Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Mailer diablo (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

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 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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. `

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Topic ban

1) All editors identified as participants in the mailing list are banned from editing any page related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, except for the pages of this case, pending the resolution of the case.

For the purpose of this injunction only, the following editors are deemed to be participants in the mailing list:

• Alexia Death (talk · contribs)
• Biophys (talk · contribs)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
• Digwuren (talk · contribs)
• Dc76 (talk · contribs)
• jacurek (talk · contribs)
• Martintg (talk · contribs)
• Miacek (talk · contribs)
• Molobo (talk · contribs)
• Hillock65 (talk · contribs)
• Ostap R (talk · contribs)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• Tymek (talk · contribs)
• Radeksz (talk · contribs)
• poeticbent (talk · contribs)
• Sander Säde (talk · contribs)

Clerks: Please ensure that all the users listed here are parties to the case and notified as soon as possible.

Done. Daniel (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Short term measure until we sort out the issues in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) And to be clear, any existing bans or restriction apply for editors already under these sanctions. This motion does not weaken those sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Per FloNight. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Reconsidered this. Moved to oppose, with conditions. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Er. Oppose for similar reasons as Kirill on talk. I think injunction on spreading the list should have at least gone before this. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Not clear that such an untargeted approach is warranted. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Moving to oppose from support. This will give us more time to examine the evidence and decide what needs to be done here. However, if it emerges that any editors that this topic ban was proposed for have engaged in disruptive behaviour, and continued to engage in disruptive behaviour during the case, then that will likely be reflected in the final decision. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now. There are general sanctions in place that can be activated on a situational basis, and I encourage administrators carrying out arbitration enforcement in this area to be acutely aware of this ongoing investigation, and for editors in this area to be constrained in their behaviour. Risker (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Risker. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Per other opposers. Moreover, even if I agreed that such an injunction were warranted (or that such a restricter were appropriate as to one or more users as part of the final decision in the case), the scope of the proposed injunction is overbroad. There are plenty of articles extent and yet to be written "related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined," which do not implicate any of the disputes at issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Per other opposers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Not necessary as I assume many administrators and users have their eyes focused on what's happening on the topic area. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Russavia

2) Russavia (talk · contribs), who was blocked for disputing a topic ban imposed by Sandstein in language that was construed as constituting a legal threat, and who was unbanned solely to participate in this case, may freely edit other articles and pages but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. During this case we need to sort out whether there was efforts to target him. While we are going it, modifying the editing restriction seems reasonable. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   In my view, all "no legal threats" blocks should be logged separately (or filtered from the block log using standard wording), to allow periodic review, as it is not clear to me whether that policy is being consistently enforced. Some admins block at the merest hint of legal language used that could conceivably chill a discussion, while others are less proactive. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Of more concern is that Sandstein says we have misinterpreted his original ban, and widened its scope. Retracting my support for now until this is reworded. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oberturning a block or unblock conditions except to permit case participation would be inappropriate as a preliminary action. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm uncertain this is necessary as it presumes more than is currently in evidence, but it's harmless enough that I will not oppose. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Precatory language here is unnecessary, and I'm not comfortable finding it. He should be unblocked for the case, but there's no reason to elaborate on why he was blocked, much less mention the admin blocking him. Cool Hand Luke 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Would consider supporting a differently-worded alternative that frees Russavia to edit more extensively. Risker (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Risker. I invite a proposal (including by Russavia himself, on the workshop) that would allow him to return to editing while avoid embroilment in the areas of active dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

5. In most WP:NLT cases, a user gets unblocked once the perceived legal threat is withdrawn with an apology or a clarification —that the intention wasn't threatening legally— is provided. Whatever is the case here, this case is still at the community's hands unless the course of this case suggests otherwise. That said, I support the participation of Russavia in this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of private materials

3) Private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved should not be circulated or otherwise passed along without the permission of the authors. This includes, but is not limited to, public posting of links to such information and any attempts at outing. Engaging in such activity will be treated as disruption and harming editor privacy. Any evidence containing identifying information or other sensitive information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:

1. Consistent with the case directives. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Overbroadly written, but this is important. Cool Hand Luke 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Luke. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (second choice Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

   Supporting my own proposal. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I agree that we want to stop disruption from passing around the private discussions, but as part of the dispute resolution process some the material will need to be circulated between people that are not the authors. And this wording does not make adequate allowances for the usual passing of material that happens between people that join small email discussion lists. I think that the wording in the motion to open the case cover the situation adequately. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I doubt that any persons not the authors of the emails (or recipients of them already as list members) will need to have any of the material shown to them for the purposes of this case, but that issue could be handled as it arises. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I agree that we should provide guidance in this area, but waiting to see if FloNight can develop a more nuanced wording that might achieve unanimous support. In the meantime, editors should respect the urgings and instructions contained in my motion to open the case as if they were in the nature of an injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. An alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support alternative motion if it relieves concerns. Vassyana (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

3.1) Private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved should not be circulated or otherwise passed along without the permission of the authors. This includes, but is not limited to, public posting of links to such information and any attempts at outing. Engaging in such activity will be treated as disruption and harming editor privacy. In cases where participants may need to discuss evidence within the pages of the case, a reference of the format of [20090101-0000] may be acceptable and sufficient. Any evidence containing identifying information or other sensitive information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:

1. I believe this addresses part of FloNight's and many other people's concerns. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice, if this relieves concerns about gaming the injunction. Vassyana (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice, since this addresses concerns and retains the desirable property of not needlessly disseminating private information. — Coren ^(talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support both versions. Appreciate FloNight's concerns, but what we need to do in such cases is instruct the case clerk on how to enforce this injunction. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This is better. My aim is for the involved parties to be able to participate in the case without the fear of being blocked. They may need to receive and discuss the relevant emails that are linked to on site policy violations. That may mean that people are going to share the evidence among themselves in order to draft the proposals. I don't want the people that are participating in the case to be accused of outing or violating someone's privacy if they are making a good faith effort to participate in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   My aim is for the involved parties to be able to participate in the case without the fear of being blocked. If they follow the above directions there would be no sanction. More on this below.

   That may mean that people are going to share the evidence among themselves in order to draft the proposals. Why would people need to share evidence if all participants would (or already are) have access to the files? The [20090101-0000] format can fairly do the job.

   Let me give everyone an example here. Let's suppose that someone wants to show ArbCom an evidence of violating [wp:some policy]. A reference to an e-mail [20090101-0000] showing a co-ordinating effort to violate that policy would be sufficient. Since ArbCom has already a copy of that file then it becomes easy for it to verify the claim.

   Please note that the above alternative takes into consideration both the mailing list participants (privacy) and the case participants' concerns (not fearing a sanction). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   Still think that our wording is confusing for the admin that may handle reports of violations of the motion. Now on the case pages, some members of the email list are giving any one that looks at the emails a hard time. I want to make sure that this doesn't escalate into a block for a person that is working on the case but not a member of the email list. I don't want the people that have a stake in the outcome to be accused of sharing the information because it is obvious that they are discussing the emails with other Wikipedia users but did not have direct access to the emails. So, I want to de-emphasize that sharing the information is disruption and potentially could result in a block. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'll be glad to have a more helpful wording. Otherwise, the only other alternative is to forbid anyone from investigating the matter except ArbCom. That would make sense since ArbCom is actually busy investigating anyway; so why have non-ArbCom members repeat the same job? Unless people (people that have a stake in the outcome as you put it) don't trust ArbCom with that I really see it as the only viable approach and solution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   Since the emails are very easily to obtain, then we are going to have loads of people looking at the stuff we propose and compare it to the emails. So, and some of them are going to be making comments on site or email. I want to make sure that we don't stifle the helpful stuff or cause the person to get block by an admin that is aggressively endorsing the motion. That is the reason that I'm satisfied with stopping the deliberate outing and provocation (both off and on site) but think that some allowance for sharing of the emails for case work by other editors is okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speculative and inflammatory comments

4) Inflammatory comments and speculative musings about user identities, as well as related postings, cause drama and disruption. Editors are reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

3. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Supporting my own proposal. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Restatement and extension of instructions already contained in my motion opening the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Consensus

1) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. I would qualify with "never say never"; there may be isolated circumstances involving issues such as editor privacy where off-wiki consultation and consensus does guide on-wiki behavior. But the proposed principle addresses the vast majority of instances, particularly where the issue is article content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Participation

2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Support:

1. This is why it is important to widely publicize important discussions so that the sample of editors participating can be as representative as possible. While it's generally not practical to attempt to solicit the entire editing population, willfully attempting to skew who participates is a very disruptive act. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. I note that in general, we do not always distinguish clearly enough between what constitutes desirable publicizing of important discussions and what is deprecated as impermissible "canvassing" of participation in such discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. An important principle, but which here seems to refer mainly to off-wiki publicising and canvassing. As far as on-wiki notices go, the two relevant guidelines/information pages are: Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. I believe those two pages address the concerns raised by Brad. The former has existed since October 2006, while the latter has existed since April 2009 (I wrote the initial draft), and arose from various discussions as detailed here. Although I don't say it there, one of those places I discussed it late on during 2008 was on Brad's talk page here! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus in internal processes

3) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Support:

1. For instance, and possibly most important, the possibility that an editor be driven off and lost to the community because of an improper consensus led to their alienation warrants close scrutiny of such discussions. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Though I will note that a simple requirement for people participating in such discussions to identify what their background is, whether they had been involved in prior discussions, and how they became aware of the current discussion, would help. People who failed to provide such information could, in extreme cases, have their opinions discounted. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Canvassing

4) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Support:

1. Proposal 7 below goes into the specific case of meatpuppetry, but even a call to participation can be highly disruptive when done in secret in a venue known to be supportive of the point of view to "defend". — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Although it is not always easy to distinguish between the two motives, and indeed they can reasonably be present at the same time. If I invite Editor A's attention to a discussion because I know he is a regular contributor to the topic area and will be interested and have useful points to make, but I know or suspect how Editor A is going to feel about the matter and I agree with his or her position, am I trying to improve the discussion or to influence the outcome? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Inviting other editors to a discussion can be done if the notices left are neutrally worded, if the notices are delivered to a broad cross-section of the editing community, and a note is made indicating where such notices were left. The latter is needed to assess whether some venues were omitted from the notification list, and what effect that might have had. The other important thing is for editors arriving at a discussion to disclose how they were notified of it. e.g. "I was left a talk page notice", or "I read about this in my national newspaper", or "I read about this in an online political forum", or "I have this page on my watchlist", or "I saw the notice left at the village pump", or "I saw the notice left at this WikiProject". The only way to counter secret canvassing, in my opinion, is to increase the amount of publicising of a discussion (to draw in genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians that bring fresh opinions to a discussion), or to spot obvious trends if a bloc opinion/vote is gravitating to the discussion, and whether they are giving independent and nuanced, or the same repetitive opinion. Those assessing or moderating the discussion should be alert to, and spot such things. It's not easy, but then no-one ever said it would be. The other key is to ensure the atmosphere is welcoming. If previously uninvolved people look at a discussion and see arguing and insults being thrown around, they are more likely than not to go and find something else to do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Should be accepted without saying. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Somewhat understated, but sufficient. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Gaming the system

6) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.

Support:

1. So-called baiting is an egregious violation of this principle, for instance, because it seeks to misuse our behavioral rules designed to protect our collegiate atmosphere into getting rid of "opponents". While it's arguable that the victim should have avoided taking the bait, that does not diminish the responsibility of those who did the baiting. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Meatpuppetry

7) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Support:

1. This is even more the case when the requests are done off-wiki (or in secret) because it evades scrutiny. Requesting that someone else continues a revert war to avoid running afoul of WP:3RR is still clear edit-warring. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. With potentially isolated exceptions per my comment on 1. (I personally dislike the pejorative term "meatpuppetry," and would prefer language such as that I used in the C68-FM-SV decision, but I won't oppose on a semantic basis.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Noting that noticeboard solicitation is generally the proper way to go about such things, in contrast to the wrong way. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. There are times when you need to hand something off to someone else, but as long as that is done transparently, that is not a problem. It is the secrecy and lack of disclosure that subverts the process here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. I too would like to deprecate the term "meatpuppetry" as its use reinforces the impression that one is participating in a game rather than a discussion. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Presumption of coordination

8) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:

1. I will probably propose a remedy going along those lines for any article under discretionary sanctions, for instance. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   The 'could' helps here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Casliber. The guiding rule is not that anyone's contribution is to be ignored, but that the surrounding circumstances showing that some voices are not independent should be taken into account. The difficulty sometimes encountered in making these calls is one reason that "consensus" can be such an elusive concept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
3. In strong agreement with NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Repeating my comment from principle 4: "[Those assessing or moderating such discussions need to] spot obvious trends if a bloc opinion/vote is gravitating to the discussion, and whether [those participating] are giving independent and nuanced, or the same repetitive opinion. [...] It's not easy, but then no-one ever said it would be. The other key is to ensure the atmosphere is welcoming. If previously uninvolved people look at a discussion and see arguing and insults being thrown around, they are more likely than not to go and find something else to do." Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Off-wiki communication

9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Support:

1. Secret coordination would, in fact, generally tend to make on-wiki misbehavior worse because it can evade scrutiny longer this way and thus be disruptive over a long period of time before it is detected. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Key point!! FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Compare our comments about "block-shopping on IRC" in the Eastern European disputes 2 case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with FloNight. This is a key point. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Coren and Newyorkbrad. This could be considered the heart of this decision. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Though it should also be said, certain communications can also take on an inappropriate character by the fact of occurring off-wiki. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Exclusion of evidence

10) Evidence that has been obtained through unethical or illegal means cannot be used or examined by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Proposed by some of the participants, with the rationale that doing otherwise may encourage illegal or unethical behavior. I've already given a detailed rationale elsewhere why I don't think that having an exclusionary rule is necessary; but it's worth pointing out that it may in fact be harmful: given that no member of the Wikipedia community has any authority to compel production of evidence during an investigation (including ArbCom itself), having such a rule would encourage increased secrecy and covert misbehavior. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. I agree that this proposal is too sweeping and that we should not adopt it. However, I don't think we can stop just with rejecting this wording, lest we risk being seen as oblivious or indifferent to the complex issues that could be presented by this type of scenario, one which some editors have suggested (though others sharply dispute) may be present in this case. I will seek to formulate and post over the weekend a wording that does reflect our views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

   Alternative series of proposals below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Awaiting Newyorkbrad's alternative. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Awaiting Newyorkbrad's alternative. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Too short and oversimplifies the issues here. Alternative needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Not necessary to decide the case. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Consideration of private communications as evidence (I)

10.1) The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when communications originally meant to be kept private are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context.

Support:

1. Alternative to the stalking horse of 10, but cumulative (not alternative) to 10.2-10.5 below. These five paragraphs are really meant as a single statement of philosophy on the exquisitely complex issue of how we should react when presented with a set of communications which, on the one hand, were never intended for our eyes, but on the other hand, reflect disruptive conduct on a serious nature. I do not in the least agree with those who have suggested that the forwarding, or perhaps leak, of this mailing list to ArbCom created no ethical issues for us. (After all, we bitterly deplore and seek to identify those who leak our own internal communications to third parties.) On the other hand, I also cannot agree with those who say that because this was a private mailing list, we must forget that we ever saw it, even if the result were (for example, hypothetically) to leave one or more editors unjustly banned as the result of a rigged process. The set of proposals 10.1-10.5 really combine as a statement of the factors that we must balance in this area; I have separated them into separate paragraphs to facilitate voting on the individual ideas, as an arbitrator may choose to support some of them and oppose others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. This series of paragraphs clearly lays out the issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. I can think of several situations where ignoring private communications is harmful, and likewise many where reading them would be. The reality usually lies somewhere between the two and we need to balance the interests of the project, the community and individuals. Just as we cannot morally and ethically ignore something which may cause harm, we have the duty to minimize harm as much as we can. This set of principles explains our "ethical compass", but also clearly state why hard rules would be disastrous. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consideration of private communications as evidence (II)

10.2) As more persons become parties to a communication, for example, a limited-distribution mailing list, the line between a purely private communication and a semi-public one may become less clear. At the same time, the number of members of a mailing list may make it difficult to determine, at a later time, whether a disclosure of information on the list has been made by a member of the list for an appropriate reason, by a member of the list for an inappropriate reason, or by a third party who has obtained access to the list via unauthorized means.

Support:

1. See comment under 10.1 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. This is a significant point. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Also depends on nature of the list, but still a valid point. Carcharoth (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I miss the connection between these two statements. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. 10.3 renders this moot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (III)

10.3) The Arbitration Committee generally does not encourage forwarding of private communications to it without, at a minimum, the consent of either the sender or the recipient, and in ordinary circumstances, may choose to disregard such evidence. However, the committee may consider such a communication where there is reason to believe that it relates to a situation seriously endangering the well-being of the project or the community, such as harassment of editors, attempting to drive editors from the project, coordinated manipulation of article content, or misuse of adminship or other advanced permissions.

Support:

1. See comment under 10.1 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Very pertinent to this case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Essentially reserving the most serious cases for ArbCom. Other matters can usually be resolved short of arbitration, but cases like this demand careful assessment of the evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, we're not going to un-see it. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consideration of private communications as evidence (IV)

10.4) Where private communications may need to be considered as evidence in an arbitration matter, appropriate steps must be taken by every person connected with the case to ensure that dissemination of the communications and especially of material whose publication could cause harm, such as personal identifying information, is as limited as possible.

