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.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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, 0 arbitrators are recused and 1 (Filiocht) is inactive, so 8 votes are a majority.

For all items

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dschor banned from editing outside RfAr

1) As Dschor has continued to make edits relating to the pedophilia template which he was blocked for recreating and was unblocked only to respond to this case, pending resolution of this matter he is banned from editing any pages other than these Arbitration pages and his own user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other page.

Enacted on 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Raul654 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC), this needs to stop[reply]
5. Fred Bauder 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. ➥the Epopt 15:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Administrators are trusted community members

1) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators may make mistakes

2) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed

3) Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

4) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility

5) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

6) In conflicts where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

7) No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wheel warring

Original form

8) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (repeatedly performing an administrative action that has been undone by another administrator) is bad form.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (Fred suggested "Bad form" should be "unacceptable", but I disagree with making a blanket statement to that effect)[reply]
2. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), both bad and unacceptable[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, though see comment below about wording. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fails to restate existing policy Fred Bauder 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. can be better worded ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Modified form

8.1) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (repeatedly performing an administrative action that has been undone by another administrator) is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. could also be expressed as a form of edit warring, but this is fine ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Third choice. I have a quibble with the wording, though - this means that block-unblock-block isn't ever a wheel war, but that block-unblock-block-unblock-block and further variations are; this is a potential mis-match with what we actually want to say. I would hope. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raul654 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) In favor of 8.2. Raul654 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC) This finding matches neither Wikipedia:Wheel warring nor Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance; see definition which actually matches below.[reply]
2. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Third form

8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Support:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Acceptable. Raul654 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Also acceptable to me. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Acceptable, though a tad too unilateral (if someone starts deleting pages at random, and it is decided that they have gone bonkers, desysoping said individual and undeleting the pages would be perfectly acceptable, but wouldn't be permitted by a strict interpretation of this ruling). Of course, IAR comes in here, so... James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Also acceptable. - SimonP 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per James. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Fred Bauder 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Better, much better. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. ➥the Epopt 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. First choice. Mackensen (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decision making and dispute resolution

9) Decision making on Wikipedia is usually done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is open to all

Original form

10) Users are primarily judged on the basis of their edits. Permission to edit Wikipedia shall never be revoked solely because of an editor's race, religious belief, political affiliation, status of criminal accusation, conviction, or confinement, sex, or sexual preference.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not our actual practice, we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious way. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • we would exclude them for their presentation, not for having a belief or a biological characteristic: if an otherwise-acceptable editor were discovered through non-Wikipedia means to be a Nazi or a Communist, we would not ban them solely for that discovery ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. prefer 10.2 ➥the Epopt 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. No; it's a nice thought and in general holds, but this is too open to problematic interpretation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

holding off while discussing this with Jimbo ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), prefer 10.2[reply]
2. I'll stick with the charter wording. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modified form

10.1) Wikipedia permits anonymous editing by anyone. Should a user's opinions or history become known to the community, unless the user presents themselves in a grossly unacceptable way, they may continue to edit.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. prefer 10.2 ➥the Epopt 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), prefer 10.2[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I'll stick with the charter wording. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation's words

10.2) It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Raul654 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Harm to the project has to be the standard.[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

User pages

11) While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Slight grammatical tweak. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jimbo as the ultimate authority

12) Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects, as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Jimbo acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo. Users who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including banning and desysopping, particularly temporary ("emergency") desysopping.

Support

1. Kinda wordy, but blame Essjay... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Less wordy now, but it was my intent not to change the meaning except to clarify. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Note that I've corrected it from referring to technical means into talking about the actual orders. James F. (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Perhaps it's a little ambiguous, but that's because it's the current state of affairs, and doesn't make the principle any less correct. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I agree with everything so far, but I'd like some kind of clarification on how someone is to know when Jimbo is acting as an ordinary user and when he's acting as project leader - such as "assume Jimbo is acting as an ordinary user unless he specifically states otherwise" or something along those lines. Raul654 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The thing is, this ends up being a question like "how do you know when someone is acting in good faith" - in the end, if you can't tell, then you're probably not the person to make the call and revert him. James F. (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't remember seeing "mind reader" on the qualifications required to become an admin. Most admins can make the right call most of the time, (and, in point of fact, I suspect Karmafist almost certainly knew Jimbo was acting in his role as founder and not as an ordinary admin) but it's only a matter of time until someone reverses Jimbo, under the assumption that he was acting as an ordinary admin when he was acting as founder. Are we to automatically jump to the conclusion that they were wheeling warring? Raul654 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Abstain for now. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of the dispute

1) Following creation of a pedophile userbox, a vehement wheel war occured between multiple administrators early on February 6, 2006. Details of the dispute can be found on the evidence page (as summarized by the Arbitration Committee Clerks).

