all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
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.
On this case, no Arbitrator(s) are recused and 5 are inactive, so 9 out of 14 arbitrators are available and 5 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
2) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
3) Engaging in a pattern of disruptive and unproductive talk page comments, reverts, misuse of userspace for attacks, and other such abuses for the intent of harassing other editors is unacceptable.
4) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
1) SqueakBox has engaged in many severe personal attacks against other editors, particlularly against Zapatancas. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
2) Zapatancas has made frequent personal attacks, particularly against SqueakBox. [6] [7] [8] [9]
3) SqueakBox and Zapatancas have engaged in a sustained edit war for many months on many articles related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. See article histories of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero [10], Zapatero's foreign policy [11] Zapatero's years as an opposition leader [12], etc. They have also engaged in petty edit warring over style and spelling (eg [13] and [14]).
4) SqueakBox's and Zapatanca's consistently uncivil behavior towards each other and assumptions of bad faith for a sustained period of time, as well as personally-motivated edit warring and even userpage vandalism (Zapatancas vandalizes SqueakBox [15] [16] [17]; SqueakBox vandalizes Zapatancas [18] [19] [20]) demonstrate campaigns of mutual harassment.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) For personal attacks, edit warring, and harassment, SqueakBox and Zapatancas are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.
2) SqueakBox and Zapatancas are banned from editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles for one year. If either violates this ban, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.
3) SqueakBox and Zapatancas are placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If either makes any edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith.
1) Bans under this decision may be enforced by brief blocks, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans.
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.
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.