Support:

1. See comment under 10.1 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Important. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consideration of private communications as evidence (V)

10.5) The dilemmas created by presentation of the contents of an off-wiki mailing list to the Arbitration Committee are complex ones that cannot be resolved for all cases through a generic policy pronouncement. There may be circumstances where refusing to consider such evidence could be highly unfair to a party wronged by conduct on the list. We can neither announce that our doors are open to the routine forwarding of intercepted communications, nor declare that we will blind ourselves to evidence even if a threat to the well-being of the wiki or the community is disclosed. In sum, situations like these must be addressed by the committee on a case-by-case basis. We can only hope that in light of the principles set forth in this decision, and the widespread recognition that off-wiki activities such as those addressed in this decision are damaging to the project and its community, future instances in which this dilemma must be faced by ourselves and our successors will be nonexistent or rare.

Support:

1. See comment on 10.1 above. Note that the two situations alluded to in the third sentences are hypothetical extremes, and I am not suggesting that either of them describes this case. I fear that all the words ultimately reduce to "this is a complicated situation, and we have to balance all the relevant factors on a case-by-case basis." I am sorry that I have been unable to conjure up a set of principles more definitive than these, but I have been thinking about this mess for two months now, and am sorry that I have not been able to do any better. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Could be less wordy, and would support Brad's shorter summary, but this will do as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Our overriding principle is, and must be, prevent harm to the project and its contributors. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Though the latter parts of this might be better as a statement offered in conjunction with the decision, rather than as a principle. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Off-wiki conduct

11) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. In my opinion, use of evidence from off wiki conduct is rarely needed by the Arbitration Committee. But there are exceptions such as when it is directly related to violation of core Wikipedia policy. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Some reservations per Carcharoth, but not enough to detract from my support. Vassyana (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Per FoloNight although Carcharoth makes a valid point in his comment below. However, wikilawyering remains less effective with evidence as on-wiki evidence is one of the tools to assess a damage empirically. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Returning to this, still have reservations, but not enough to oppose. Am abstaining. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Not sure about the wording here. Could be applied in many cases where people would object to the interpretation of whether or not there was a "foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community" - that could be wikilawyered into oblivion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening of arbitration cases

12) In virtually all cases, the Arbitration Committee opens a full-fledged arbitration case only where a request for a case is presented on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and arbitrators vote to open the case after considering comments from interested editors. In extraordinary situations, the Arbitration Committee may vote, by majority vote of the total number of active arbitrators, to open a case on its own motion without awaiting a formal request. This step will be taken only in serious situations where a dispute has come to the committee's attention through other means, it is apparent that no other means of dispute resolution will be sufficient to resolve it, it appears inevitable that a request for arbitration would be presented in the normal course, and the value of obtaining input from a request for arbitration is outweighed by factors such as avoiding delay or unnecessary hostility at the request stage. Instances in which the Arbitration Committee will open a case without a formal on-wiki request will be rare.

Support:

1. Proposed to address concerns, including those of at least one ex-arbitrator, about the process by which this case was opened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Is there not a Latin phrase for this? But seriously, this is an important point to make. But I do think this should also be discussed more widely by the community, as this is not a power ArbCom has traditionally had, and we shouldn't be arrogating such powers to ourselves. This change also goes beyond simply documenting changes in working practices within the constraints of the arbitration policy, so my support is qualified to stating that this happened in this case, but without wanting it to set a precedent. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
3. The alternatives to the Arbitration Committee opening a case without a request when serious issues are brought to our attention are just as problematic. The key is that the Committee needs to stop the disruption promptly and waiting longer would be much less likely to bring additional clarity or resolution to the situation. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. The phrase you are looking for, Carcharoth, is nostra sponte. — Coren ^(talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Because of the unusual nature of the evidence in this case, much of the references are in the form [YYYYMMDD-HHMM], corresponding to specific emails in the so-called "Wikipediametrics" mailing list archives.

Mailing list sent to Committee

1) On or around September 21, 2009, the Arbitration Committee received emails from three distinct editors forwarding a link to what was reported to be an archival copy of a mailing list on which disruption of the encyclopedia was discussed by its members. That link was sent to at least eight editors via the Wikipedia "mail this user" function.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Not exactly how I would describe the mailing list contents, but since we go into that in more detail below this is all right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Authenticity of archive

2) Given the gravity of the allegations, the mailing list archive was examined in depth by members of the Committee. It appears authentic, and covers the period from Jan 2, 2009 to Sept 15, 2009. There are no technical inconsistencies, nor any indication that any part of it has been tampered with. While there is no reliable method to determine that it is complete, no significant gaps are evident over the covered period.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Reviewing what other arbitrators have reported, I agree with this finding. Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. I have little doubt that what we have seen is authentic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. After reviewing all the emails and the ArbCom case pages (evidence and talk pages) I agree that the emails are most likely authentic. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Little doubt about the authenticity of these documents. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I see no necessity for having this FoF at the absence of a couterevidence that the archives are fake or were tampered with. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of computer trespass

3) The mailing list has been emailed via a user account whose password was freely shared between members of the list. The committee finds that the hypothesis that one of the members of the list willingly mailed their own copies of the emails via that shared account to be the most credible, and has received no evidence that any computer trespass ("hacking") has taken place.

Support:

1. Although ultimately immaterial to the rest of the decision, this guided our willingness to examine and use the list. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Coren. This is the most probable scenario based on our review of the matter. The wording is appropriately qualified. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Given the confirmation of the password sharing, this is indeed the most credible scenario. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Per other supporters. The section title should probably be changed to "No computer trespass" or "No evidence of computer trespass," as at present it suggests the opposite. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree that the password sharing makes an internal leak the most creditable scenario. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. I too would suggest a title change, probably to "No evidence of computer trespass". Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I see no necessity for having this FoF at the absence of a couterevidence that the archives were hacked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

List membership

4) The members of the mailing list are Wikipedia editors, all of whom are directly or indirectly involved in the Eastern European topic area. The following Wikipedia users have posted to that list: Alexia Death, Biophys, Biruitorul, Digwuren, Dc76, jacurek, Martintg, Miacek, Molobo, Hillock65, Ostap R, Vecrumba, Piotrus, Tymek, Radeksz, poeticbent, and Sander Säde. No other editor has posted to the mailing list during the period covered by the archive.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. I am a bit wary of the guilt by association potential, but this is a clear fact. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Accurate listing, but noting that the levels of activity varied, and levels of reading of the mailing list cannot be ascertained. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The participation of some of the individuals listed was quite limited, and including them in this finding may leave an unfair impression. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. The list is accurate; however a few of these individuals seem to have extremely limited participation in either the list or the activities that were discussed on the list. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad and Risker. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated contents

5) Most of the mailing list traffic is not material to this case. It consists primarily of friendly banter and discussion such as would normally be found on users' talk pages, or of discussion unrelated to Wikipedia.

Support:

1. As expected on a primarily social mailing list. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Technical oppose. Clearly this finding does not have the support needed to pass. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Doesn't seem accurate to me. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Move to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Materially true, except that I would not agree with the broad characterization of "as would normally be found on users' talk pages". Though the general gist holds true, I believe it would be inaccurate to characterize much of it as typical talk page discussion. A portion of it would certainly not be posted on user talk pages without ado. However, I do agree it was largely typical Wikipedia-related discussions. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Needs reworded per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Agree that can not support because too many of the emails had content that was not typical of article or user talk pages. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Not necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated contents

5.1) Most of the mailing list traffic is not material to this case. It consists primarily of friendly banter or of discussion unrelated to Wikipedia. However, key portions directly relate to the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice, since this addresses the concerns expressed by the other arbs. — Coren ^(talk) 14:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. My review of emails shows that a substantial portion of the emails are related to Wikipedia and are about the material in the case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Intellectually, I agree with Newyorkbrad that this isn't a matter that needs to be addressed here. However, my reading of the emails is that a very substantial portion were directly or indirectly related to Wikipedia or to gathering information for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Flo. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I don't really see a need to address this one way or the other. Some of the mailing list contents were relevant and some were irrelevant; our concern is with the relevant portion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Abstain, per Brad. Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper coordination

6) Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   (Fixed the sense of the reference to Western point of view; I rewrote that statement so often it ended up saying the opposite of what it meant) — Coren ^(talk) 10:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   This support is strictly conditional on 6.1 not passing. — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

   I think we can safely change the wording here to "certain", if everyone agrees. Vassyana (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

   Changed per Rlevse's agreement and the comments of other arbs supporting the change. Vassyana (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support and prefer the change to Newyorkbrad's suggested change of wording. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Equal preference with #6.1; this is an abstract enough finding that it's not implying equivalent conduct from every member. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
6. With newly incorporated wording change. Risker (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Per wording change resulting from my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Equal preference with #6.1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

I will support if "The members" at the beginning of the second paragraph is changed to "Certain members". If read to mean that all the members behaved as described, I don't believe that sentence is accurate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to support following wording change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Risker (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Some of the abstentions above were conditional to tweaking of the wording, which has taken place. Could the abstaining arbitrators please review their votes? — Coren ^(talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Done for me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper coordination

6.1) Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a pro-Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.

