WP:ARBARG

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Timotheus Canens (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

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

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

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:

Comments:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and when disruptive, those contributors may be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit NW (Talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

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

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 01:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Casting aspersions

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with 3.1. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 01:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But may propose a copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Second choice, prefer 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the most intelligible of findings, but okay all the same. AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference over 3.1, but I'd prefer they both pass. Courcelles 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do approve of both this and 3.1, but this is my first choice due to the relevance to the case. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed copyedit (or I could offer it as an alternative) to first sentence: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this more than the original, but can we add something that also highlights the "appropriate forum" part as well? T. Canens (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my alternative, the second sentence would remain unchanged (unless someone else wants to tweak it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the original first sentence applies to both 1) repeatedly bringing accusations without evidence and 2) repeatedly bringing accusation outside the appropriate forums, with or without evidence. The rewritten first sentence emphasizes 1) but doesn't cover 2). T. Canens (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations without evidence

3.1) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the talk page of the editor they concern and/or in the appropriate forums.

Support

First choice. NYB draft, per discussion above. I've re-written the second sentence as well (because it goes straight to DR forums and bypasses talk pages). Feel free to tweak it. Roger Davies ^talk 08:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit to accommodate the opposes. Changed "initially on the talk page of the editor they concern and thereafter in the appropriate forums" to "on the talk page of the editor they concern and/or in the appropriate forums". Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit more concrete than 3; while they aren't necessarily conflicting I prefer this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with both passing. Courcelles 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. AGK [•] 19:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference with 3. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly prefer 3, but fine with both/either passing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as either second choice or as both passing, depending on whether this is intended as an alternative or supplement. NW (Talk) 12:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; lack of evidence is not, in my opinion, the key concern with the accusations in question. Kirill ^[talk] 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Raising grievances on a individual editor's talk page prior to pursuing more formal dispute resolution may be useful in certain circumstances, but it's not appropriate in every scenario, and should not be imposed as a blanket requirement. Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree with Kirill. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Kirill makes a good point here.~~ NW (Talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support. NW (Talk) 12:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Changed "and/or" to just "or", which I didn't really notice until Dank pointed it out at WT:A/R. NW (Talk) 21:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no real ambiguity so I've changed it back. Roger Davies ^talk 21:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building

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

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit too much emphasis on edit warring in this; sustained tendentious editing can be an ever bigger problem than edit warring. The thrust is good though. NW (Talk) 01:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with NuclearWarfare's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this particular dispute, we need to place grater emphasis on "sustained editorial conflict" (emphasis mine, and for "sustained" read "protracted") in this principle. However, his is genetrally fine. AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing

5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to seek broader input, for example by turning to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 01:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Talk pages

6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aim to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor CE: "aspire" to "aim". Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee

7) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor tweak to sentence 2 for flow. Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This principle is rather convoluted, but it will suffice. AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per AGK. Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit to remove "aggressive". Just POV-pushing is enough. Roger Davies ^talk 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the final clause (", either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee"). It's not really necessary here. NW (Talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor CE: flip word order. Roger Davies ^talk 01:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 05:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the discussion on the talkpage addresses my comment below, although "South America" might be more precise than "Latin America". Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The history of Argentina, certainly. I'm not sure there is strong evidence for "Latin America" more broadly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero: POV-pushing

2) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy (e.g., [1]), including by citing a source ([2][3][4]) whose reliability they themselves have disavowed ([5] [6]).

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the thrust of the finding. I understand the distinction Cambalachero was trying to draw—between a source as evidence of history, and the same source as evidence of how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time—but it doesn't seem that Cambalachero has always observed the same distinction himself. It might be useful to add a few more diffs to the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad's summary Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tip of the iceberg, but factual. NW (Talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

MarshalN20: tendentious editing and battleground conduct

3) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct ([7] [8][9]).

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic could use a break from the disputes that have troubled it. I generally support this finding (without endorsing each and every diff as 100% illustrative of it). Roger Davies ^talk 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 10:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger Davies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples noted in evidence and other pages. NW (Talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Lecen: decorum

4) Lecen (talk · contribs) has not always conducted himself with an appropriate level of decorum ([10] [11]).

Support:

I don't think this is a finding included just for the sake of having a finding, but it is borderline at most to me. I won't be terrible torn up if it doesn't pass. NW (Talk) 03:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While there are mitigating circumstances to his behavior, that doesn't change the fact that his response was less than optimal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could be more strongly worded; regardless of the merits of his position vis-à-vis the underlying dispute, Lecen has too often crossed the line into casting merely personal aspersions at his opponents. Kirill ^[talk] 08:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are similar to David's. Lecen's comments could have been better. I accept that he was baited and that should be taken into account, but the behaviour shouldn't be ignored. Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I consider Lecen to have been baited by 'civil POV-pushers'. We should ascribe his conduct to frustration, not mindlessly slam down a finding like this. AGK [•] 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per AGK. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier on the arb-wiki, I don't see a need for a finding related to this editor. Courcelles 16:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I originally proposed something similar in my first draft, but on reflection, I'm not sure that an arbitration finding is required, though the conduct is certainly less than optimal. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

In the drafting stages, some Arbitrators suggested attaching a line about this being in response to baiting and there being other mitigating circumstances. I wouldn't mind ~~seeing a finding about~~adapting the proposed finding to include mention of this, considering that Lecen's behavior is by no means the worst I have ever seen. NW (Talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cambalachero topic banned

1) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited for clarity: added "to the Arbitration Committee". AGK [•] 10:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might consider a narrower restriction, if proposed, as most of the problems seem to relate specifically to Argentina. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same problems endemic to Argentina are likely to crop up in other Latin American topics, and thus think a ban of this scope makes sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

MarshalN20 topic banned

2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.

Support:

T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited for clarity: added "to the Arbitration Committee". AGK [•] 10:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 16:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Lecen reminded

3) Lecen (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support anything stronger than a reminder, but I do support this. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill in FoF4. NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Although it would not be grossly unfair to give a mere "reminder" like this, I still do not consider it a necessary step towards resolving the actual dispute. AGK [•] 10:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per AGK. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per vote on FoF4 Courcelles 16:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Per FoF4. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed. Waiting to see more on FoF 4 before I vote here. NW (Talk) 01:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Standard Enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

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.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Decorum	10	0	0		·
3	Casting aspersions	10	0	0		-4
3.1	Accusations without evidence	10	0	0		-4
4	Consensus building	10	0	0		·
5	Sourcing	10	0	0		·
6	Talk pages	10	0	0		·
7	Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee	10	0	0		·
8	Tendentious editing	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Cambalachero: POV-pushing	10	0	0		·
3	MarshalN20: tendentious editing and battleground conduct	10	0	0		·
4	Lecen: decorum	5	3	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Cambalachero topic banned	9	0	0		·
2	MarshalN20 topic banned	9	0	0		·
3	Lecen reminded	5	3	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

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.

Support

Looks like we are done here. Everything is passing. T. Canens (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we're done. Courcelles 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to the clerk who has to figure out the mess that is P3 and P3.1. I think Tim is working on rounding up the preferences to see which we're going to pass (if not both). But yes, we are largely done. NW (Talk) 02:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to finish this with either passing or both. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments