Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 7 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

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.

Mass delinking injunction

[edit]

1) Effective immediately, all editors must cease automated or semi-automated linking or delinking of dates until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

Support:
  1. Proposed. (now second choice) Wizardman 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, proposing 1.1 to make the wording a little clearer. See my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking

[edit]

1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).

Support:
  1. Proposed. First choice. I am not at all certain what, if any, action by the committee should result from this case. However, I can agree that it would make little sense for us to carefully consider the case while events took place that could potentially render it virtually moot. I gather from the statements that most mass-delinking efforts have reportedly already been put on hold, so hopefully this injunction will not overly restrict anyone's actually intended activities during what I hope will be a relatively short time in which the case will be pending. I have revised the wording of the initial injunction proposed by Wizardman to make it more explicit that it applies to all sides of the dispute and that it is a temporary precautionary measure not reflecting prejudgment of the merits. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case promptly so that a decision may be reached as quickly as possible which will supersede the temporary injunction.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no problem with this one. (first choice) Wizardman 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Risker (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vassyana (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Without prejudice to the outcome of the case. Although the injunction has already been enacted I wanted to indicating my support for it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sam. I support the injunction. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Injunction enacted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Means of contributing

[edit]

2) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wiki-gnoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and our progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although this should not be interpreted as making any judgement whatsoever regarding any relative valuation among different types of contributions. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In particular, "ranking" the relative value of contributors according which which area they concentrate in is anathema to a volunteer project. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree with Kirill, and tend to disagree with Coren. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

User conduct

[edit]

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Learning from one's mistakes is key. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit-warring is harmful

[edit]

5) 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:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I appreciate the points raised below, but I feel the last sentance is especially important to highlight. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Redundant to #6 below. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill,  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Could be combined with 6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill, Flo. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill and FloNight. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Editorial process

[edit]

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As noted, 5 and 6 could be combined as a matter of draftsmanship, but both are correct principles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dispute resolution

[edit]

7.1) Users confronted with inappropriate behavior should not respond in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the available dispute resolution mechanisms.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Made minor, I believe non-controversial, copyedits without substantive change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

7.2) Editors who become involved in disputes on Wikipedia should seek to actively engage in the procedures detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Redundant to #7.1 above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill and Vassyana. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I prefer the more detailed version. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional styles

[edit]

8) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. States the Community norm as I understand it. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Although to an extent this begs the question—the divisive point will almost always be whether there is "some substantial reason for the change." Per Wizardman, I'm open to a reworded suggestion if offered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Switch from Abstain. Wizardman 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Many style guideline are like this. I've never been sure why both sides of this dispute are certain that date links are different. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mulling over wording. Wizardman 02:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of policies and guidelines

[edit]

9) The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice, prefer 9.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree that an overly mechanical application of the rules is highly undesirable, but I fear that, as phrased, this is far too open to abuse. I am also uncomfortable with the expression in terms of authority, behavior regulation and conduct suppression. I would support something along the lines of explaining the rules are principles and the need to use common sense, discouraging blind implementation of the letter of the rules. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By my understanding, not applying rules for the sake of applying rules is a strong wiki ethos. We really don't want admins to enforce the letter of the rules when it is not needed to fix a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I explicitly agree with that sentiment in my comments. I am just extremely uncomfortable with this particular proposal. --Vassyana (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alternative proposal offered below.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In favor of the alternate. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 9.1. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 9.1. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not convinced this is useful here. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strange. My desire to vote for this finding must be suppressed. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of policies and guidelines

[edit]

9.1) Policies and guidelines exist to facilitate the smooth running of the project. However, they should be applied with common sense. Over-rigid or over-zealous implementation can be more disruptive than the behaviour that they are intended to discourage.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ok. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Wizardman 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice; minor copyedit. Re FloNight's comment below, I'd consider a rewording that addressed her concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fine; see also "spirit versus letter" principles passed in other cases (eg. here). --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. It concerns me that this does not go far enough to stop newbie biting. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessional point of view

[edit]

10) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 10.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The alternative is more felicitous. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer the alternative. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not convinced this is useful here. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This wording is from a prior ruling that passed. It is also offered by an arb in another case that will be posted soon-ish. But maybe we can re-word to lose the word obsessive. That is a heavy word. Let me look for a similar worded proposal that speaks to tendentious editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Flonight. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. From Zeq case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, though to address Kirill's point we might replace "point of view editing" with wording such as "editing devoted to excessively pursuing a point of view or stylistic preference" or some such. Also, "appropriately restricted" might be preferable to "banned from the affected areas." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I somehow agree with Kirill but I am more leaning toward supporting this principle. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Worded a bit more strongly than I would like (per Newyorkbrad), but fundamentally correct. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Kirill, not relevant; this has application to matters of substantive content, not this sort of situation. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. True, but not really relevant; differing opinions on style are not a "point of view" in the sense the term is normally used. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

[edit]

11.1) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

Support:
  1. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Taking "appropriate editing" in the literal sense, as opposed to the broader meaning it often carries on Wikipedia. Second choice. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It is utterly beyond ironic that we are mulling over four stylistically different alternatives for how to describe the MOS. (The alternatives differ substantively too, but pointing that out reduces the irony.) My first preference is 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Third choice. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 11.4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 11.4. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

11.2) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Wikipedia. It consists of standards to be followed and guidance where no firm requirements have been developed. It should use terminology throughout that differentiates the two, such as using MUST and SHOULD respectively. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm unwilling to draw any conclusions from the choice of words in the Manual, given that the text itself tends to be unstable at best. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Kirill. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer 11.4. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

11.3) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Wikipedia. It must be stable and prescriptive elements should have broad consensus. Where there is not broad consensus, the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Taking "appropriate editing" in the literal sense, as opposed to the broader meaning it often carries on Wikipedia. First choice. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice, prefer 11.4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Last choice. I dislike making it flatly descriptive. I think most guidelines draw at least a little prescriptive weight. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice, prefer 11.4. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 11.4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

11.4) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Vassyana that the MOS is sometimes lacking, but that's a flaw in the MOS itself and not in the principle. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice, though per the opposers, we probably need an 11.5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. The words "no prescriptive guidance is provided" seem to be in direct conflict with "Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style," but I like this better than 11.3, and its internal contradiction is fitting for guidelines on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It might be useful to differentiate between the more generic guidance (eg. punctuation, number formatting) and the specific topic 'sub-manuals', but I'm not going to propose an #11.5 at this point. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe that the Manual of Style consistantly follows this convention, thus I find this misleading. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Coren, since the principle presents itself as accurately describing current practice, it is most certainly the principle that is flawed. --Vassyana (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Style is not a pillar

[edit]

12) The encyclopedia has five pillars; style is not one of them.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The first pillar—"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"—implicitly requires us to write in a style appropriate to an encyclopedia; beyond that, I'm uncertain what the intended import of this principle might be. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I appreciate the sentiment that style requirements are not among the core binding rules of Wikipedia, I also appreciate the fact that as an encyclopedia project that our articles need to possess an encyclopedic presentation and tone. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Style should be given some weight.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. And encyclopedia derives part of its value and usefulness from being a solid work of reference— part of that comes from consistency of style. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too facile to support, but I'll forfeit my lifetime membership in the nitpickers' union if I oppose. I will try to develop an alternative here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I chuckled at this, but it's not an appropriate finding. "Facile" is the word. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Technically, it is not. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While true, I am not certain this principle is required here. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Brad :) --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style

[edit]

13.1) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates can be changed by the Wikipedia community; see the policy on how policies are decided, which provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Equal preference. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

13.2)The Manual of Style is a standard developed and changed by the Wikipedia community in accordance with how policies and guidelines are decided. Prescriptive elements should have broad consensus, and where there is not broad consensus the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Wizardman 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice; I think there are prescriptive elements, which is why it makes sense to talk about adherence. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Equal preference. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Redundant to the various forms of #11 above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Role of bots and scripts

[edit]

14) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fait accompli

[edit]

15) Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (with minor copy edit)  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Responsibilities of bot operators

[edit]

16) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools, such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bot Approvals Group

[edit]

17) Members of the Bot Approvals Group are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; members are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of BAG status.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Note: I have spelled out the name of the group in the title of this principle, rather than leaving it as an acronym. No content change.[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MediaWiki developers

[edit]

18) The projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as the English Wikipedia project, are run on the MediaWiki software, which is an open source project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

As it is an open source project, anyone may participate in the improvement of the software, by way of patches, however these changes are subject to approval by the core MediaWiki development team. The software developers have competing priorities, as the software is used in projects other than Wikipedia, which have differing needs.