Support:

Proposed as alternative wording to 6 to address some of the concerns from arbitrators. — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Support this alt. but think since there is agreement to make the slight wording change to 6 that it can just be tweaked to switch the wording. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference with #6; this is an abstract enough finding that it's not implying equivalent conduct from every member. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support iff 6 doesn't pass. — Coren ^(talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

   I support this wording but as FN indicates, we should be able to make the minor change above. First preference if there a choice needed. Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Per others above. Equal support with 6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Equal preference with #6. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 6. Risker (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Risker (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

6A) Various members of the mailing list participated in an extensive campaign of canvassing coordinated on the list, concerning deletion debates, requested moves and merge proposals, among other discussions.

Support:

1. By way of introduction; details in user-specific proposals below. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. In addition, and not as an alternative to, 6. — Coren ^(talk) 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Per coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Coren (numbering of "6A" rather than 6.1 is consistent with this). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith

7) There is every indication that the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Wikipedia, with some members going so far as to suspect involvement by the Russian government.

Support:

1. However misguided. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. I added "with some members" as the extreme was certainly not universal, with others members disputing the extreme assertion. Revert if that is a problem and we'll discuss it. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I understand the thinking but I don't think this clearly hits the mark. And something similar is not needed to have a complete case, so I'll not offer an alternative. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Even if this were accurate, it would still be irrelevant to our assessment of their conduct. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Attitudes seem to have varied widely, per Vassyana. I would also prefer a rewording of the section heading. Some list members may have had a good-faith belief that there was a problem, but they advocated very bad-faith solutions to the perceived problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. This should focus more on what has been said on-wiki about this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

List secrecy

8) Piotrus (talk · contribs) was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. The secrecy and exclusivity of the list is a large part of the problem. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
5. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure the second part is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   Guys, the emails show that Piotrus knew' that the group was doing something wrong, yet he supported forming the group, and used it to promote his agenda. I see this aspect of the situation as a key factor in why he should be desysopped. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight, an administrator can be desysopped with just the first part of this FoF. The second part could only be necessary if the administrator really made an effort; which he didn't. I agree with Newyorkbrad and Vassyana that the second part is not really needed. Otherwise, I'd have no problem supporting an FoF dealing with secrecy and disregarding inappropriateness. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in disputes

9) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view. [20090915-0602][20090915-0610][1]

Support:

1. There was also some bullying using his status. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. (Changed "dispute" to "disputes" in header.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. And administrative status, as discussed on the list in question. Vassyana (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Note that I corrected the date for one of the messages referred to. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

10) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090206-2304][20090216-0055][20090731-0652]

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note: I've corrected the accidental duplicate email reference ([20090206-2304]) and replaced it with [20090731-0652]. — Coren ^(talk) 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm not in love with the wording; would consider alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. And [20090825-2011] & [20090826-0252]. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice (forgot to clarify this when posting the alternative). --bainer (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not terribly comfortable with how this is worded and framed. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

10.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring (unknown date quoted in [20090102-1220]: [2], [3], [4], [5]; [20090402-2239]; [20090606-1316]: [6], [7], [8]; [20090825-2011]: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]; [20090826-0252]: [14], [15], [16]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090206-1904]; [20090215-2055]: [17]; [20090606-1316] ff: [18], report; [20090619-0038]; [20090731-0652]) proxying for a blocked user ([20090915-1759]: [19]; [20090607-2005]: [20]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090402-2239]; [20090601-1730]; [20090701-0204]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. A large amount of evidence. Contrasting with other comments about proxy edits, these edits stand out as what not to do. The shift in point of view is very obvious, including the dropping and replacement of some sources. Edit wars and other content conflicts between entrenched nationalistic points of view are what drives the poisonous atmosphere in this topic area. This goes beyond taking some helpful content suggestions or reference pointers well into proxy edit warring and advocacy. Vassyana (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
4. More detail. Not strictly necessary, but worth inclusion. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Some good additional points. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

10A) On November 6, 2009, while this case was pending, Piotrus advised the Arbitration Committee that he was resigning as an administrator.

Support:

1. Noted, in connection with the relevant remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 11:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Vassyana (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain

Canvassing

10B) Piotrus participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Piotrus has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States [20090711-1625]
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg [20090818-0328]
  • a series of requested move discussions started by Bobanni (talk · contribs): Talk:Władysław_Siemaszko#Requested_move, Talk:Commission for the Determination of Place Names#Requested_move, Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 4#Requested_move [20090830-1820]
  • Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga#Requested_move [20090907-0129]
  • Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion#Requested move [20090910-2144]
  • Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki#New naming discussion [20090913-1754]
  • Talk:Web brigades#Merge. again [20090913-1833]
• Piotrus has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7#Template:Notpropaganda, after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090407-2342]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090422-2046]
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Deacon of Pndapetzim after having been canvassed by Radeksz [20090608-1511]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Markedonov after having been canvassed by Biruitorul; argues to keep the article, "since it is a snowball anyway, and it may be a good proof that sometimes I disagree with some of you and agree with Offliner..." [20090625-0245]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090716-0004]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Risker (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Also more detail. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Isolated instances of coordinated activity might be understandable, but the overall pattern is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Newyorkbrad. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

Mailing list infrastructure

11) The mailing list uses infrastructure hosted by Digwuren (talk · contribs), and has most likely been set up by him.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. As background only, not a sanctionable situation. Risker (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Background. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. As FloNight says, background. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Background material going to the level of commitment. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As background maybe, but I am not sure this is relevant so as to warrant what appears to be a finding against the editor. Merely hosting the mailing list is not sanctionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

12) Digwuren (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090205-1811][20090209-1435][20090816-0919]

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. And [20090731-0918]], [20090714-1252]. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per concerns about wording in other such findings. Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

12.1) Digwuren (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090328-1329]: [21], [22]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090102-2219]; [20090205-1849] ff, [23]), treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090215-2039] & [20090216-1322]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090209-1035]; [20090619-1112]; [20090703-1737]; [20090731-0918]; [20090816-0919]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Equal preference to 12. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Some good additional points. Equal pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support in preference to 12 given the added detail. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice. Risker (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

12A) Digwuren participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Digwuren has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Talk:Timeline of antisemitism#!votes (indeed, with the words "I've called for votes at...") [20090609-0707]
• Digwuren has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy after having been canvassed by Dc76 [20090129-2311]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090202-1725]
  • Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090203-0500]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet operations by Russian secret police after having been canvassed by Vecrumba [20090322-1502]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090327-1736]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7#Template:Notpropaganda after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090407-2342]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–New Zealand relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090422-2046]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic states and the Soviet Union after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090501-1944]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava after having been canvassed by Miacek [20090528-1818]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tymek

Account sharing

13) Tymek (talk · contribs) has willingly shared the password to his Wikipedia user account, offering its use to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. (Clarified wording to make explicit that we are referring to his Wikipedia account, not his mailing list account.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. The offer to let his account be used to report an user (accompanied by a statement that he had no independent knowledge of the situation) is extremely troubling. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Vassyana (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Per FloNight. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Double vote. The earlier support vote was the correct one. Apologies for the confusion there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

13A) Tymek participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Tymek has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Deacon of Pndapetzim after having been canvassed by Radeksz [20090608-1511]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]
  • Talk:Prussian estates#Merge after having been canvassed by Radeksz [20090806-1901]
  • Talk:Władysław Siemaszko#Requested_move, Talk:Commission for the Determination of Place Names#Requested_move and Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 4#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090830-1820]
  • Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090907-0129]
  • Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090912-1939]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

13B) Tymek has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] ff: [24], report; [20090618-1913]; [20090702-1758] & [20090703-0406]), proxying for a blocked user ([20090624-2155]: [25]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090610-2315]: [26]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Substantial evidence of concerns. Please note my comments under similar measures about the proxy editing.[27] Vassyana (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Among others concerns, plotting fake arguments with other list members, and acknowledges that he does not use a watchlist so needs prompting to alert for needed reverts. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg

Disruption

14) Martintg (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090404-0554][20090615-0607][20090818-0353]

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per concerns about wording in other such findings. Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

14.1) Martintg (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090328-1329]: [28], [29]; [20090818-0407]: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]; [20090915-1810]: [37], [38]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090813-0025]; [20090818-0352]; [20090818-0407]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090404-0554]; [20090615-0607]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. And many other emails that show off site plotting to abuse Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. For example, [20090407-2242] and [20090913-0928]. Support both 14 and 14.1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support in preference to 14 given the added detail. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

14A) Martintg participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Martintg has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia [20090203-0500]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7#Template:Notpropaganda [20090407-2342]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–New Zealand relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations [20090422-2046]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) [20090804-0059]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide [20090806-0526]
• Martintg has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy after having been canvassed by Dc76 [20090129-2311]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet operations by Russian secret police after having been canvassed by Vecrumba [20090322-1502]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090327-1736]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava after having been canvassed by Miacek [20090528-1818]
  • Talk:Timeline of antisemitism#!votes having been canvassed by Digwuren [20090609-0707]
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 11#File:German Soviet.jpg after having been canvassed by Jacurek [20090711-1554]
  • Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090907-0129]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek

Disruption

15) Jacurek (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090903-1554], [39] [20090818-0353], [20090610-2359].