Support:

1. Raul654 16:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Desysopping

2) The dispute culminated with Jimbo Wales blocking Joeyramoney for a week, and (following consultation with available members of the Arbitration Committee) temporarily desysopping 5 administrators involved in the wheel war, for their actions during the wheel war. Those administrators were Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Borghunter's comments to David Gerard

3) Borghunter's comments on David Gerard's talk page [1] were both highly inappropriate and needlessly patronizing, to the point of absurdity constituting a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. (Borghunter has subsequently expressed contrition for the vandalism template [2])

Support:

1. Raul654 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. absurdity is not a violation, so specify what was violated ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The apology helps, IMO. BorgHunter appears to sincerely accept this was the wrong way to make his point. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though I'm not sure how terribly relevant this is considering he apologized. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recreation of deleted template under new name

4) Paroxysm created Template:User paedophile in order to "sidestep admin abuse", the repeated deletion of Template:User pedophile by multiple other admins. This action was disruptive and served only to escalate the wheel war.

Support:

1. Raul654 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 23:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ashibaka's actions

5) Ashibaka's actions - restoring Template:User pedophile three times and Template:User paedophile twice - were highly counterproductive.

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. second choice ➥the Epopt 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Raul654 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) - in favor of 5.1[reply]

9. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

... were wheel warring

5.1) Ashibaka's actions - restoring Template:User pedophile three times and Template:User paedophile twice - constitute wheel warring, and were highly counterproductive.

Support:

1. This needs to be explicitly stated. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fine by me. Raul654 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. first choice ➥the Epopt 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. This version much preferred. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Much better. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, better. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Carnildo's blocks

6) For statements he interpreted as hate speech, Carnildo indefinitely blocked three users with long, well established reputations - Carbonite, El C and Giano. This constitutes an abuse of admin powers.

Support:

1. Raul654 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

El C's block

7) After being indefinitely blocked by Carnildo (see FOF 6), and subsequently unblocked by The Land, El C retaliated against Carnildo by blocking Carnildo for 24 hours (block reason: "WP:POINT"), and made an uncivil comment on Carnildo's talk page [3]. This block was subsequently removed by The Land.

Support:

1. Raul654 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. El C's comments on the matter were also ill-advised. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. SimonP 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not clear this was retaliation; Carnildo appeared out of control, and needed to be slowed down. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The Land's actions

8) The Land (talk · contribs) unblocked several users, in an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to de-escalate the wheel war. For this the Arbitration Committee commends him for his effort.

Support:

1. Raul654 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agreed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. I reworded it somewhat. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Indeed. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Karmafist's wheel warring with Jimbo

9) Jimbo Wales blocked Joeyramoney for a week, and Karmafist subsequently intentionally removed the block. (After which, Jimbo desysopped him).

Support:

1. Raul654 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dschor's recreation of the Pedophilia template

10) The day following the incident, Dschor created Template:User pedo, an extremely similar version of the original pedophile userbox (The original having said "This user identifies as a pedophile." whereas Dschor's version said "This user is interested in pedophilia.")

Support:

1. Raul654 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (altered the wording 17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

SPUI's recreation of the Pedophilia template

11) In the week following the original incident, SPUI created Template:User paedo. It was intended as a spoof, but was also calculated to cause disruption. (The template read: "OMG!!! This user has been attracted to underage females while not underage himself! This user should be banned!")

Support

1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Raul654 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. SimonP 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

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.

El C

... is to have his sysop flag restored

1) Given his minor role in the incident, and mitigating circumstances (having been improperly blocked by Carnildo), El C's sysop powers are to be restored at the end of this case.

Support:

1. Raul654 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Even sooner. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. SimonP 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I can't support this. El C's immediately subsequent blocking of Carnildo combined with his inflammatory comment lead me to believe he is also guilty of the same sort of warring. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... is desysoped and will be reappointed after one week

1.1) For El C's block of Carnildo after The Land's unblocking of everyone Carnildo blocked (including El C), as well as his accusatory comment (both of which escalated the situation), El C is to remain desysopped one week after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.

Support:

1. I think that so long as we are making the statement that wheel warring is Not Done, we must recognize that El C's actions escalated the situation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moved from abstain. I don't mind this or 1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is perhaps better. We really shouldn't give anything but a strong signal against such things. James F. (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice for now, still thinking about this. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. What he did was incorrect so some, mild, punishment is probably in order. - SimonP 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No. Raul654 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. No. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... is desysoped and can reapply after one week

1.2) For El C's block of Carnildo after The Land's unblocking of everyone Carnildo blocked (including El C), as well as his accusatory comment (both of which escalated the situation), El C is to remain desysopped one week after this case is closed. He is then free to reapply for administrative privileges in the normal manner.