The MediaWiki development team are part of the Wikimedia community, however their development work is beyond the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee, and changes to the software are binding on the projects. The paid development team is answerable to the Foundation, and the Board influences the development priorities based on the needs of the projects, of which English Wikipedia is only one of many. Bug reports, feature requests, complaints and concerns should be lodged at the appropriate forums, such as Bugzilla, mediawiki.org, mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta.wikimedia.org for larger problems, with each of these forums having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill is correct that the community is not obligated to use features provided by the software; but the process of it being written nevertheless lies outside Wikipedia. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too simplistic. Changes to software are binding only in the sense that we have no control over what software might be running on the servers; the editorial community remains free to not use certain software features if they do not wish to do so, despite the developers having added said features. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I think it's mostly true, I'm not sure why we even need this finding. Hence, oppose. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is all accurate, but something that better expresses the point (as Coren says, that MediaWiki development is beyond this project) would be preferable. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. True, but not complete. Kirill is correct in as much that WP-en does not use every feature in the software. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Kirill though the opposite is not necessarily true. Whatever is the case, communicating and discussing the issue(s) with the developers is important --if not necessary for smooth implementations. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per FayssalF. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per various other commenters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System administrators

[edit]

19) System administrators are responsible for the MediaWiki software configuration of the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as English Wikipedia. They make changes to configuration based on a mix of Wikimedia Foundation, technical and project considerations. While their decisions may affect the English Wikipedia, those decisions are binding on the projects and beyond the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee. The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions at meta forums, such as Bugzilla, #wikimedia-tech connect, and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta.wikimedia.org, each having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This one is somewhat more related. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As above; the decisions in question are not binding in any sense of interest to us. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Again true, but I see Kirill's point. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Much the same as for #18, though per Luke this is more relevant and closer to the mark. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open source

[edit]

20) The software used by the English Wikipedia project is open source software and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable, however it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers who are in short supply is not acceptable. Developers are volunteers, and at no time is it acceptable to expect them to fix non-critical problems.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. But change or cut last sentence. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The last sentence seems to suggest that developers only work on critical tasks. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. Wizardman 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Now this one is in deep left field (compare 18). Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 20.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20.1) The software used by the English Wikipedia project is open source software and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable; however, it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers, who are in short supply, is not acceptable; they are volunteers, and may have priorities other than fixing non-critical problems.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, Wikipedian's behavior is relevant, not theirs. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Okay. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Minor copyedits (punctuation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Essentially, "be nice to the devs". --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality

[edit]

21) The MediaWiki software used on the Wikimedia projects, and configuration of that software, is the responsibility of the developers and system administrators. In the same way that system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality is a technical decision, and implementation of that decision may have technical implications that need to be considered. The project community should engage the technical team in decisions which relate to use of the software.

Policies, procedures and the manual of style may govern how and when the software may be used, however decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff. Likewise, decisions which will involve large scale changes (e.g. hundreds of thousands of pages), should be thoroughly discussed with the technical team, at venues like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), due to concerns of appropriateness and efficiency.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Our consensus does not compel them. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Consultation with the technical team is logical when contemplating large-scale changes. Risker (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The developers will tell us if something we're doing is causing problems; in the absence of any indication from them that that's the case, however, the editorial community is free to use, or not use, any software features the developers have made available at its discretion. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill, insofar as this is about decisions to "deprecate or disable" features; as distinct from using certain features, or using them in certain ways they may not have been intended for, in which respect the community should very much be in dialogue with the developer community (anyone remember WP:AUM?). --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Again I see both points of view stated. Is this relevant to this case specifically in a way that we need to highlight the tech team instead of discussion at the Village Pump? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems to be disputed here, and not essential to decide the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) The longstanding dispute in this case is a disagreement between two groups of editors on the issue of linking dates. It encompasses the MediaWiki "dynamic dates" functionality (a.k.a. date autoformatting, and "DA") and the utility of the linking of dates.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Accurate description of the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Style locked in dispute

[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has been disputed on various forums since a straw poll at WT:MOSNUM in August 2008 resulted in dynamic dates being considered deprecated by the community. This page in the manual of style was taken to MfD on November 20, 2008, and has been protected from editing due to the unresolved dispute since November 18, 2008.[1]

A merge of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Wikipedia:Build the Web into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) occurred on January 11, 2009, stabilising the following day[2][3]. However, this resulted in further disputes on these pages, requiring page protection[4][5], and spread to templates Template:MoS-guideline, Template:Guideline_list, and Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines and shortcuts WP:CONTEXT, WP:BTW and WP:BUILD.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Accurate description of the background. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

RFCs have not resolved the dispute

[edit]

3.1) The RFCs to date have not resolved the date delinking dispute.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Wizardman 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 3.2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 3.2 is more accurate. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 3.2. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer #3.2. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Superseded by 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.2) Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that the current date autoformatting functionality is undesirable, and that overlinking of dates is not desirable; however, consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Wizardman 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Piped one of the links for readability. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Incomplete picture of RfCs. --Vassyana (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

3.3) Two requests for comments held in December 2008 (WT:MOSNUM/RFC and WP:MOSNUM/RFC [sic]) established that the current system of date autoformatting is undesirable and that overlinking of dates is not desirable. However, they did not establish consensus on when dates should be delinked, which dates are acceptable to link, or how topical date links (such as "Year in X") should be handled. A third RfC was held in April 2009 (WP:DATEPOLL), showing a lack of consensus on the general concept of automatting and clear consensus that dates should not be linked unless they are "germane and topical to the subject".

Support:
  1. Proposed alternative with greater detail and inclusion of the latest RfC. --Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I might add "fully" before "resolved" in the header. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

3.3.1) All three of the RfCs regarding date links have been plagued by disputes regarding wording, presentation, claims of bias, and related issues. These disputes continued through the drafting and comment phases, as well as persisting after RfC closures. Additionally, there are varied and sharply conflicting interpretations of the discussion results. The contentious development and results of the December RfCs are reflective of this environment.

Support:
  1. Proposed subpoint. I believe that the disagreements about, and varied interpretations of, the three RfCs are important to note. Consensus is unlikely to reached where the editors strongly disagree regarding descriptions of the disputed issue and the meaning of the feedback received. --Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is an excellent point to make. I would also add that there were concurrent RFCs, attempts to squash the others RFCs, and general mayhem. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Great point. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, in addition to 3.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Engagement of technical staff

[edit]

4) While it is appropriate for community members to discontinue use of autoformatting, and for essays, guidelines and the manual of style to outline the problems associated with the autoformatting feature, the decision to decommission this functionality, and the mass delinking of dates from all articles in mainspace should have involved the technical staff, due to the size and resources used to perform such a large change. A request to disable mw:Manual:$wgUseDynamicDates was not initiated.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments on the associated principles. The developers are never shy about letting us know if something we're doing is a problem; we do not need to seek their approval for routine editorial decisions. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Fayssal, and per my comments above on the proposed principles. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moving to oppose, per Kirill and Stephen Bain. Risker (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not sure that "should" is the best choice if wording here. If someone decides that the technical staff needs to be alerted then they can do it. I'm not convinced that any particular user would be expected to do it before making the changes. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Uh. I don't think is true at all. Besides, the principles suggest correctly that technical staff are not within our the jurisdiction of our community. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree but, was it supposed to be initiated? FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Moving to Oppose. Risker (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of issues

[edit]

5) Deprecation of autoformatting and date-delinking have been problematically conflated in this dispute. While both sides of the date debate have conflated the issues, consensus for the deprecation of autoformatting has been abused as consensus for mass date delinking.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While I appreciate Kirill's point, I believe this is correct. While they are related issues, they are not identical issues. Additionally, I do not accept that mass delinking is the automatic conclusion of deprecating autoformatting. For example, a link format change could be a possibility instead of delinking. Conflation and polarization are important elements to note in this situation. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Vassyana. Overlinking as a concept is typically invoked in the context of free links in article body text, whereas autoformatting extends to, for example, linking in templates to facilitate machine and human readability of template parameters. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given that most date linking was in place only to support auto-formatting, it's implicit that deprecating auto-formatting would involve delinking a great many dates. The conflation has really been between total delinking and delinking only of links due to auto-formatting. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Kirill that the conflation is, in the main, justified in that date have been historically linked because of autoformatting. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Need to re-read the arguments on both sides before I decide to support a statement that appears to be harsher with one side of the dispute by drawing conclusions of abuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Conflating before ArbCom isn't particularly noteworthy; besides, these concepts are tied closely together. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per CHL.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 4582

[edit]

6) bug 4582 was raised in January 2006 to allow dates to be autoformatted without causing "overlinking" (a "sea of blue"). This bug is more relevant to wiki projects other than Wikipedia, especially where the project has little need for "month day" pages, or even "year" pages.

Due to the English Wikipedia Date debate, and the complexity of the problem, the bug was conflated with many issues, suggestions and feature requests. A number of these suggestions were built by developer Bill Clark between September 2008 and November 2008. During the course of this arbitration case, user:Werdna resolved this bug by creating parser function "formatdate", and at the same time resolved bug 17785 (a feature request initially proposed in comment 98 of bug 4582) to add Cascading Stylesheet and Javascript control to all autoformatted dates, such as presenting them as normal text (example), or as another colour to make them stand out[6].

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Background. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, that's a mess. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Piped a link for readability. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mass delinking

[edit]

7) Despite the ongoing dispute, mass date delinking has been conducted by many users via scripts, AWB, and bots, hindering dispute resolution and encouraging fait accompli. In conjunction with blind reverts, bot and script bugs, and articles being delinked multiple times, the mass delinking contributed to the tension of the dispute and was self-defeating.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. That is true regardless of whether the delinking was or is justified. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Stunningly epic edit warring. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Linked an unexplained acronym. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

One-sided battle on articles

[edit]

8) Due to mass delinking, edit wars occurred across the breadth of the project, usually consisting of one regular contributor to an article pitted against a well-coordinated team of MOS enforcers and their automations. JV [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Complaints and questions were directed to WT:MOSNUM and/or roundly dismissed.[13][14] [15]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Deliberate prolonged battle on tennis articles

[edit]

9) A battle to delinking dates on tennis articles commenced in September 2008, with Tennis expert (talk · contribs) almost exclusively pushing back repeatedly with 751 reverts. As a result, the battle become excessively personal. JV Ohc TE

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightmouse

[edit]

Undisclosed accounts of Lightmouse

[edit]

10) Bobblewik (talk · contribs) and Editore99 (talk · contribs) are former undisclosed accounts of Lightmouse (talk · contribs) which have a block log relevant to the community approval of bot account Lightbot (talk · contribs). [1], [2][3]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Or to be precise, they were undisclosed at the material times. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Risker (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bobblewik familiarity

[edit]

11) Bobblewik (talk · contribs)'s inherent familiarity with Wikipedia procedures, policies and automation suggest that the account does not belong to an entirely new user and may indeed be a sockpuppet account.[16] (LevelCheck#Potential sockpuppet?)

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see this as complementary to the related findings, showing that the history of sockpuppetry is likely more extensive than currently detailed. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Kirill. Some users return as new accounts. We now know that quite well. It's entirely possible it's happened numerous times here, but it doesn't seem to matter. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. Moreover, I've never understood why people always think of puppetry as more likely than the user having read the manual. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Bobblewik involvement

[edit]

12) Bobblewik was a very prolific editor from March 2004 to October 2006 (65,000+ edits), who was blocked over 17 times [17] by several administrators and arbitrators for running fast automated date delinking processes. At the time he stopped editing, there was apparently a great degree of controversy at his talk page and the block lengths were a week to a month in length. Also, he submitted several rejected date-related bots at BRFA archive and was the subject of RFC/U.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although the early RFC/U contains little of value. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightmouse - Cleanbot

[edit]

13) Lightmouse created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cleanbot on October 19, 2008, requesting approval from the Bot Approvals Group for a new bot "Cleanbot" (account not created, and unrelated to CleanBot (talk · contribs)) to delink dates. It was advertised on three relevant discussion boards on October 21, 2008, and was mentioned on User_talk:Lightmouse.

The request was denied on October 22, 2008 by BAG member Mr.Z-man, with BAG members Bjweeks and Martinp23 also indicating that it was inappropriate for a bot to be undertaking delinking based on what they considered to be an insufficient level of consensus.

The denied status was reported to the village pump (link).

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightbot repeats its own errors

[edit]

14) Lightbot has passed over articles multiple times. When errors in the first pass have been corrected by others, subsequent passes have repeated the original error. 1 2 3-1/3-2

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightmouse has edit warred on content

[edit]

15) Lightmouse has edit-warred to remove all date links. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightmouse has run multiple instances of AWB

[edit]

16) In an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, Lightmouse has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser concurrently. [23]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The finding would be improved by some explanation for those unfamiliar with how such automated tools work of how that evidence demonstrates the proposition. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. How frequently? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot used in edit wars

[edit]

17) Lightbot was used in edit wars. [24] [25] [26]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Linked evidence is unclear. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Evidence shows nothing materialistic. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

:# Pending more links. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Tony1 has been incivil

[edit]

18) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 23 4 5 more more and more

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. An issue of tone and attitude more so than the particular epithets deployed. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Although I am willing to overlook, at the arbitration level, isolated lapses in politesse and decorum, there is no reason for Wikipedians to regularly address one another in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse. Same reason provided by Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has edit warred on style guidelines

[edit]

19) Tony1 has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB MB2 LC

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse. Same reason provided by Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has edit warred on content

[edit]

20) Tony1 has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles.LC TE1 TE2 JV

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse. Same reason provided by Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 has contravened the Manual of Style

[edit]

21) Tony1 has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given that the Manual's instability is at the heart of the case, I don't think it's useful to focus on people contravening it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill, though a point may be made about claiming enforcement of the rules while engaging in editing contrary to them. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana makes a very good point. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unclear and superfluous for the needed remedies. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unneeded to support remedies. Per Kirill and Vassyana comments this is not a straightforward issue as the wording of the Fof seems to indicate. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recuse. Same reason provided by Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per opposes and other non-recused abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L

[edit]

Greg L has been incivil

[edit]