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Although perhaps to a lesser extent. — Coren ^(talk) 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. In several instances, although there have also been positive contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per concerns about wording in other such findings. Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

15.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090626-1934] & [20090626-2059]: [40], [41], [42]; [20090825-2011]: [43]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090818-0407]: [44]), proxying for a blocked user ([20090902-1512]: [45]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090610-2359]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal pref,. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support in preference to 15 given the added detail. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

15A) Jacurek participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Jacurek has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 11#File:German Soviet.jpg [20090711-1554]
• Jacurek has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Deacon of Pndapetzim after having been canvassed by Radeksz [20090608-1511]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090711-1625]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]
  • Talk:Prussian estates#Merge after having been canvassed by Radeksz [20090806-1901]
  • Talk:Commission_for_the_Determination_of_Place_Names#Requested_move and Talk:Recovered_Territories#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090830-1820]
  • Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090907-0129]
  • Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion#Requested move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090910-2144]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Subject to my general observations about our canvassing policies, in the principles. (This extends to all my votes on the "canvassing" findings, though I haven't referenced it every time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz

Disruption

16) Radeksz (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. Evidence page, [20090806-1901],[20090621-2036], [20090625-2220], [20090626-1934], [20090621-2114],

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Although perhaps to a lesser extent. — Coren ^(talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. In several instances, although there have also been strongly positive contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Equal preference. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per concerns about wording in other such findings. Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

16.1) Radeksz (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090606-1316]: [46], [47], [48], [49]; [20090626-1934]: [50], [51], [52]; [20090826-0252]: [53], [54], [55]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] ff: [56], report), proxying for a blocked user ([20090905-2159]: [57]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090621-2036]).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. See my other comments about proxy editing.[58] Vassyana (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Equal preference. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

16A) Radeksz participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Radeksz has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Deacon of Pndapetzim [20090608-1511]
  • Talk:Prussian estates#Merge [20090806-1901]
• Radeksz has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava after having been canvassed by Miacek [20090528-1818]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090716-0004]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090806-0526]
  • Talk:Władysław_Siemaszko#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090830-1820]
  • Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion#Requested move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090910-2144]
  • Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090912-1939]
  • Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki#New naming discussion after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090913-1754]
  • Talk:Web brigades#Merge. again after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090913-1833]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 05:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Occasional disruption

17) Many of the members of the mailing list not otherwise mentioned in these findings have occasionally participated in improper coordination of on-wiki actions, performed reverts at the behest of other editors, or gave advice on how to game the system.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. True, but too vague to be an useful Fof. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per FloNight and NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Flo. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Some yes, but not all. I would rather speak in terms of "the list was used improperly by ..." rather than characterize the members as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad and FloNight. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul

Canvassing

18) Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Biruitorul has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations [20090202-1725]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations [20090327-1736]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic states and the Soviet Union [20090501-1944]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Markedonov [20090625-0245]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence [20090716-0004]
  • Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)#Requested move [20090717-1803]
  • Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move [20090912-1939]
• Biruitorul has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy after having been canvassed by Dc76 [20090129-2311]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Hillock65 [20090330-1348]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090711-1625]
  • Talk:Władysław_Siemaszko#Requested_move after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090830-1820]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Subject to my general comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dc76

Canvassing

19) Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Dc76 has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy [20090129-2311]
• Dc76 has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Hillock65 [20090330-1348]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090202-1725]
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 11#File:German Soviet.jpg after having been canvassed by Jacurek [20090711-1554]
  • Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090912-1939]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Although the participation in a handful of canvassed discussions is actually not the most serious issue with regard to this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Although I agree with Newyorkbrad and Risker I see a trend there (Feb., Mar., Jul., and Sept.). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Miacek

Canvassing

20) Miacek (talk · contribs) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Miacek has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava [20090528-1818]
• Miacek has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090203-0500]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Hillock65 [20090330-1348]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090422-2046]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic states and the Soviet Union after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090501-1944]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Not the most serious offender, but yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Account sharing

20A) Miacek offered to share access to several unidentified alternate accounts that he controlled to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090602-1428]

Support:

1. Indeed, the offer was extended to a user who had recently been blocked for abuse of alternate accounts. --bainer (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Noting that I saw Miacek's comments on the talk page but continue to support based on the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Vassyana makes a good point, but I agree that — given it is now known unequivocally that this has occurred at least once on that mailing list already — the presumption must be that the offer was serious like the other. — Coren ^(talk) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. It is not clear that this was a serious offer nor that Miacek has alternate accounts under his control. Regardless of how bad this looks, I cannot support under those circumstances. Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

   The statement as written is true. Given what we know about other instances of socking and account sharing related to this group, I think the threshold for believing it is true should be low. This incident needs to go on the record as a Finding of fact so that if additional problems crop up in the future, then a full evaluation of situation can be made. Otherwise, this will get lost in the archives. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Correcting my initial comment.

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana and FloNight both make good points; I'm in equipoise at the moment, though leaning toward oppose unless there is further evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. I am undecided — per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba

Canvassing

21) Vecrumba participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

• Vecrumba has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet operations by Russian secret police [20090322-1502]
• Vecrumba has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090202-1725]
  • Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090203-0500]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7#Template:Notpropaganda after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090407-2342]
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 11#File:German Soviet.jpg after having been canvassed by Jacurek [20090711-1554]
  • Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)#Requested move after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090717-1803]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]
  • Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090818-0328]
  • Talk:Communist Romania#Requested move after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090912-1939]

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Subject to my general comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

22) Despite the ongoing arbitration case and the strong admonitions it contains, at least Radeksz (talk · contribs), Digwuren (talk · contribs), Dc76 (talk · contribs), Martintg (talk · contribs), Molobo (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Jacurek (talk · contribs), and Vecrumba (talk · contribs) have continued in participation of off-wiki coordination, including editing by proxy for banned users.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The evidence I have seen indicates off-wiki discussion, but not illicit coordination. As far as I can tell, there is no indication of continuing problematic coordination, except the bare existence of off-wiki discussion. The proxy editing mentioned, for better or worse, is practically a textbook example of proxy editing permitted under the current policy. The lack of evidence regarding ongoing coordination and the policy-compliant nature of the editing leave me with no choice but to oppose. Vassyana (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
2. What I have seen is too fragmentary to draw definitive conclusions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
3. I do see problems of continued problematic conduct from some members of the mailing list, but I prefer editor specific Finding of facts rather than naming these editors together in one Fof. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Vassyana and Carcharoth. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Piotrus desysopped

1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is desysopped for using the administrative tools in content disputes. He may regain adminship by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support:

1. Use of administrative tools in order to "win" content disputes cannot be ignored. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

   Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, in light of this situation, it will not be possible for Piotrus to function effectively as an administrator. If he recognizes this fact, I urge him to resign his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. To favour remedy 1.1 over this one. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Now moot, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus's adminship

1.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), having resigned as administrator while this arbitration case was pending, may seek to regain adminship only by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. In light of the resignation, standard procedure to note the policy applicable under these circumstances. I appreciate Piotrus's action in agreeing to resign, in response to my comment above, and thereby bringing closure to this aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 11:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Note this removes the possibility of a resyssop by a crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Standard. Vassyana (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Piotrus banned

2) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is banned for three months. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Distant third choice. Note that this should probably carry the rider from #2.1. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Rider added. Moved from abstain. On reflection, this has gone on too long over too many cases, and it needs to be clear that this behaviour, particularly from an administrator, is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Rather a ban pass with clear support votes than my abstain vote. The issue for me is the long term nature of the problem. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unnecessary, despite the clearly problematic conduct displayed. 3 or 3.1 should suffice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC) moving to abstain for now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Of all of the editors involved in this case, Piotrus has been the one who has made the most serious efforts at recognising the errors of his ways and in attempting to reform, but his actions seriously crossed the line. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Moving to support. Risker (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. I will abstain, instead of oppose, on any short to moderate term (three to six month) bans for editors with substantive conduct findings and substantial prior histories of warnings, blocks, etc. Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

   Move to abstain for now due to concerns about abusing the dispute resolution process. I want to look through other recent edits for additional problems before I make a final decisions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus banned

2.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. It would not appear that he did, in the end, understand the unacceptable nature of his behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 01:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. We've banned users for the same period of time for less than what have been done here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus banned

2.2) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned.

