Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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 impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. 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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the American Politics case.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

1. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. A bit duplicative of #4, but yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to political and/or social issues in the United States. This area has been the subject of numerous arbitration cases.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) In the American Politics case, the Arbitration Committee stated "Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another." and created a fast-track way of placing topics under discretionary sanctions. These sanctions have been ineffective in controlling the disruption, as the disruption has continued but they have not been used.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Quite frankly, I think we could have done without this case, and simply imposed DS by motion, but this is true on the background. Courcelles (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. The approach was worth a try, but it hasn't been effective at all in practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Contrary to the above I actually think it would have been unwise to impose DS by motion. Sometimes a full case is necessary. AGK [•] 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@NativeForeigner: What is meant here? These so-called sanctions haven't been effective at all. Courcelles (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles:Since I wrote this I will reply. Yes, you are correct here. The wording should be These sanctions have been ineffective... --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warred (LM200's evidence) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([1][2][3][4]). Ubikwit has been previously sanctioned in the Tea Party movement case for similar conduct.

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. While some of these instances are comparatively mild, their frequency establishes a clear pattern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak support. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Seraphimblade. Doug Weller (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ([5][6][7]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([8][9][10]).

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Not all of these diffs are terribly strong, but sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1980 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Second choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. only choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Tied with 1.2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Second choice. we may need to extend back further ,and should leave open the option to extend it if necessary, but the furthest back that might be necessary is post-WWII. We're talking about American politics, not American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
4. Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This is way, way too recent. As I said on list, I could live with 1854, but not this. Courcelles (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Courcelles that this is too recent. Whether we need to go back as far as 1854 I'm not sure though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't know about 1854, but certainly no more recent than 1954, and probably a bit before that. 1980 is much too recent to get a lid on the issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Date-limiting sanctions will encourage disputes over exactly how the border should be interpreted. Ronald Regan, for example, was politically active both before and after 1980; should that article be under DS or not? Cue endless arguing on the talkpage... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. It certainly needs rewording, without "broadly construed", possibly without a date limit. Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Too recent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. LFaraone 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. AGK [•] 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

• This is arguably an occasion when we can dispense with "broadly construed" altogether. Hundreds of thousands of articles could be broadly construed as associated with US political issues. The issue in this case is more specific - some apparent partisan editing involving US political BLP's, and political battlegrounds so current they appear in the daily newspapers as being key left/right political differentiators in present-day election cycles. Suggest we amend "closely related people, broadly construed" to something like "including U.S. political BLP's and article areas directly relevant to the 2016 U.S. Presidential and Congressional campaigns" and be done with it.-- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do down that route, I'd prefer "current or next U.S. Presidential and Congressional campaigns" rather than specifically 2016. This avoids any necessity for us to amend the wording should the problems continue beyond the current election cycle. Overall I like the idea, but I suspect we can come up with cleaner wording. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

Support:

1. first choiceSupport. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Only choice, and this should have been done a long time ago. Though the idea of "closely related people, broadly construed" could be improved on. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The elections of 1860 (Lincon) and 1792 (Washington) are matters of historic fact, not political science. Further, they have not been subject to the same endless disputes that politics post-Carter have experienced. The furthest back I am willing to go is the start of the fifth party system in 1933. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually this is wrong, the 1792 election was an important moment in American political science as it's the first instance of divided government, with a Federalist president and a Democratic-Republican Party majority in the House.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

   We don't debate the election of 1792 or the issues of that election like we debate gun control, abortion, marriage equality, and the other wedge issues of today. (Washington was an independent. From our own article on him: "Although he never officially joined the Federalist Party, he supported its programs.") --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. We do need to separate political history from contemporary politics and it's genesis, as the latter are where the issues lie and we should not expand DS into areas where they are not justified. I also think that "closely related people, broadly construed" is a recipe for confusion and dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. American politics beyond the stretch of living memory is history, not politics. I doubt there are many active WP whose memory for public affairs goes back before 1940. And I agree with Thryduulf about "closely related people, broadly construed" the two words "closely" and "broadly" contradict each other. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. As Guerillero states, at some point it ceases to be politics and becomes history. DS for all of American politics since the founding of the US is excessive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Too long a period, and misses the heart of this dispute which is about POV-pushing and subsequent in civility in current American politics. Not American history, and not even American political history. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppsing because of the "broadly construed" bit. I don't think we need a time limit, if there's a problem in editing anywhere on American politics these sanctions should cover it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Too broad. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. LFaraone 14:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

We could go back to something, say election of McKinley or Eisenhower. I'm concerned that Carter, Nixon are adequately politicized that they should be under this DS, but I do see the concern american politics could go all the way back to the late seventeenth century. But where exactly to put the cutoff? It's far from straightforward. In terms of the closely broadly paradox, I'm very open to any better suggestions. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

Support:

1. Proposed for parity with the proposed remedies as a middle ground between "1980" and "since the US was founded". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Tied with 1 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Would support as a distant second choice. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Probably the more reasonable date limitation. I could support anything reasonable here, but not one without a starting year. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
5. As reworded. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Should hopefully do. Supporting as reworded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. LFaraone 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. THough I still wish "closely related" would go away. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I cannot support any remedy that contains the "closely related people, broadly construed" wording. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC) now moot.[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I removed broadly construed. Revert if you disagree. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "related people, broadly construed" actually. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 1932, per request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) Ubikwit is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1980 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

Support:

1. First. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. equal with 2.2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   equal with 2.5 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Second choice to post-1933. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
4. Second choice, further back might be a little better . DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Prefer 2.2 or 2.5 Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Third choice LFaraone 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Much too recent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too recent. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 2.5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Euryalus (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. DS will deal with this, and too recent in any case. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

2.2) Ubikwit is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about the politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Proposed. 1980 is far, far, far too recent for these topic bans. Courcelles (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   equal with 2.1 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Second choice to 2.5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to 2.5. LFaraone 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my comments above about "closely related people, broadly construed". Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose "closely" and "broadly" are direct opposites,and so the statement is meaningless. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Too ambiguous. Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Euryalus (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Prefer 2.5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

2.3) Ubikwit is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area and edit warring.