22) Greg L has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Although I am willing to overlook, at the arbitration level, isolated lapses in politesse and decorum, there is no reason for Wikipedians to regularly address one another in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Greg L has edit warred on style guidelines

[edit]

23) Greg L has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. V

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Evidence link doesn't point to anything, as far as I can tell. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ohconfucius

[edit]

Ohconfucius has been incivil

[edit]

24) Ohconfucius has been incivil in their communication with other editors. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Even in this case, to an extent I find stunning. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Although I am willing to overlook, at the arbitration level, isolated lapses in politesse and decorum, there is no reason for Wikipedians to regularly address one another in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius has edit warred on style guidelines

[edit]

25) Ohconfucius has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. [27]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius has edit warred on content

[edit]

26) Ohconfucius has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles. JV V TE

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius has contravened the manual of style

[edit]

27) Ohconfucius has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1 2

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in the corresponding finding above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on the similar finding above. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hmmm. I'm not sure it's stable enough to contravene.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per above. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Links again. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser

[edit]

28) Ohconfucius has informed users that in an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, he has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser.[28]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius - Date delinker

[edit]

29) Ohconfucius created alternative account Date delinker (talk · contribs) on November 11, 2008 with the express purpose of using it for date delinking. It performed 9307 edits without BAG approval until January 30, 2009 when it was indefinitely blocked.[29]

user:Date delinker unlinked years even when the year was a primary component of the subject.[30][31]

user:Date delinker was used in edit wars.[32]

Support:
  1. This could be broken into separate findings. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius has battled while evading blocks

[edit]

30) Ohconfucius has unlinked dates while evading blocks in November 2008 using the Date delinker (talk · contribs) alternate account during a 24 hour block[33][34], and again in March 2009 when blocked for violating an injunction intended to stop the battle.[35]

The March 2009 block evasion included reverting users involved in this date debate, and he subsequently initiated Arbitration Enforcement against the same users he had reverted.reverts/AE

In addition, Ohconfucius was blocked for evading the Arbitration injunction in February 2009.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

The Rambling Man

[edit]

31) Former bureaucrat The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made comments intended to encourage a contributor to return to retirement.([36], retirement, 1, 2, return, apology in April reaction/revert) (see also)

Support:
  1. Weak support. There is an element of inappropriate conduct here, in my opinion, however it was not unprovoked, and TRM was the least bad offender in this harassment. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per John. Wizardman 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Factual, though not catastrophic. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should be noted; widespread conflagration, where parties actively sought to make it wider. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Change to support. Instead of a stand alone Fof, imo, this should have been bundled with the other other Fof to show that his comments contributed to a hostile editing climate. We need for the people in positions of trust to be role models for the rest of the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Flo. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Poor form, but not rising to the level of an arbitration finding in my view. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill,  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to support. If this was bundled with other evidence, then I would support, but as a freestanding Fof, I'm not going to support now. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "see also" link was part of evidence, but due to the amount of evidence it was moved to a subpage. The other links are all mentioned in the evidence provided by Tennis expert. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The urging of another contributor to retire or to resume retired status should be avoided, even when exasperation is obvious and, at least in one's mind, fully justified. (This is something I occasionally have to force myself to remember when writing arbitration decisions.) A promise by The Rambling Man to avoid this type of behavior in the future would be welcome. Having just reviewed the evidence, I will add that I find other aspects of this situation disconcerting as well, but perhaps it's better to leave that alone for the present. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man has edit warred on content

[edit]

32) The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles. JV

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski

[edit]

Kotniski has edit warred on style guidelines

[edit]

33) Kotniski (talk · contribs) has edit warred on project pages related to the date debate. MB FG V

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Kotniski has edit warred on content

[edit]

34) Kotniski edit-warred on a single tennis article, Urszula Radwanska, and raised the matter on the talk page on the fourth delinking. [37][38]

Support:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is insignificant in this battle. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per John; I'm wondering why this was proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kotniski's role in the project pages appears to me to be an honest attempt at resolving the dispute; however Kotniski did end up acting more like a party, and this edit-war showed his hand to a limited extent. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per the above. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Need to look closer at the timing before I decide. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again, this shows how the war was spread, but there's less to blame on this user. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Cool Hand Luke. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87

[edit]

35) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively with respect to the linking of dates. LC TE([39][40][41][42][43])([44][45][46][47][48])

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Added "with respect to" for the sake of readability. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 has contravened the manual of style

[edit]

36) Dabomb87 has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in the corresponding finding above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per comments on similar findings. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my previous comments. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Again. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As before,  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per previous similar proposals. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008Olympian

[edit]

37) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) first became involved in the tennis articles by removing date links from Billie Jean King on November 12, 2008 during an ongoing edit war.[49] On the 15th, 2008Olympian excessively edit-warred for a few days on tennis articles and other ongoing related edit-wars. [50] TE

2008Olympian occasionally participated in the edit-wars afterwards. [51] [52] [53]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. With no allegations of problematic conduct in six months and no evident threat of repetition, I find this evidence too stale to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Colonies Chris

[edit]

38) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates. TE ([54][55][56])([57][58][59])([60][61][62]) JV

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

SkyWalker

[edit]

39) SkyWalker (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE ([63][64][65])([66][67])([68][69])([70][71])

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

HJensen

[edit]

40) HJensen (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE1([72][73][74][75][76])([77][78][79][80]) JV

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Move to support. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Upon discussion and review, I believe this was a limited engagement with the editor since disengaging from the conflict and thus not rising to the level of an arbitration finding. (See also: [81]). --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The colloquy cited by Vassyana suggests that this editor was making good-faith efforts to abide by policy, and to disengage even in a situation where he may have had the better of the argument. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Need to review timing. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Move to support. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is presented in my own evidence section; link added. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dudesleeper

[edit]

41) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. V

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The evidence cited suggests to me that this was a relatively isolated situation for this long-time, good-faith editor. He also appears to have disengaged prior to the case coming before the committee. Unless there is something I have overlooked (which is certainly quite possible on this massive record), I see insufficient misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

John

[edit]

42) John (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. 1 2

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, but weakly, acknowledging rebuttal. Wizardman 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It was still edit warring; I don't believe in "allowances" for misbehavior. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Edit warring is disruptive whatever the motivation. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having carefully considered John's comments, I view him as a good-faith editor who had no intention of engaging in edit-warring or in escalating the date-related issue, and find insufficient evidence to warrant an arbitration finding against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I appreciate John's rebuttal to some degree. However, I also feel this was more than a limited engagement with the area, delinking was sporadically controversial or of concern before September 2008, and that it was still edit-warring. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Vassyana (though I'm not going to oppose). --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson

[edit]

Pmanderson has been incivil

[edit]

43) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has been incivil. 1 2 3 4 T1

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Though I agree with Fayssal on the links given. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Bainer. Pmanderson is a good content contributor (as are many other parties to this case) and has my respect as such, but there is no reason for Wikipedians to address one another as he has sometimes done, even under serious actual or perceived provocation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Tony1 has just now submitted more evidence. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC) switch to support.[reply]
  1. Leaning to support because of some of this but the first, third and fourth links have nothing to do with incivility. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson has edit-warred on style guidelines

[edit]

44) Pmanderson has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. [82]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Locke Cole

[edit]

Locke Cole has been incivil

[edit]

45) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has been incivil. Oh T1

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Though many of the comments linked to in evidence are at least ad argumentem and not ad hominem. --bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Bainer. (Is it "incivil" or "uncivil"?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
I need to review this more closely. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)switch to support[reply]

Locke Cole has edit-warred on style guidelines

[edit]

46) Locke Cole has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB FG ([83][84][85][86])([87][88][89][90][91])

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Locke Cole has edit warred on content

[edit]

47) Locke Cole has edit-warred on a large number of articles. Oh JV

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Locke Cole's record

[edit]

47.5) Locke Cole has an extensive record of disruptive behavior spanning multiple years ([92]).