Support:

1. There is substantial evidence of disruptive conduct on Piotrus' part, ranging from coordinated edit warring to canvassing. Moreover, Piotrus seems to have been the instigator of much of the disruptive conduct engaged in by other parties to this case. He has counselled other parties on evading Wikipedia policies. His actions have been deliberate and calculated, and amount to a systematic undermining of Wikipedia's editing process. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Excessive, despite the serious concerns expressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Based on his non-disruptive contributions, excessive. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
4. I understand (and agree with) the concerns, but I think that indefinite bans should be reserved for true real-life harassment and violent behavior, where it is unlikely that an editor would ever be welcomed back no matter how much their editing habits may have changed. In this case, after one year, Piotrus gets a chance to try again under restrictions. — Coren ^(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus topic banned

3) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice to 3-month ban — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice, prefer 3.1 Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. I note that articles that do not appear, on the surface, to be about national, cultural or ethnic disputes have also been the subject of various edit wars. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too broad. For all of the documented problems, there are many areas that Piotrus contributes to quite productively and entirely uncontroversially in this area. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Correcting misplaced vote - see edit summary here

Piotrus topic banned

3.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, for a period of one year.

Support:

1. First choice. This much more precisely defines the area in which Piotrus, and this mailing list generally, has had issues. (It is also a formulation that may be useful to arbitrators writing future decisions and administrators active on arbitration enforcement.) To say that an editor is unable to display good judgment in addressing the host of historically driven national and ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe, in no way reflects that he or she should not be allowed to write about less charged topics such as a Polish cathedral or a Russian river. (Compare the advice I offered in what I believe was the last remedy of the Israel-Palestine case in my first month as an arbitrator.) ¶ I'm open to discussion (here by arbitrators, on the talkpage by others) about the length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Too narrow and opens the door for increasing conflict because of disputes about which articles fall under this remedy. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice, per my note above. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too open to wikilawyering about what is or isn't cultural, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Much closer to the mark. However, this is open to a world of wikilawyering. Taking Coren's note below, perhaps a topic ban that just explicitly covers the topic across all nampespaces would be more solid and less open to gaming? Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. I am, in principle, favorable to a narrower topic ban if one can be crafted that still covers the contentious areas, but this wording becomes too narrow: not only articles about the disputes have been disrupted but also articles about persons, events and places and sections related to them in otherwise unrelated articles. Perhaps "articles discussing" and "widely construed" to avoid edge cases becoming battlegrounds? — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   (Moved from abstention to oppose after reconsideration). — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus topic banned

3.2) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. As exceptions to that ban, Piotrus is allowed to create new articles pertaining to the topic area in his userspace and request them moved to mainspace by uninvolved administrators, and may participate in the featured article process or its associated review process for otherwise covered articles during his ban.

Support:

1. First choice, as an alternative that allows continued positive contributions in a limited way that is less likely to be problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2. My first choice is as stated above, but giving limited support in the hope we might reach some consensus here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. His recent back channel attempt to eliminate one or more arbs from voting in this case because of their participation in the upcoming 2010 Wikicup erased all the goodwill that he was manufacturing with his on site comments. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

   Battleground mentality and attempt to manipulate outcome to his advantage.Piotrus signs up for the WikiCup on Oct. 18th, one month after the EE mailing list cases opens, with case voting starting on Sept. 18th. This week, Piotrus contacts an arb that began voting on the case prior to Piotrus joining the WikiCup and ask him to recuse on the case because of a COI. He asserts that his ban from the topic would give the arb an advantage in the WikiCup. Even after the arbitrator points out that he was entirely unaware that Piotrus was in the competition, Piotrus presses him to recuse. Piotrus's interpretation of the situation, attitude, and approach makes me reluctant to loosen any restrictions so I'm opposing this proposal. (And by the way, Piotrus is incorrect in that there are more than 2 arbs already signed up for the competition). FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Unworkable. I can foresee Piotrus creating an article in userspace, it being transferred to article space, and then him being unable to address questions or concerns about the article or to continue to improve or to maintain it. I note that it is not only the editors who participated in this mailing list who have demonstrated a battleground mentality, and it is unfair to the encyclopedia to encourage the development of articles which are at high risk to become fodder in this continuing verbal warzone. Risker (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Risker, especially her closing comment. Vassyana (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Risker. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Risker. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren banned

4) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:

1. Iff 4.1 does not pass. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Assuming he returns from ceasing to edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice to 4.1, as Digwuren has not edited for many months except to request his userpage be deleted. I will note that, had Digwuren continued to edit to this point, I would be moving for an even longer ban, because he has already been subject to extensive remedies in the past. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Second choice to 4.2. Risker (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice to #4.2. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unnecessary, especially given that Digwuren has not edited since June, predating the revelation of the mailing list and the opening of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Prefer 4.1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. In favour of 4.1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren restricted

4.1) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and is banned from editing Wikipedia until he advises the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use.

Support:

1. As an alternative to 4, and concurrent with 5 or 5.1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support; I was planning to propose this myself. Note that editing anonymously from an IP would also violate the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice as alternative to 4. — Coren ^(talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Strongly. Also in accord with NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren banned

4.2) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. Continuing disruption from off-wiki while "retired" is no more appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice over #4. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice over 4. Risker (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Digwuren's current status is in the project, in light of the new evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren topic banned

5) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice, prefer 5.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. Too much of a battleground mentality. Too much risk that a more narrow restriction will lead to battles about whether an article is included or not. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. First choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren topic banned

5.1) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, for a period of one year.

Support:

1. First choice. See my comment on 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Too much of a battleground mentality. Too much risk that a more narrow restriction will lead to battles about whether an article is included or not. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Same reason as the other one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per my opposition to similar remedies above. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. This is too narrow. — Coren ^(talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
4. In favour of 5. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg banned

6) Martintg (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice to #6.1. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not convinced this is necessary if the user abides by the topic ban that will likely be imposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Not needed at this point, as the topic ban is passing. Risker (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Would prefer a topic ban, but will revisit if a topic ban is not passing in 2 days. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Risker (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg banned

6.1) Martintg (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 01:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice over #6. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per 6. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Excessive, despite the problems noted and being addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg topic banned

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Still evaluating evidence; if warranted, would prefer a 7.1 along the lines of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm leaving this and my similar votes below at abstain because my preference is a narrower topic ban per 3.1, but my parallel proposals above have drawn little or no support, so there's no value to proposing them for each user just so they can be voted down again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tymek admonished

8) Tymek (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.

Support:

1. In particular, I would expect Tymek to make certain he changes his password immediately. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. In conjunction to 8.1, we can not tolerate account sharing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. (Minor copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. In addition to 8.2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tymek banned for three months

8.1) Tymek (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:

1. In conjunction with 8, we can not tolerate this sort of account sharing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice to #8.1A. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unnecessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I think Tymek has got the point already. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I don't think that's necessary, but I can see why some might and will not oppose. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tymek banned

8.1A) Tymek (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. First choice over #8.1. In light of the evidence of disruption including participation in canvassing, on top of the account sharing issue. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per bainer. The account sharing is very problematic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Excessive. I could support a more nuanced remedy if linked to any evidence of ongoing misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tymek topic banned

8.2) Tymek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. The best way to assure that Tymek is not allowing his account to be used against policy (either account sharing or edit warring) is to give a topic ban in this area. To be in addition to the admonishment for account sharing. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
3. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Effective, but overkill in this case. I might support a shorter duration or a more limited remedy. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Coren and per my comments on 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Would consider a shorter topic ban, but this is too much. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek topic banned

9) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support this iff 9.1 does not pass. I would support (and prefer) a shorter ban in the case of this user given the more limited disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. I prefer a 6 months topic ban as most of the canvassing and disruption occurred during a relatively short/limited period of time (End of June - beginning of September 09). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I would prefer a more nuanced restriction along the lines of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Moving to oppose. Will support the alternative. Risker (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Would consider a shorter (3-6 month) topic ban. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Risker (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. On the fence. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek topic banned

9.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. I prefer this to 9 given the more limited scope of the disruption Jacurek has caused. — Coren ^(talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice with pref to 9. I reviewed the emails from the time that he was invited to join until the email list was revealed and see that he was an enthusiastic and active member of the list. Since his involvement was more recent, I see this as a reason to use the harsher sanction. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
3. First and only choice. Risker (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
4. First over 9 — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. I would prefer a more nuanced restriction along the lines of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz topic banned

10) Radeksz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I would support (and prefer) a shorter ban in the case of this user given the more limited disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I would prefer a more nuanced restriction along the lines of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on Jacurek topic ban (9) above. I'd have preferred an alternative with 6 months so this would be my second choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty

11) All the participants to the mailing list not otherwise sanctioned in this decision are granted amnesty for past behavior stemming from their participation.

