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

Case clerk: Seddon (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Wizardman (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 8 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; all relevant worldviews should be represented in proportion to the prevalence of views in reliable sources. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this unoptional guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

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

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Identity disputes

5) The ethnic or national identification of a given individual is a complex subject that may not have clear answers in some cases. The individual who is the subject of a biography may have, in good faith, made conflicting statements during their lifetime about their ethnicity or heritage. For the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should be sensitive to such statements by an individual, but also should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources. Where there is a conflict between these two types of sources, it may take judgment and consensus-building to find the proper balance between them.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited first sentence; Wizardman, please make sure this is okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The essence of this would be a sensible extrapolation from the biographies of living persons policy's approach to article categorisation, but as written it strays into policy-making territory for me. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Scope of case

1) The scope of the dispute between Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is biographies of Middle-Eastern persons who have been described as having more than one ethnicity and/or nationality, with Asmahan being the locus of the dispute, and editors Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs) and HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) becoming involved.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited by changing "with more than one" to "who have been described as having more than one" to avoid any perception that we are taking sides in any content or characterization dispute. Wizardman, please confirm that this is okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad's clarification is sensible. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mediation

2) Several editors tried to mediate the dispute after a request for a third opinion and an article request for comment [1], however the dispute has not been taken to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(with CE "third option" to "third opinion") Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though these users might be better described as discussion leaders rather than mediators in this case, as they participated in the substantive discussion at various points. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arab Cowboy

3) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred over the identity of Middle Eastern persons,[2][3] and has been previously blocked as a result.[4]

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Supreme Deliciousness

4) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred over the identity of Middle Eastern persons,[5][6] and has been previously blocked as a result.[7]

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personalization of dispute

5) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) appear to have personalised this dispute to the point that collaboration is no longer feasible. [8][9][10][11]

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Arab Cowboy topic banned

1) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months. He may recommend a change on the appropriate talk page, however he must provide two reliable sources to support the recommendation. Should this restriction be violated, Arab Cowboy may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

~~Second choice, prefer 1.1. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Not very keen. Too much scope for contention. Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better alternatives available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arab Cowboy topic banned

1.1) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months. Should this restriction be violated, Arab Cowboy may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

First choice. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 1.2. Risker (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Proposing a clearer alternative below. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arab Cowboy topic banned

1.2) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Arab Cowboy may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

--bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best wording. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This works. Wizardman 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Note that at this time, Arab Cowboy is not restricted from commenting on the issue on talkpages where applicable. He is prohibited from changing the characterization of the individual's ethnicity himself, based on his history of edit-warring in connection with this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this applies to any edit about a person in any article, and is not restricted to biographical articles. Risker (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arab Cowboy restricted

2) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Arab Cowboy is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to expand the BLP acronym. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm not convinced at this time that a restriction is needed outside the specific area already restricted above. Open to persuasion, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this will be needed given the other sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness topic banned

3) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months. He may recommend a change on the appropriate talk page, however he must provide two reliable sources to support the recommendation. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

~~Second choice, prefer 3.1. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Not very keen. Too much scope for contention. Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better alternatives available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Supreme Deliciousness topic banned

3.1) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

First choice. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer 3.2 Risker (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Proposing a clearer alternative below. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Supreme Deliciousness topic banned

3.2) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best wording. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This works. Wizardman 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Note that at this time, Supreme Deliciousness is not restricted from commenting on the issue on talkpages where applicable. He is prohibited from changing the characterization of the individual's ethnicity himself, based on his history of edit-warring in connection with this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this applies to any edit about a person in any article, and is not restricted to biographical articles. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Supreme Deliciousness restricted

4) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Supreme Deliciousness is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to expand the BLP acronym. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm not convinced at this time that a restriction is needed outside the specific area already restricted above. Open to persuasion, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other editing restrictions will probably be sufficient. Risker (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan

5) The article Asmahan is immediately placed under article probation for six months.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Implicitly, standard terms apply. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The remedy ought to clarify the terms of the probation, whether the standard terms (admins can page ban editors making disruptive edits) or further ones such as revert restrictions. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing a reason for this that is not already addressed by this decision, particularly after having reviewed the history of this article. Regular editorial and (where necessary) administrator actions should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I would need to be persuaded that there have been problems with this article beyond the one already addressed in this decision. Also, per Stephen Bain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protracted identity disputes

6) If protracted disputes concerning the national or ethnic identity of an individual arise in an article within the scope of this case, then the article may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months. Articles placed under article probation must be logged at [[#Log of blocks and bans]], and a notice placed on the accompanying talk page.

Support:

For completeness. Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think our definition here is sufficiently precise to make this remedy useful. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Needs rewording, per Newyorkbrad's suggestion; not persuaded this is needed, as there is no evidence produced that this is a common issue involving multiple editors across a large number of articles. Risker (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to abstain. Risker (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad's rewording is good; however the duration of the remedy also needs to be clarified. It seems as if the "for up to six months" attaches to article probations that administrators may apply, but there is no duration specified for the overall remedy. If it is to be of indefinite duration, that ought to be explicit. --bainer (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not entirely sold, but could help and very unlikely to hurt. Proposed/mulling it over. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs rephrasing, which I may (or may not) try if the drafters do not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "If protracted disputes concerning the national or ethnic identity of an individual arise in an article within the scope of this case, then the article may be..."? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Okay now with rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded per supporting comments in motion to close. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from oppose to abstain. The rewording improves the proposal significantly, although I do not see evidence that editors other than the two whose proposed remedies are already passing have been significantly involved in this form of edit-warring, so continue to feel this is somewhat moot. Risker (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary probation sanctions

7) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on articles under probation if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Support:

Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If 5 or 6 passes, then support. May need copyediting based on what else passes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not sure per above; shrunk per Vassyana at the workshop. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining, as I have opposed the remedies placing articles under probationary sanctions. Risker (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

8) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

Standard provision. Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard operation procedure. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the discretionary sanctions pass, then support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per above. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per proposed remedy 7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

9) Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Support:

Given the contentiousness a blanket reminder can be useful here. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, thing that go without saying do need to be said. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a rephrasing per Risker below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although Risker draws some useful observations. --bainer (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

It strikes me that the concern was not expressed by administrators alone, and that editors should be responsive to concerns expressed by other editors as well. Would support if wording is changed to reflect this. Risker (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Uninvolved administrators

1) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict or non-administrative conflict with affected editors. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not convinced this is necessary, as I don't think the rule here is intended to be different from in any other case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the "area of conflict" is biographies of Middle Eastern persons who may have more than one ethnicity or nationality. Risker (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

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

Support:

Modified a bit. Wizardman 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vassyana (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Proposals which pass: Principles 1-6; Findings of fact 1-5; Remedies 1.2, 2, 3.2, 4-9; Enforcements 1-2
Proposals which do not pass: No principles; No findings of fact; Remedies 1, 1.1 (alternative passes), 3, 3.1 (alternative passes); No enforcements

Updated. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Verified as correct. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 complete, with the possible exception of a rewording of remedy 6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. support rem 6. reword. Wizardman 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded remedy 6 and updated implementation notes. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have reviewed rewording of remedy 6. Now ready to close. Risker (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment

Move to close. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]