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Although there has been a prior history with this editor, we should also bear in mind that as has been discussed here, the raw block log may tend to overstate the number and severity of the prior episodes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis expert

[edit]

48) Tennis expert (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to restore linking of dates, primarily on the tennis articles, but also on other articles. 1 2 3 [93]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

G-Man

[edit]

49) G-Man (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to restore linking of dates. 1 2 3 4 5

Support:
  1. Weakly. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Lesser involvement in the edit-warring than many other participants suggests that this finding may not be necessary. I am also concerned that this long-time, valuable editor is in a state of seeming semi-retirement perhaps as a result of having been worn down by this unduly bitter and extensive controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 has edit warred on style guidelines

[edit]

50) Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) has edit warred extensively on the project pages related to the date debate. V [94] [95] [96]

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Since the other arbitrators voted, this editor requested a lifting of the block against him (which block was justified as of when it was made by some recent, very serious incivility), which was declined. The unblock was sought in part so that he could respond to the findings against him here. See also the edit summary on his most recent (and perhaps final ever) edit. Kendrick7 had some sharp edges in his six years here, but given his current status and my regret about it, I don't think it necessary to pile onto an arbitration finding against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

[edit]

51) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has threatened to use administrative tools in a dispute in which he was an involved editor. MB V

Support:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Although Arthur Rubin inappropriately stated that he might block Lightbot despite his being involved in the date-delinking dispute, soon thereafter he noted that as an involved administrator he would not actually do that, and indeed he never did. I don't find this episode serious enough to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Arthur Rubin stained my block log.  :-( He amended the block log to say "it should be disregarded", and I regard it as a curiosity of Betacommandgate more than anything. At the time I said that "this block indicates you are unsuitable as an admin", but otherwise left him to deal with this issue in his own way.[97] This interaction never motivated my proposals or voting, excepting that it is obvious he has improved in this regard. However, now that I have remembered this incident I feel that I should abstain from this aspect of the case to allow the other arbitrators to continue to make decisions and/or alterations without me. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin has edit-warred on style guidelines

[edit]

52) Arthur Rubin has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB V

Support:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. per my statement at #Arthur Rubin. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Relatively mild in the context of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

[edit]

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

Mass date delinking

[edit]

1) Mass date delinking is restricted for six months to changes prescribed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and may only occur at times when the page is not in a disputed state.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not useful in the absence of an undisputed page. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I think we need a longer break. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Move to support as second preference.[reply]
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Mass date delinking is restricted for 12 months to changes prescribed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and may only occur at times when the page is not in a disputed state.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not useful in the absence of an undisputed page. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be more useful if we started the clock on this remedy from the time when the page first becomes stable? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although we need to have a clear criterion for stability. Perhaps the decision should be taken as part of the three-month review; either we ban everyone involved or declare the page stable and enact this restriction? Kirill [talk] [pf] 09:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not unless we can find a way of making the page undisputed. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like John's suggestion to require a period of calm after stability. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer that we approach this in a different way. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) The existing temporary injunction is continued indefinitely. It will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee three months after the closing of this case. At that time, if it is not discontinued, the Committee will set a timetable for further reviews. --bainer (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No, I think we need to sent this back to the Community now with the hope that they will use our guiding principle to find a good path forward. If not, then we can entertain a new motion that will halt the edit wars. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand (and agree with) the desire to prevent a possible return of the edit warring, but enforced status quo doesn't seem to be the best way forward since it is more likely to hinder community resolution than help it along. — Coren (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as written, the injunction prevents bots from delinking dates, which I think is unhelpful to continue, and is at odds with remedies 2.* below. There are many instances that a bot can delink dates without any controversy, and I expect that conservative bots will be written and approved if we lift the injunction. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A remedy continuing significantly beyond the close of the case must stand on its own merits, not as a continuation of an interim injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.3) All mass date delinking is restricted for six months. For six months, no mass date delinking should be done until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community approved process for the mass delinking.

Support:
  1. This gives the Community a chance to implement a plan and then notify ArbCom. We anticipate that BAG will make the determination about bots and that will be the way that it will be done if implemented. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is a good proposal. It creates a preventative restriction that automatically lifts upon notice of a community approved process. --Vassyana (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Okay. Risker (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. That works. — Coren (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wizardman 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Date delinking bots

[edit]

2) Date delinking will be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group, with technical staff input as required.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my other comments about input from the technical staff. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 2.1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm unclear that tech staff input is needed. Who decides if it is required? FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Puzzled like Flo. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Flo and CHL.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking bots

[edit]

2.1) Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Support:
  1. Offered as an alternative. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal to the other one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal to 2; dev input might be useful and encouraged, but stating it as a requirement is probably not needed. — Coren (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal; I expect they will seek guidance from the technical staff where it is necessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't care about expanding BAG's authority. One of the problems illustrated by this case is a vacuum of authority. BAG should have the final say in chartering bots, and it should feel free to revoke bots that exceed their mandate. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per CHL.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (Note: copy edited to clarify that this remedy applies only to date delinking by bots. Risker (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose:
Strongly. This is a rather unusual expansion of BAG's authority. Additionally, BAG-approved bots have been part of the problems that lead to this case. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Stricken in light of Risker's correction. --Vassyana (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated date delinking

[edit]

2.2) Automated date delinking (by bots or other non-manual means) will be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Support:
  1. I'm fine with the BAG deciding on all automated delinking, but extending to manual delinking goes a little too far. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I assume that it referred to non-manual edits, but okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makes sense and fits the role. --Vassyana (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Manually performed date delinking edits have been a large part of this problem, both in this and in historical instances such as between Rebecca and Hmains (see User_talk:John/date_linking#Rebecca's_objection). Script-assisted edits can result in hundreds of edits that other contributors can not adequately contest. I think it is better to leave it up to enforcement admins to decide when someone is on a crusade to delink dates, as oppose to mere copyediting. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not denying that, but the terms of the original proposal would have the BAG approving the manner in which someone could manually delink, which is quite substantially beyond the BAG's role or mandate. --bainer (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The other way of reading the original proposal (i.e. 2.1) is that date delinking is not to be undertaken except by means that BAG approves. BAG approves bots, therefore other approaches are not acceptable. If we went with a stricter reading of the above remedy, and that restriction is proving unhelpful, we can remove it in three months or at any time by way of a clarification.
    The intent was to not give any room for wikilawyering over the meaning of "automatic" or "high-speed edits", which was clearly unhelpful in the Betacommand cases. Manual means of large scale date delinking has been provocative and will remain that way until we have a stable manual of style. I would much prefer that we use "mass date delinking" rather than "automated date delinking". John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed 1.3 which requires that ArbCom be notified prior to all mass delinking and that it be done with a Community approved plan. I think this should solve the problem because it will either be done through a bot approved BAG or some other way that has Community consensus. Since reaching Community consensus has been an issue in this case, by us taking a look prior to it starting, hoping we will head off any attempts to push something through that does not have true Community support. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Date delinking source code

[edit]

3) The Bot Approvals Group will require that the source code for any bots used to perform date delinking is made available to the community.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not useful. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It allows the community to critically discuss what transforms are being undertaken, spreads the development task across whoever wishes to participate, and also provides continuity if one bot operator is hit by a bus, or a ban. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too detailed. We don't need to micromanage the BAG's decision making.FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't see why; either it works or it does not and BAG already has mechanisms in place to ascertain that which may or may not involve inspection of source. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not our prerogative. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill and Coren. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is beyond our scope. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per others, though I would commend the suggestion to the BAG (or at least to require the rules or methods applied by the code to be publicised). --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking bot operators