Support:

1. Second. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Inadequate. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. too weak --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. He didn't get the message after the stronger remedy in the Tea Party case, I see no evidence that this would make a jot of difference this time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. too weak to be worth saying . DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Insufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Pointless wrist-slap, in this instance. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. As Yunshui says, pointless. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Can't really see the point in admonishments. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Insufficient here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. LFaraone 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Probably inadequate and pointless, but my reasoning on these sorts of remedies is that a warning is at minimum required, so even if more should be donethis lesser (inadequate) warning still has my support. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.4) Ubikwit is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after twelve months, and then every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. I think this is necessary, when taken in total of this user's actions here and in Tea Party. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. While I agree he is a net negative in the US politics topic area, I'm not certain that this is the case in other areas of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Though with the clear message that this is the absolute last chance to moderate the behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. A topic ban should be sufficient; I see no need for a site-ban at this point. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm not convinced a full siteban is needed here, though I hope Ubikwit notes that a third instance of sanctionable behavior is liable to result in a siteban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. LFaraone 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

2.5) Ubikwit is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

Support:

1. Proposed; my first choice. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice over 2.2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. equal with 2.1 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer 2.2, this would be my second choice. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC) (I consider doing these alternate proposals a remarkably inefficient way of finding a time period. We need to change how we discuss these to first decide if it should be a topic ban after some year, and then settle which year. )[reply]

   Agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Only choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. LFaraone 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think this is unwisely close to the present, but something needs to pass here, so, 8th vote for this option no matter how much I dislike it. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. The recent edit-warring at Neoliberalism, then edit-warring over mentions of the edit-war at ANI, plus telling another editor to "fuck off" for mentioning the edit-warring, put me in mind of the section in Arbguide about mooning the jury. To quote that section, " if you are on trial for assault it is not generally a good idea to start punching witnesses in open court." I've opposed all the individual sanctions in this case as I considered that the DS would be sufficient and we could let past offences lie. But the above shifts me, somewhat reluctantly, to supporting this one. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Which has resulted in a 2 week block for him. I also feel I have little choice but to support this now. Doug Weller (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK [•] 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Weak, and largely academic, oppose. Future conduct would be covered by DS, which should have been (will be?) more vigorously applied in this area. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Moved to support[reply]

:# Agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

3.1) MONGO is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1980 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

Support:

First NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

equal with 3.2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

equal with 3.4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Second choice to 3.4. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice--probably the somewhat earlier date suggested below is better. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose:

1. Too recent of a cutoff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too recent. Doug Weller (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Straight oppose. Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Prefer 3.4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. 3.4 is much better. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. LFaraone 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Changed to 1932, per request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3.2) MONGO is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about the politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Proposed. 1980 is far, far, far too recent for these topic bans. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   equal with 3.2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Second choice to 3.4. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my comments above about "closely related people, broadly construed". Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. oppose, as with my comments for the other party. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm now convinced this won't be necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Too long. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Prefer 3.4 GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. LFaraone 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

3.3) MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

Support:

1. Second NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would actually be content with a (strong) admonishment in this instance. Assuming some form of DS passes, I don't believe a topic ban for MONGO is necessary. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. this comment by MONGO makes me think that a topic ban is the wrong decision here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think there's enough understanding here that a warning rather than a topic ban will be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice ; Something in respect to him needs to pass, even if only this weak (on the same reasoning as Thryduulf, just below). DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Only if a topic ban does not pass. I remain convinced that the topic area will be better off without both of these editors, and for that reason this is too weak, but too weak is better than no sanction at all. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9.  LFaraone 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Inadequate. Both these users need to be fully separated from the topic. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Too weak --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Per Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   inadequate DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

   Insufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can't really see the point in admonishments. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. AGK [•] 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am rethinking this after reading this comment by MONGO --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That and other comments on the talk page have me leaning toward support, waiting for more comments. Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to give some additional thought to this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3.4) MONGO is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

Support:

1. Proposed, and my first choice. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   First choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Equal with 3.1 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. First chocie. Probably the more reasonable date limitation. I could support anything reasonable here, but not one without a starting year. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cna live with this, but a topic ban is necessary. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. AGK [•] 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak oppose. The principal issue is incivility, which should have been better addressed at the time, but won't be at all addressed by a topic ban. Future edits in this area will be covered by DS. On balance, not convinced we need a separate topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose, for the sake of clarity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. More or less per Euryalus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Changed to 1932, per request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

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.

These notes were last updated by L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

All principles passing

All findings passing

None^[11]

2.1, 2.2

Proposals which have passed

All principles - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9

All findings - 1, 2, 3 & 4

Remedies 1.2, 2.5, 3.3

Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

All principles passing

All findings passing

1, 1.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4

Pass by default

Notes

These notes are by number of votes only, not taking into consideration if votes were conditional, etc. This reflects what proposals pass if the motion to close was passed now, at 15:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC).

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

1. We are pretty much done here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nothing more to be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Euryalus (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. AGK [•] 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I think like Thryduulf, but I will outright oppose the close for that reason. Courcelles (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. won't die in a ditch over it, but I'm not a fan of closing something with proposals still theoretically open. It appears that is the case here, so opposing close in the hope we get a final couple of votes on the last raining remedy. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't wan't to oppose the closing of this as it has been open far too long already, but I would much prefer that we don't leave remedies at things like 4-4 with no abstentions when there are principles with 12 supports. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]