text used in articles (where most of the problems occur). Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community asked to come to a consensus on the preferred names

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

Support:

Marginally second choice behind 29.1.1 below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this is not structured enough and the timescale is too short, but something is needed. Have added disambiguation to the list of considerations. It might also be good to separate out the dispute over names in article text, and the disputes over the names of articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Second choice versus 29.1.1. 06:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight second to 29.1.1. Support, noting this covers both article names and how they're referred to within articles. I'm not sure we need to split those into separate remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Establishing consensus on names

29.1.1) Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened. Prior to the discussion ending, the Arbitration Committee will designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators who will assess the consensus developed during the discussion, and report the results of their assessment within one week of the end of the discussion. The results will then be appended onto this case, and the consensus as assessed by the panel shall be enforceable as if it were a naming convention.

In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

Support:

A more structured alternative. --bainer (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice (just). Given the complexities of disambiguation pages and the various synonyms and contexts, is more complex than the West Bank/Judea and Samaria case I imported the first remedy from, hence I think I favour this one slightly more, as long as there is a result in a naming convention at the other end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight first to 29.1 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has enough structure to be likely to be useful. I understand the concern about the requirement for adminship, but editors who have passed an RfA are traditionally viewed has having community trust; it is not a perfect selection criterion, but it's a reasonable one. — Coren ^(talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The requirement that they must be administrators is not helpful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the same spirit as 30). --Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~:# --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Administrative supervision

30) An administrator, X, subject to administrative supervision is required to find another administrator in good standing who is willing to supervise their administrative actions. The choice of supervising administrator is subject to approval by the Committee. X is encouraged to seek a supervising administrator outside their normal areas of editing and administrative tool use. Should X refuse to seek out an administrative supervisor, they will be summarily desysopped.

For a period of six months after their supervising administrator is approved by the Committee, X is permitted to use their administrative tools only as approved by the supervising administrator. The supervising administrator may place limits on the topic areas in which tool may be used, the type of tool used, the purpose for which they are used, or any others as they consider necessary. Should X refuse to comply with these limits, they will be summarily desysopped.

During this time, the supervising administrator is asked to assist X in training to use the tools in a manner that complies with all relevant policies and benefits the project, and to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate for an administrator.

At the end of the six-month period, the supervising administrator will make a recommendation to the Committee regarding X's readiness to use the tools correctly and to conduct themselves appropriately without supervision. Based on this recommendation, the Committee will either allow X to continue as an administrator without further supervision; require that X undergo further supervision; or summarily desysop X.

Support:

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's novel, and a bit heavy, but is a good alternative to guide otherwise good admins who have difficulties in some areas. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though we need to be clear where this fits in the scale of sanctions. In principle, admins should be able to use their own judgment and not need supervision. Getting another admin involved may well reduce the activity and effectiveness of that admin. Is that worth the trade-off? Maybe. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the benefit to having an administrator under this type of restriction in several scenarios. For example, if an user returns after a very long break and starts using their admin tools in a way that suggests that they are not current on the changes to policy and if they did not recognize the problem quickly by themselves, the Community could seek a remedy from the Committee for a desysop. In this case, I think a formal arrangement of Administrative supervision could reasonably alleviate the concerns of the Community. In cases where an admin is brought into an ArbCom case because of concerns about use of their tools or status that has developed over a prolonged period of time, I do not think that this arrangement is going to fix the problem. The admin needs to stop using the tools until they have regained the confidence of the Community at large. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like the concept not sure it's the best option in this case though. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see this option goes along with admins' admonishments in the future. Since this is the first time we are proposing it I can accept it as an extra option with desysopped admins (see alternative remedy 20.2). FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Such a program would be useful for training new administrators, but I cannot see the worth of such a scheme for administrators who can no longer be trusted to use the tools independently. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new kettle of fish that will come back to bite us. Better we admonish the administrator, and they choose their own path from there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules creepy. The admonishments put them on notice, and if they persist, we can deal with it ourselves. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. --Vassyana (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~:# --Vassyana (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