[edit]

4) The Bot Approvals Group will require that the operators selected to perform any date delinking have a history of being able to handle complaints well, and willing to pause their bot when problems have been identified.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not useful. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too detailed. We don't need to micromanage the BAG's decision making. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Flo. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this, but have similar concerns as Flo. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This should be a prerequisite to all bot operators but then, that should be left to BAG discussions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse banned

[edit]

5) Lightmouse is banned for one month.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Far too little for years of disruption. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not enough. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After the concealment of a rather hefty block log and a concerted effort lasting years, this is little more than a finger wag. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No wrist-slaps here. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If Lightmouse is going to be topic banned and restricted to one account then there'd be no need to ban him for any period of time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Lightmouse banned

[edit]

5.1) Lightmouse is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too long. As he will be removed from the area of conflict, I dont see how 12 months is helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If Lightmouse is going to be topic banned and restricted to one account then there'd be no need to ban him for any period of time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Jayvdb and FayssalF. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

5.2) Lightmouse is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Will only support a year. Wizardman 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too short. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If Lightmouse is going to be topic banned and restricted to one account then there'd be no need to ban him for any period of time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse topic banned

[edit]

6) Lightmouse is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. And under any future accounts. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)switch to support[reply]
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6.1) Lightmouse is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would support a reasonable longer period, but given the consensus, I don't think it would be worthwhile to offer an alternative proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too little. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse automation

[edit]

7) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation in article space.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In light of the long history. Targeted to the problem area. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I would prefer some sort of a time period, but as above, I don't think it would be worth submitting an alternative proposal at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not useful. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Lightmouse automation

[edit]

7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Lightmouse could continue to develop the script using test cases in user or project space. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. first choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice, and per my comment on 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Despite the seriousness of the concealed prior history and long-term warring, I do not know if the measure needs to be this broad as the problems seem contained to the mainspace. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse accounts

[edit]

8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although we could only enforce this with magic pixie dust. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I would use the more usual formulation that he is restricted to one account, and must notify this Committee if he chooses a different account from Lightmouse's. This would assist with a fresh start if he wanted to make one. But, as above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tony1 topic banned

[edit]

9) Tony1 is topic-banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Too broad. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Remedy 9.3 is more succient. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.1) Tony1 is topic-banned for 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Second choice John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC) ordering of choice added 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too broad. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.2) Tony1 is topic-banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Not long enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too broad. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.3) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:
  1. First choice. Prefer to leave him with the ability to discuss and participate in style-related processes, but prevent him from taking part in any edit-warring. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Reminder that "indefinite" means "until there is demonstrated change in the behaviour that led to the sanction". Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Discussion interactions are among the conduct issues. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too broad. A restriction for a reasonable time relating specifically to the date-related issues should suffice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.4) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages, and any related template pages.

Support:
Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. To clarify voting. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on 9.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 restricted

[edit]

10) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. When not in the middle of discussing MOS issues, Tony1 has made many valuable edits to articles; many of those edits could fall within this scope, simply because they are part of normal copy editing processes. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy editing that doesn't amount to a revert is not a problem under this. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker and per my comment on 9.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10.1) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. For such a long-running concern, a short holiday is insufficient. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When not in the middle of discussing MOS issues, Tony1 has made many valuable edits to articles; many of those edits could fall within this scope, simply because they are part of normal copy editing processes. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Risker and per my comment on 9.3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10.2) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tony1 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Tony1 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Tony1 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't see a problem with edit-warring outside of stylistic matters. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 accounts

[edit]

11) Tony1 is required to obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to use an account other than "Tony1" to edit.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unenforceable though. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No cause for concern over this, as far as I can tell. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No evidence to suggest that this is necessary in his case. Wizardman 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have no reason to believe this measure is warranted or necessary. There is no indication that Tony1 has abused sockpuppets or is likely to do so. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse because of frequent personal interaction with this editor.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Roger. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L banned

[edit]

12) Greg L is banned for three months.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not convinced that a 3 month ban is the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer topic ban at this juncture. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Risker. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.1) Greg L is banned for one month.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Not long enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Greg L topic banned

[edit]

13) Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Reminder that "indefinite" means "until there is demonstrated change in the behaviour that led to the sanction". Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction would be warranted here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

13.1) Greg L is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too little. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. For such a long-running concern, a short holiday is insufficient. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13.2) Greg L is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. His very limited template editing have not been a problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L accounts

[edit]

14) Greg L is required to obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to use an account other than "Greg L" to edit.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given past issues with users leaving and returning with another user name, I think that this remedy is wise. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unenforceable though. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No cause for concern over this, as far as I can tell. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't see evidence for this remedy to be necessary - in this case especially if the ban passes. Wizardman 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have no reason to believe this measure is warranted or necessary. There is no indication that GregL has abused sockpuppets or is likely to do so. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Evidence shows only incivility and edit warring. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Greg L restricted

[edit]

15) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. To follow the ban, if it passes. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per John. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction would be warranted here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15.1) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For such a long-running concern, a short holiday is insufficient. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction would be warranted here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15.2) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Greg L is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Greg L exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Greg L may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in Tony's case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per my votes for other short-term measures. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ohconfucius topic banned

[edit]

16) Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. I suspect this could be lifted during an appeal. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. Reminder that "indefinite" means "until there is demonstrated change in the behaviour that led to the sanction". Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted here. The scope of the sanction could then be expanded quickly if this proved an incorrect understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16.2) Ohconfucius is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted here. The scope of the sanction could then be expanded quickly if this proved an incorrect understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius automation

[edit]

17) Ohconfucius is prohibited from using any automation in article space indefinitely.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Subject to my comment on the same remedy regarding Lightmouse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius accounts

[edit]

18) Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per my comment on the same remedy for Lightmouse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ohconfucius restricted

[edit]

19) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Ohconfucius is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted here. The scope of the sanction could then be expanded quickly if this proved an incorrect understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19.1) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Ohconfucius is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per other short-term measures. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted here. The scope of the sanction could then be expanded quickly if this proved an incorrect understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19.2) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Ohconfucius is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Ohconfucius exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Ohconfucius may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man admonished

[edit]

20) The Rambling Man is admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe this is necessary for TRM and it seems unusual to single out an editor on this count. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't think it rises to the level of an admonishment; would support a warning. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per other opposers and non-recused abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Kirill Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man restricted

[edit]

21) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. The Rambling Man is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Overkill. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do not believe this is necessary. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Admonishment is enough. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21.1) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. The Rambling Man is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Minor involvement does not warrant this. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not believe this is necessary. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21.2) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. The Rambling Man is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should The Rambling Man exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, The Rambling Man may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per other measures for this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski reminded

[edit]

22) Kotniski (talk · contribs) is reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Again, I have concerns about singling out. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Vassyana; I do not see why this would be proposed just for this editor, utilising dispute resolution instead of edit warring goes for all the editors who edit warred. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski topic banned

[edit]

23) Kotniski is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23.1) Kotniski is topic banned for 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Second. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference with #23.2. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While edit-warring is clearly a concern, I do not see a reason to believe that Kotniski should be prohibited from discussions. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Vassyana. Also, because I'm not convinced that there is a problem here outside the specific issue of dates, a more flexible sanction might be warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23.2) Kotniski is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Will support this just to clear the discussions for a time, but don't see user as a bad particularly actor. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference with #23.1. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments on 23.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23.3) Kotniski is prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page, for twelve months.