Support:

Most of the participants were in good faith and, while occasionally misbehaving, would be better off returning to normal editing. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose — Coren ^(talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Moved to oppose — Coren ^(talk) — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not a good fit in this case for several reasons. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. What is needed is productive conduct going forward, not an amnesty. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Good faith only stretches so far. — Coren ^(talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
7. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Awaiting any other proposals that may be forthcoming. In any event, in this case, I don't think it's necessary to vote affirmatively on an "amnesty": Those parties who are not sanctioned, are not sanctioned. And the blanket "amnesty" may be resented by parties who committed no misconduct, and don't feel in need of amnesty. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with Newyorkbrad although I have no proposal to offer here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree in principle with this, but am not voting until it is clear whether others need to be sanctioned. I will also note here that one of the mailing list members was given a mentorship sanction in the previous Eastern Europe case. That, and other findings of fact and remedies issued in past cases, needs to be taken into account before issuing amnesties like this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors restricted

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Support:

1. In view of the repeated mentions of Russavia on the mailing list, and the nature of the discussions concerning him there, I believe this is highly appropriate. There may be other editors who should be added to this remedy; I will check the notes on this in the next day or so. (This is a separate and additional proposal to 11, not an alternate; I've called it 11A just to put it in a logical place without renumbering everything again.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Excellent idea Brad. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Brilliant. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren ^(talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
7. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
8. I'd recommend and advise Russavia to do the same. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. A finding related to this remedy is needed. Also, the "legitimate and necessary" bit will doubtless be bitterly disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors under revert restriction

11B) All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decision are indefinitely placed under a group revert restriction. Under this restriction, the actions of the editors count as the actions of a single editor for the purposes of the disruptive editing and edit warring policies, including the three revert hard limit. This restriction encompasses all Eastern European articles and discussions, broadly construed, across all namespaces, with the standard revert exceptions for obvious vandalism, blatant biographies of living persons violations, and copyright violations.

Support:

1. To prevent tag-team editing. Vassyana (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Now that more editor specific remedies are passing change to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Based also on previous cases. Cumulative effect. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Moot now that the topic bans are passing. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

3. I do not believe that this is sufficient, but it's certainly necessary. Frankly, I am unconvinced of the willingness of the editors named in this decision to stop treating Wikipedia as a battlefield; and I fear that any leeway will be viewed as an opening to be exploited. I do hope I will be proven wrong and that they will use this opportunity to correct their aim (and find new, less contentious, areas to edit in productively). — Coren ^(talk) 05:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I understand the rationale of this proposal, but in some ways it's too complex to enforce, and it creates too many presumptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Workability issues per Brad; prefer the more direct bans and topic bans. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Concur with Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Per FloNight. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not convinced if this is a fair or workable resolution. I see its essence but its application is not really feasible in practice. I hope the bans and topic bans are sufficient as it is highly improbable that there would not be any tag teaming after banned or restricted users are returned to normal editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors under discussion restriction

11C) All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decision are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.

Support:

1. In response to the inappropriate canvassing and coordination. Vassyana (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   Proposed addition: "Constructive use of dispute resolution where directly involved and utilizing content review processes for or about their own work are also exempted from this restriction." Rlevse and FloNight, can you agree to this addition? I believe this would be with the understanding that clumping up to work around the limited allowances would run quite counter to the whole point of this decision (and spur a prompt amendment from the Committee removing the allowances or imposing stricter sanctions). Vassyana (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   With emphasis on the idea that the list members commenting is limited to issues where they are being sanctioned. They are not invited to discuss other people that edit in the EE topic area. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Now that more editor specific remedies are passing change to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   To be honest, I have concerns. I think that anything less that a full broad topic ban is going to open up the door to endless discussions about whether something is covered or not. The Community has been dragged into these situations for years. I want to see these editors work on other topics to show that they can function in our community following the rules. If they show that they understand and can follow policy, then later I would be open to loosening the restrictions so that they can be involved in the ways that you have listed. So, no, I do not want to change the wording. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

   Based also on previous cases. Cumulative effect. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Moot now that the topic bans are passing. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC):

3. Again, I have doubts that this will suffice, but it certainly is required. — Coren ^(talk) 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Workability issues as above, although somewhat less so for this one. Nevertheless, I again prefer the more direct remedies of bans and topic bans. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Per FloNight. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per my abstaining on 11 B. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Participants admonished

12) All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public.

Support:

1. I would recommend stepping away from the mailing list entirely and shutting it down. There is great danger in any echo box. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Based on what I have seen so far, I can support this. I will say that discussion in public forums off-wiki (i.e. completely transparent and visible to the public) should not (and cannot) be forbidden (and is often extremely useful), but using even public forums can lead to inappropriate co-ordination and should be done with care. Private mailing lists and forums for the purposes of co-ordination are an absolute no-no. For similar reasons, if a dispute between two factions arises on an off-wiki venue, bringing that dispute here, or continuing it here, is similarly disastrous for the collegiality that underpins how Wikipedia works. If people can't work with others, even those they oppose in ideological and other matters, they need to reconsider their participation here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I cannot in good conscience admonish all of the members of the list. Several seem to have dropped off in the early going, and others seemed to try to rein in some of the excess here. Risker (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not "all" the members of the list deserve a "strong admonition," and I don't think it's worth taking the time to identify any but the most culpable ones. Having said that, a fact I find troubling is the relatively small number of times in which people on the list said "the proposed conduct here crosses the line; we really shouldn't be doing this." Yes, comments like that were made sometimes, but not often enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Brad. Moreover, many such comments do not seem to have been made not with the morality of the actions, but rather with the downsides of getting caught in mind. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Nywyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors reminded

13) All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

Support:

1. It's unlikely that this list is the only one that exists, participants in other lists need to examine carefully whether their participation in them compromises the editorial process. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Per my comments here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Subject to my comment on principle 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Bang on. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community encouraged

14) The community is encouraged to review the consensus leading to any active sanctions (such as blocks and topic bans) of editors that arose as a result of disputes in the topic area of Eastern Europe. In particular, blocked editors should generally be unblocked on good faith unless a new consensus forms that the block was correct on its face.

Support:

1. I would recommend extending this courtesy to most editors involved in the past year. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Like Newyorkbrad says, the effect of the mailing list on admin decisions (to place or remove editing sanctions) is best determined by people that have read the email threads. I think it falls to us to review these. Russavia is an obvious person to review, there may be others. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Concur with FloNight. Risker (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per FloNight and NYB. Vassyana (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. We have to deal with this, though if we are slow, those appealing bans should take a community appeal route, and I would support various unblockings with supervision by admins and mentors. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per Carcharoth's comment below. It may be that we have to grasp this nettle ourselves, as assessment of the effect of discussion on the mailing list on any blocks or bans should not take place on-wiki. The case of Russavia, as one example, warrants reevaluation at some point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
3. If any banned or restricted user brings evidence of any off-wiki campaign against them resulting in their sanctioning then I'd be glad to revisit this via a motion. As for a community review of consensus leading to sanctions of editors, I'd say it would be good idea if it is done with transparency and without partisanship. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Before supporting this, I would want some idea of how many sanctions, remedies and editors this applies to. How many active sanctions are there relating to "disputes in the topic area of Eastern Europe"? Coren, if you want to limit this to the past year, you should include that caveat in the actual text of the remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not intend to limit the remedy strictly to one year to avoid unreasonable edge cases from being reviewed; though I expect that most cases considerably older have either been since rendered moot or unworkable, hence the encouragement to focus on the more recent period. It's difficult to assess how many such sanctions and editors can be affected, but I'm a strong proponent of leaving applicability to the wider community: it's an encouragement to reexamine, not a blanket revocation or indiscriminate absolution. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz banned

15) Radeksz (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. Given the continuing disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. In light of the evidence of disruption and canvassing. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. A 6 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Excessive as proposed; would support a narrower remedy, although the need to close the case promptly suggests that instead we will only act in the event of further misconduct or disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Newyorkbrad. Note that this should be considered a bright line and that any transgressions are likely to result in extensive sanction. Risker (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek banned

16) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. Given the continuing disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. In light of the evidence of disruption and canvassing. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
4. A 6 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Excessive as proposed; would support a narrower remedy, although the need to close the case promptly suggests that instead we will only act in the event of further misconduct or disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Newyorkbrad. Note that this should be considered a bright line and that any transgressions are likely to result in extensive sanction. Risker (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dc76 banned

17) Dc76 (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. Given the continuing disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. A 3 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Excessive as proposed; would support a narrower remedy, although the need to close the case promptly suggests that instead we will only act in the event of further misconduct or disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Prefer #17.1. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dc76 topic banned

17.1) Dc76 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. Prefer to #17. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
3. This will suffice. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Excessive. I could support a more nuanced remedy if linked to any evidence of ongoing misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba banned

18) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Support:

1. Given the continuing disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. A 6 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Excessive as proposed; would support a narrower remedy, although the need to close the case promptly suggests that instead we will only act in the event of further misconduct or disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Prefer #18.1. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba topic banned

18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. Prefer to #18. --bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Second pref. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
4. This will suffice as an alternative to 18. — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Excessive. I could support a more nuanced remedy along the lines of 3.1 if linked to any evidence of ongoing misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul topic banned

19) Biruitorul (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
5. A 6 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Excessive. I could support a more nuanced remedy, along the lines of 3.1, if linked to evidence of ongoing misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Miacek topic banned

20) Miacek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   A 3 months ban would have been enough but I am supporting this in the absence of such alternative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I would prefer a more nuanced remedy along the lines of 3.1 if linked to any evidence of ongoing misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2. After a second thought I find a whole year ban here a bit too harsh. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any editor subject to an editing restriction under this decision violate that restriction, he or she may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Alternatively, where appropriate, discretionary sanctions may be imposed under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes.