ChrisO's administrator status 2

31) The Committee takes note that ChrisO has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending. Any request by ChrisO for restoration of adminship privileges will require either a new request for adminship or the approval of this Committee. ChrisO is urged to give careful consideration to the principles expressed in this decision in his future editing, and especially if he reattains adminship at a future date. ChrisO may retain his rollback rights.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice. --Vassyana (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Roger Davies ^talk 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of 1RR by block

1) Blocks for violation of 1RR related to this arbitration may be issued after 1 warning for up to 1 week for first offense, up to 1 month after the first 1 week block, up to 6 months after the first 1 month block, and then indefinite blocks and ban options may be considered. All blocks and bans are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Standard 3RR rules apply only it's 1 revert not 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of discretionary topic ban by block

2) If the editor warned under #Discretionary topic ban fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for up to three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my opposition to the remedy. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by ARBMAC. — Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

Striking, see enforcement 2.1 — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

2.1) All articles involved in this conflict remain subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of the Macedonia case "WP:ARBMAC". Such sanctions may be appealed in accordance with the ARBMAC discretionary appeals process.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works. — Coren ^(talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "are subject" to "remain subject". (Arguably this is a remedy (or notation of a continued remedy) rather than enforcement of a remedy, but meh.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

3) Appeal of discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator or the administrators' noticeboard. As a last restort an appeal to the Arbitration Committee may be made. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Redundant to WP:ARBMAC. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by ARBMAC. — Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

Striking, see enforcement 2.1 — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community review

4) Topic bans and other measures imposed by administrators pursuant to the enforcement provisions of this case are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can also replace topic bans with community sitewide bans if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm keeping an idea on how this works in practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

As of 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC):

Passing at this time:

Proposed principles: 1, 2, 3*, 3.1, 4, 5, 5.1*, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Proposed findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10*, 10.1, 11, 12, 13, 14*, 14.1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20*, 20.1, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Proposed remedies: 1, 1.1*, 2.1, 3*, 3.1, 4, 5, 6, *7, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10*, 10.1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.1*, 15.2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25.3, 26, 28, 29, 29.1*, 29.1.1, 30, 31
Proposed enforcement: 1, 2.1, 4

Not passing at this time:

Proposed principles: 8.1, 20.1, 22
Proposed findings of fact: 22
Proposed remedies: 2, 5.1, 8, 9, 10.2, 15, 16, 20.1, 20.2, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 23, 25, 25.1, 25.2, 27
Proposed enforcement: 2, 3

* = Moot

Tiptoety ^talk

Arbitrators - please take note of this. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double votes: Apparently, Coren has double voted on F20.1 and FayssalF has double voted on R20.1, though neither are currently affecting the outcome. This needs fixing. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, has now removed his second vote on F20.1. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF has now struck his support on R20.1. Paul August ☎ 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some updates:

P28 is new and currently passing
P40 is now passing
F10.1 is now preferred over F10
R24 is now passing
R25 is now failing
R25.2, R25.3 are new and currently failing
R31 is now passing

Paul August ☎ 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Tiptoety ^talk 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above still shows F10 passing when by my calculation F10.1 is still preferred, and although R10.1 is still preferred over R10, R10 somehow got moved from failing to passing. Thus both F10, and R10 should to be moved from passing to failing. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but they are still mathematically passing. Because of that I have left them in the passing section and marked them with an asterisk to indicate they have been mooted by another proposal (as stated above). If this is confusing people, I can change it. Tiptoety ^talk 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand now. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: R25.3 "Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped" is now passing. Paul August ☎ 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated as such. Tiptoety ^talk 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: R15.2 is preferred over R15.1. Paul August ☎ 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse accuracy of notes based on current voting. Clerks may close a few hours early. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

I am done; others I am sure will follow when ready. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we can reach a better consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not opposing closing yet, but the 24 hours needs to run and we're discussing one dangler.~~ — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Wizardman 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dangler solved. Can close 24 h after 4th net. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my email comment about one matter, any further clarification IF NEEDED can be done after the case closes. I don't think that we have agreement to make any other significant changes now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation notes updated. Happy to close now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Only half of the committee has looked at 25.2 - two are likely to recuse when they have a moment to mark themselves as recused. The other outstanding votes could result in it passing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously still issues up in the air and alternatives being considered. We may not reach a consensus on these matters, but we should give them full consideration before putting this to bed. --Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on now. Cool Hand Luke 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]