Support:
  1. Propose alternative, per my stated concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments on 23.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Dabomb87 restricted

[edit]

24) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Dabomb87 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Overbroad inasmuch as the restriction is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.1) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Dabomb87 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too short. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overbroad inasmuch as the restriction is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.2) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Dabomb87 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dabomb87 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Dabomb87 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Overbroad insofar as the restriction is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008Olympian restricted

[edit]

25) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. 2008Olympian is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Move to support. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not believe a restriction is warranted on this editor. In any case, the proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not related to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)(Move to support)[reply]
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Not sure this is needed. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25.1) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. 2008Olympian is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should 2008Olympian exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, 2008Olympian may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Wizardman 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I do not believe a restriction is warranted on this editor. In any case, the proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not related to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Colonies Chris restricted

[edit]

26) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Colonies Chris is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure this is needed. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26.1) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Colonies Chris is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26.2) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Colonies Chris is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Colonies Chris exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Colonies Chris may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure this is needed. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWalker restricted

[edit]

27) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. SkyWalker is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)move to support[reply]
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27.1) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. SkyWalker is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

27.2) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. SkyWalker is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should SkyWalker exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, SkyWalker may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)move to oppose[reply]

HJensen restricted

[edit]

28) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. HJensen is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should HJensen exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, HJensen may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In accord with my opposition to the finding about this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

28.1) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In accord with my opposition to the finding about this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can't support a broad restriction like this that goes for so long; this contributor was only involved in the delinking of tennis articles, withdrew almost entirely, and had the courage to revert date delinker (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my opposition to the finding; in any case, the sanction is substantially overbroad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28.2) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 3 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my other votes. --Vassyana (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on 28.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Dudesleeper restricted

[edit]

29) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Dudesleeper is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dudesleeper exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Dudesleeper may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

29.1) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my opposition to the finding; in any case, the restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates or related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John restricted

[edit]

30) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my opposition to the finding concerning this editor; in any event, the proposed restriction is substantially overbroad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. In accord with my abstention for the finding regarding this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30.1) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comment on 30. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. In accord with my abstention for the finding regarding this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30.2) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. John is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should John exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, John may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too short. This oppose is but a token gesture here, and not one that will be appreciated. Sequences like [98] and [99] are not acceptable. John's extended rebuttal on the talk page suggests that he wasn't aware, claiming that this is the only conscious revert. If his intent is to blame the tool for edit warring, this is all the more reason for editors to be extremely cautious when using tools like this, especially when their creator is unrelenting in their POV, and especially when the editor has a long history of supporting that same POV. Regarding the effect the other remedies may have on his editing, it will not be so drastic as he expresses in his rebuttal - the remedies affect reverts rather than edits - if there are concerns, we may need to issue some clarifications, but I expect that admins will be more concerned about stylistic reverts where dates are a component, and will issue sanctions more cautiously on stylistic reverts where dates are not involved, as they are less disruptive. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)switch to oppose[reply]
  1. In accord with my abstention for the finding regarding this editor. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson topic banned

[edit]

31) Pmanderson is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only choice. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Reminder that "indefinite" means "until there is demonstrated change in the behaviour that led to the sanction". Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Confirming my oppose vote. Risker (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The proposed sanction is overbroad issofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal to 31.2. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The proposed sanction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31.2) Pmanderson is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal to 31.1. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The proposed sanction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Locke Cole topic banned

[edit]

32) Locke Cole is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Clearly. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. Reminder that "indefinite" means "until there is demonstrated change in the behaviour that led to the sanction". Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The proposed sanction may be overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and related issues or other topics on which there have been problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32.1) Locke Cole is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first choice to 32. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (Distant) second choice. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Third choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32.2) Locke Cole is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32.3) Locke Cole is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole restricted

[edit]

33) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Locke Cole is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Equal second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33.1) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Locke Cole is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33.2) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three month. Locke Cole is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Locke Cole exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Locke Cole may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Third choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on 32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole banned

[edit]

33.5) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With that block log and the evidence above, yes. Second choice. Wizardman 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Way too long. The other parties also have a long history of disruption. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on finding 47.5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
In my opinion, the evidence that I have seen doesn't indicate that this is necessary, unless we are going to ban a number of the other parties for similar periods. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other parties (with the exception of Lightmouse/Bobblewik) don't have records of disruption spanning multiple years, however. There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances, I think. Kirill [talk] [pf] 09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole banned

[edit]

33.6) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Support:
  1. First choice after mulling it over. A ban is needed, but to put him in the same ban time as Lightmouse feels harsh. Wizardman 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. One year is excessive. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. This is not punishment, the length should not be seen as a term that reflect a sentence based on the degree of misconduct. The ban is done to prevent continued problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Grumbling support. I believe that the restrictions would be sufficient, but I do think this remedy can be beneficial. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comment on finding 47.5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Tennis expert banned

[edit]

34) Tennis expert is banned for three months.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Evidence doesn't seem to justify a ban. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Wizardman. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34.1) Tennis expert is banned for one month.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis expert restricted

[edit]

35) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tennis expert is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too short. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too short. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to dates and similar issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

35.1) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Tennis expert is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content or style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Tennis expert exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Tennis expert may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

35.2) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tennis expert is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comment on 35. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

G-Man restricted

[edit]

36) G-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. G-Man is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should G-Man exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, G-Man may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unnecessary, per my comment on the finding of fact for this editor. In any case, even if any restriction were warranted, the proposed restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not related to dates and similar issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Don't think this is needed. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36.1) G-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

Support:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comment on 36. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 topic banned

[edit]

37) Kendrick7 is topic banned 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I see no indication that this editor needs to be removed from discussions. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Vassyana and per my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

37.1) Kendrick7 is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see no indication that this editor needs to be removed from discussions. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Vassyana and per my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

37.2) Kendrick7 is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines.

Support:
  1. Per Vassyana's comments above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Distant second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Only supporting a 12-monther. Wizardman 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37.3) Kendrick7 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Would we not consider the template page a related page. I think we are asking for trouble if we attempt to set out something extra in this instance because the door will be open to wikilawyering needed admin warning and sanctions for related tendentious editing not specific spelled out in the ruling. We normally put the emphasis on the tendentious nature of the edits not the exact place on Wikipedia where the edits are made. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per FloNight. Leaning towards oppose as these templates are not typical templates, and I havent seen evidence they would have problems editing a template like {{dmy}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin reminded

[edit]

38) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly reminded that administrators should never use their userrights to advance their position in disputes, or threaten to do so.

Support:
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments on the findings of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per my statement at #Arthur Rubin. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin admonished

[edit]

38.1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given his block log and threats, I have him on very thin ice, close to a desysop. Wizardman 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments on the findings of fact. To the extent that there have been inappropriate comments, I believe the matter has been sufficiently addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. per my statement at #Arthur Rubin. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement by block

[edit]

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As usual, I think that Vassyana's objections are wrong. People are still free to block for other reasons as long as may be required. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support now. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:

:# — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As usual, I strongly object to the outlined time limits on the blocks. For example, limiting administrators to short blocks after three violations seems unfair to the community, other participants in the area, and the enforcing administrators whose discretion is fettered. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement by MOS ban

[edit]

1.2) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the user will be permanently banned from MOS. All blocks and bans are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Some restrictions here don't directly involve the MOS. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per objections to specified block lengths, though the "second" chances are more limited here and therefore this is less objectionable than the usual. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement by MOS ban

[edit]

1.3) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. The third block duration will be one month. If the editing restriction is violated a fourth time, the user will be permanently banned from MOS. All blocks and bans are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. This would only apply to editors not already banned from the style and editing guidelines. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like this alternative to general bans. This is the heart of the problem. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Cool Hand Luke. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some of the restrictions are not specific to the MOS. Risker (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement during instability

[edit]

2) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction at times when the Manual of Style is disputed, that user may be blocked immediately for one week. After 2 blocks, the block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans. (This would be effective immediately, as MOSNUM is currently disputed, and would stay in effect until consensus forms.)