Support:

1. Standard enforcement provision, but in light of the problematic history here, without the usual limits on the block lengths, and with the second sentence added for clarity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Absolutely. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

• Coren, you have proposed year-long bans for "continuing disruption" for all those listed in the finding of that name, but you've omitted proposing a ban for Molobo who was also listed in that finding. Was that intentional? Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Earlier implementation notes collapsed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Passing: Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12 Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6.1, 6A, 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 12.1, 12A, 13, 13A, 13B, 14, 14.1, 14A, 15, 15.1, 15A, 16, 16.1, 16A, 18, 19, 20, 21 Remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13 Enforcements: 1 Failing: Principles: 10 Findings of fact: 5, 5.1, 7, 17, 20.1, 22 Remedies: 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6, 6.1, 8.1, 8.1A, 8.2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1, 18, 18.1, 19, 20 Enforcements: Alternatives: Principles: Findings of fact: (5, 5.1), (3, 3.1, 3.2), (6, 6.1), (10, 10.1), (12, 12.1), (14, 14.1), (15, 15.1), (16, 16.1) Remedies: (1, 1.1), (2, 2.1, 2.2), (3, 3.1, 3.2), (4, 4.1), (5, 5.1), (8.1, 8.1A), (9, 9.1), (17, 17.1), (18, 18.1) Enforcements: Superseded: Principles: Findings of fact: 6.1 by 6, 10 by 10.1, 12 by 12.1, 14 by 14.1, 15, by 15.1, 16.1 by 16 Remedies: 3.1 by 3, 4 by 4.1, 9 by 9.1, Enforcements: Passing and not superseded: Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12 Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6A, 8, 9, 10.1, 10A, 10B, 11, 12.1, 12A, 13, 13A, 13B, 14.1, 14A, 15.1, 15A, 16, 16A, 18, 19, 20, 21 Remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 7, 8, 9.1, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13 Enforcements: 1 For the convenience of the voting arbs, the above is my version of the implementation notes -- I've replaced the previous outdated versions. A clerk should verify and validate these please. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (Updated. Paul August ☎ 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)) Will get to it sometime this weekend or sooner. KnightLago (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I seem to have become the de facto clerk with respect to these notes, but I am still waiting for a clerk to take over here. Paul August ☎ 20:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The above version of the implementation notes is correct. Sorry for the delay, I am the only clerk on this case. KnightLago (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) By my reckoning Remedy 2 now passes, although I will leave it to the case clerk to confirm this and adjust the "Passing and not superseded" notes above. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) If the case were to close now, this is how I see it (I plan to seek guidance on the questions): Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12 Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6A, 8, 9, 10.1, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 or 12.1, 12A, 13, 13A, 13B, 14 or 14.1, 14A, 15 or 15.1, 15A, 16, 16A, 18, 19, 20, 21 Remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 7, 8, 9.1, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13 Enforcements: 1 Findings of fact that are questions: 12 or 12.1, 14 or 14.1, 15 or 15.1 KnightLago (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I've updated my version of the notes above. By my reading, the three sets of alternative findings (12, 12.1), (14, 14.1) and (15, 15.1) are all tied, with Coren and Risker apparently preferring 12, 14 and 15) while bainer and Vassyana prefer 12.1, 14.1 and 15.1. Although as Coren and Risker have taken no positive action on these proposals their true preference may be in doubt. The arbs need to clarify their preferences. Otherwise I concur with all of the above. Paul August ☎ 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I agree and have added the ties into my notes. KnightLago (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I've just added preferential support to all three of the revisions with increased detail. — Coren (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC) With those votes 12.1, 14.1, and 15.1 supersede the others (barring further voting). KnightLago (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Concur. Paul August ☎ 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Recalculated again after last-minute voting.

A note to clerks: I've just voted on the topic bans at 17.1, 18.1, 19 and 20; please recheck. — Coren (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) All votes are in and the decisions are being retallied. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Passing (strikeout means superceded) : Principles : 1 to 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12 FoF : 1 to 4, 6, 6.1, 6A, 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 12.1, 12A, 13, 13A, 13B, 14, 14.1, 14A, 15, 15.1, 15A, 16*, 16.1*, 16A, 18 to 21 Remedies : 1.1, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1*, 4.2*, 5, 7, 8, 8.2, 9, 9.1, 10, 11A, 11C#, 12, 13, 17.1, 18.1, 19, 20 Enforcement : 1 Not passing (majority not reached in italics) : Principles : 10 FoF : 5, 5.1, 7, 17, 20.1, 22 Remedies : 1, 2.2, 3.2, 5.1, 6, 6.1, 8.1, 8.1A, 11, 11B#, 14, 15*, 16*, 17, 18 Enforcement : (Clarification - marked by *) Should FoF16 be superseded by 16.1? Confirm remedy 4.2 be superseded by 4.1? Please confirm Risker is not voting on remedy 15, 16. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Should FoF16 be superseded by 16.1? - Yes. 6 supports each but 16 got one more abstention. Confirm remedy 4.2 be superseded by 4.1? - I am recused but I believe 4.2 should be superseded by 4.1. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC) My reading of this is that remedy 4 fails (Coren's vote was conditional on 4.1 failing and 4.1 has passed). So both remedy 4.1 and 4.2 pass, and they are separate remedies, not alternatives. Remedy 4.2 (the one year ban) modifies remedy 4.1 (banned until you contact us), so that it comes into effect after the one-year ban, but the one-account restriction stays. So my reading of this is that Digwuren ends up with a one-account restriction and a one-year site ban, and even after the one-year site ban expires, if he wants to return, he is required to contact us and give us the account name. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Votes updated again, changes made by FloNight on 11B & 11C, indicated in #. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) One last minute vote by me should, by my count, now push FoF 20.1 20A (renumbered to avoid confusion about it being an alternative to 20) over the line. — Coren (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, recalculating now. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Passing (strikeout means superceded) :

• Principles : 1 to 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 11, 12
• FoF : 1 to 4, 6, 6.1, 6A, 8, 9, 10, 10.1, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 12.1, 12A, 13, 13A, 13B, 14, 14.1, 14A, 15, 15.1, 15A, 16, 16.1, 16A, 18, 19, 20, 20A, 21
• Remedies : 1.1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 7, 8, 8.2, 9, 9.1, 10, 11A, 12, 13, 17.1, 18.1, 19, 20
• Enforcement : 1

Not passing (majority not reached in italics) :

• Principles : 10
• FoF : 5, 5.1, 7, 17, 22
• Remedies : 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 4 (cnd), 5.1, 6, 6.1, 8.1, 8.1A, 11, 11B, 11C, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
• Enforcement :

- Mailer Diablo 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that R2 is passing, while R2.1 is failing. Paul August ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. R2.1 never had enough votes to pass. R2 was passing with abstain votes until I changed my vote that caused it to now pass with a majority of 5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote

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 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.

Move to close. I think we have done what we can here.

Support

In anticipation of Carcharoth's remaining votes within the next 48 hours. Implementation notes have been provided to the arbcom-L mailing list, and I will ask that they be brought on-wiki. Risker (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC) On hold pending review of new evidence. Risker (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm done here. Will check back for bainer's proposals or other proposals, but otherwise this can close once the case clerk or another available clerk has re-done the implementation notes and voting is completed on some sections where little voting has taken place. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Long past time to close. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

   There are a number of new findings of fact in the case, but while they are correct I don't believe they are necessary to close the case. — Coren ^(talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

3. It seems clear that neither the most stern nor the most lenient of remedies will pass, and every participant in this case have already suffered a long and difficult case. Dragging this longer is not needed and is very unlikely to be useful. — Coren ^(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. It's time. Allow another day or two for final votes and wrap it up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
5. I have now finished voting. Support closing this now. Risker (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Same as Risker here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
7. With the additional flurry of voting in the pass 24 hours we are ready to close now. I made a few changes (11B and 11C) so please recalculate as needed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I need to review diffs and emails for Bainer's Fofs, and the other new evidence before I vote on the new proposals. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC) move to close now.

Comment

• Bainer is planning to finish voting on this case also; I'm prepared to allow a reasonable time for him to finish his review of the evidence and proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  Getting closer, thank goodness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've now voted to close and commented above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not yet given new information. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Enough time has passed. — Coren ^(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)