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't see the point in special enforcement in this scenario. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Stability

[edit]

3) If the Manual of Style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, all parties who have engaged in the battle will be banned from MOS, MOS related discussions and MOS enforcement for 12 months.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Infeasible. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Won't work. My stalement resolution in ARBMAC2 may be an option though. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weird condition. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I dont think this will help, as there is no plan in place if they don't succeed after the first three months. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

[edit]

3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus.

Support:
  1. Weakly. This will be a little more work for the committee, and hangs a sword over the head of anyone who thinks they can help stabilise this style guideline. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can see this working. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Worth a try. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While I do not particularly object to the spirit of this, I do have concerns about the pressures, editing environment and disincentive this measure could cause. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

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.

Principles:

Passing: 1-6, 7.1, 8, 9.1, 10.1, 11.4, 13.1, 14-17, 19*, 20.1, 21
Not passing: 7.2**, 9, 10**, 11.1/11.2/11.3**, 12, 13.2**, 18, 20,

Findings of fact:

Passing: 1, 2, 3.2, 3.3.1, 5*, 6-10, 12-16, 18-20, 22-26, 28-30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37-52
Not passing: 3.1**, 3.3**, 4, 11, 17, 21, 27, 34, 36,

Remedies:

Passing: 1.3, 2.1, 5.1, 6, 7.1, 8, 9.3, 10, 13, 15-19, 20*, 22*, 23.2, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.1, 29.1, 30, 31.1, 32, 33, 33.6, 35.2, 36.1, 37, 38.1
Not passing: 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.2, 3-5, 5.2, 6.1, 7**, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4**, 10.1**, 10.2, 11, 12, 12.1, 13.1**, 13.2, 14, 15.1, 15.2, 16.2, 19.1, 19.2, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 23, 23.1, 23.3, 24.1, 24.2, 25.1, 26.1**, 26.2, 27.1, 27.2, 28, 28.2, 29, 30.1, 30.2, 31, 31.2, 32.1**, 32.2, 32.2, 33.1, 32.3, 33.2, 33.5**, 34, 34.1, 35**, 35.1, 36, 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, 38

Enforcement:

Passing: 1.1, 3.1
Not passing: 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3
* = passing due to abstains
** = passing but alternative has more support
— Rlevse • Talk • 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some errors in the above:
  1. Principle 9.1 is listed as both passing and not passing, it should be listed as passing, and 9 should be listed as not passing.
  2. By my calculation principle 18 "MediaWiki developers" with 4 support votes is currently passing due to 6 abstentions reducing the active arbs for this proposal to 7, and thus the majority to 4.
  3. Likewise, finding 4 "Engagement of technical staff", appears to be passing.
  4. 3.3 and 3.3.1 are missing from the list of failing findings.
  5. 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 13.2, 16.2, 23.3, 28.2, 32.3 and 37.3 are missing from the list of failing remedies.
Paul August ☎ 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, some are new, a few I goofed. Thanks, Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates:

  1. P18 is now failing.
  2. F4 is now failing.
  3. F31 is now passing.
  4. R1.3 is now passing.

Paul August ☎ 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates:

  1. F3.3.1 is passing.
  2. R32.3 is failing.

Paul August ☎ 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated notes, for own use:
Principles
(P) 1-6, 7.1, 8, 9.1, 10.1, 11.4, 13.1, 14-17, 19*, 20.1, 21
(F) 7.2**, 9, 10**, 11.1/11.2/11.3**, 12, 13.2**, 18, 20,
Findings of fact
(P) 1, 2, 3.2, 3.3.1, 5*, 6-10, 12-16, 18-20, 22-26, 28-30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37-52
(F) 3.1**, 3.3**, 4, 11, 17, 21, 27, 34, 36,
Remedies
(P) 1.3, 2.1, 5.1, 6, 7.1, 8, 9.3, 10, 13, 15-19, 20*, 22*, 23.2, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.1, 29.1, 30, 31.1, 32, 33, 33.6, 35.2, 36.1, 37, 38.1
(F) 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.2, 3-5, 5.2, 6.1, 7**, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4**, 10.1**, 10.2, 11, 12, 12.1, 13.1**, 13.2, 14, 15.1, 15.2, 16.2, 19.1, 19.2, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 23, 23.1, 23.3, 24.1, 24.2, 25.1, 26.1**, 26.2, 27.1, 27.2, 28, 28.2, 29, 30.1, 30.2, 31, 31.2, 32.1**, 32.2, 32.2, 33.1, 32.3, 33.2, 33.5**, 34, 34.1, 35**, 35.1, 36, 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, 38
Enforcement
(P) 1.1, 3.1
(F) 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3
Key as above.
AGK 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

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

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

Support:
Move to close. Risker (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my motion to close to enable review of a few points, and for other arbitrators to consider options. Risker (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ready to close. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close.  Roger Davies talk 11:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. I do hear the concerns expressed by the participants, but I fear that the only way we could arrive at a more decisive result on the underlying issues would be to write policy by fiat (by cementing certain aspects of the MOS and altering the BAG). I do understand why the participants were looking to ArbCom to settle the issues, and I sympathize with the participants that this might have been a more satisfying conclusion to countless months of acrimonious dispute, but the community has long agreed that — barring foundation issues — this committee should not directly affect policy (or guidelines).

    As things stands, the best we can do is to "level the playing field", as it were, and make certain that a fresh group of editors will be able to enter the discussion productively and reach consensus; something that has become essentially impossible given the entrenched positions the participants to this case found themselves in. — Coren (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  5. Close. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gladly close Wizardman 16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I would like to make sure that we've considered this fully. We've taken this long and a few more days to do so won't be catastrophic. Talk page discussion here, here, and here are examples of feedback that we should review and take into consideration. I would be uncomfortable with closing this case without a few alternative principles and remedies for consideration. --Vassyana (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the threads several times and I don't see anything that speaks to the need additional alternative proposals. Most of the ruling had alternative proposals already, and we had the option of completely dismissing the evidence as unactionable (as happened with some proposals). I don't see us coming to 100% consensus on each party in this case. And I don't see that as a problem as we want each arbitrator to freely act on the evidence as they see fit. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like a few hours to review. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ... and I would like to ensure Newyorkbrad finishes voting and the rest of us have time to consider his input. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    indenting to close. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assessing the input I've received on my questions, and could use another day if I am going to be able to vote on the findings and remedies. My apologies if this prolongs the seemingly endless case, especially given that I strongly believe that arbitration cases should be processed promptly, but the confluence of cases going into voting at the same time coupled with various real-life matters has left me a bit backlogged, and I don't think I can do all the comments I want to think about justice if I rush through them tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now voted on the principles and findings, and most of the remedies, and will be finishing on the remaining remedies by tomorrow. I don't know if any of my comments will call for consideration or responses by the other arbitrators. So, not ready to close quite yet, but I do agree we need to get the case finished within a reasonable time from now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw my opposition. I'd welcome more arbitrator input on my comments on some findings and remedies, but this can close when everyone else is ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have rescinded my motion to close in order to permit a bit more time for consideration. Risker (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WAIT! There are some issues in need of further review. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507034#Temporary_injunction_against_automated_date_linking_or_delinking"