Support:

1. I think that so long as we are making the statement that wheel warring is Not Done, we must recognize that El C's actions escalated the situation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Vehemently oppose. Raul654 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unnecessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, agreed, unnecessary. James F. (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong opposition. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

BorgHunter

2) For his role in the case (and taking into account his subsequent apology to David Gerard) BorgHunter's sysop powers are to be restored 2 days after the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Raul654 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 03:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Why is this he "may request"? I'd favor "are to be restored" as in #1. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant - I guess I didn't quite phrase it right. I've fixed it. Raul654 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paroxysm

3) While one could argue Paroxysm's original creation of Template:user pedophile was done in good faith without realizing the possible consequences (as David Gerard concluded), his recreation of the template (in the form of template:User paedophile) cannot be so excused. Paroxysm is banned from Wikipedia for 3 days.

Support:

1. Raul654 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Carnildo

... is desysoped and will be reappointed after two weeks

4) For his actions in this case (demonstrating particularly bad judgement in permanently blocking 3 other well-estalished users without prior warning for reasons that are - at best - disputable), Carnildo is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.

Support:

1. Either this or 4.2 Raul654 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. distant second choice ➥the Epopt 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. second choice Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Distant second choice for me. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Third choice Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. Normally I don't like this sort of remedy, reinstating without reapplication, but I consider this a "cool down and get your head straight" measure for someone who has ordinarily not been problematic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second choice. - SimonP 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Second choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

... is desysoped and can reapply after two weeks

4.1) For his actions in this case (demonstrating particularly bad judgement in permanently blocking 3 other well-established users without prior warning for reasons that are - at best - disputable), Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges

Support:

1. first choice ➥the Epopt 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. first choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. first choice Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Blocking three established users in this manner is a severe misuse of administrative privileges. His being a long term admin only makes this worse, because he should have known better. His not wheel-warring once they were unblocked counts significantly towards my support for his reapplication for administrative privileges, but since he abused them greatly I believe the community should reapprove his keeping administrator privileges. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Since he continues to maintain that indefinitely blocking two admins in good standing and without warning was right. [4] Dmcdevit·t 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. I can support this, but dubiously, given the general atmosphere of RfA lately. If I had more trust in the process I would be more secure in signing this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. - SimonP 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Yes, he made a big mistake in blocking them. Human beings are known to make mistakes now and again. BUT - to my knowledge, he has no history of making mistakes like this, and he did not compound that error by digging in his heels when they were unblocked by others. As a long time admin, should we not, perhaps, cut him some slack? Raul654 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... is desysoped and can reapply after two weeks if he apologises

4.2) For his actions in this case (demonstrating particularly bad judgement in permanently blocking 3 other well-established users without prior warning for reasons that are - at best - disputable), Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges in the normal manner, provided he presents an apology and admission of wrongdoing to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. Raul654 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Though it does feel a tad like we're asking him to "sit on the naughty step". James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. He can speak for himself if he chooses to; if we're going to bring this back to the community then they can decide whether what he has done merits continued trust or not. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Mindspillage. - SimonP 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Voluntary apologies are good; involuntary apologies are bad. They are never sincere, and always create deep resentment in the person forced to fake an expression of repentance. ➥the Epopt 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. As per the Epopt. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Outward forms of penitence are not worth ruling on. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ashibaka

5) For his actions in this case (as a particularly egregious wheel warrior), Ashibaka is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.

Support:

1. Raul654 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. distant second choice only choice; I am persuaded ➥the Epopt 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mackensen (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fred Bauder 05:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm inclined to cut Ashibaka a little slack here, but won't be so forgiving in future. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice, per Morven. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. I don't normally like this sort of remedy, but I consider this a "cool down and get your head straight" matter. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SimonP 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Change vote. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5.1) For his actions in this case (as a particularly egregious wheel warrior), Ashibaka is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges.

Support:

first choice ➥the Epopt 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First choice. Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Strongly oppose. Based on his comments, he's almost a brand-new admin who (I believe) realizes he made a mistake. I don't think he'll be making the same mistake. Raul654 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Community review shoudn't hurt then; I trust RFA. --Neutrality^talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Fred Bauder 05:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. As Raul; there is no pattern established, either, and newbies of all types deserve leniency. And he has acknowledged it was wrong and expressed remorse. Might go for a longer desysopping, but this is too much. Dmcdevit·t 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am persuaded ➥the Epopt 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agreed. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. SimonP 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Editors have expressed their concerns to me about this. --Neutrality^talk 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Changing to abstain for the moment. Mackensen (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dschor

6) Although Dschor maintains that his recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was done in good faith, his apparently self-contradictory justification ("I am not an administrator, and therefore was unable to view the deleted templates ... [I] made my template as a good faith effort to craft a more neutral pedophilia template" [5]) is unconvincing, particularly in light of his behavior prior to and during the case [6]. Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.

Support:

1. Raul654 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. prefer 6.1 ➥the Epopt 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Prefer 6.1, which I feel to be more representative of Dschor's actions. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer 6.1, but would live with this passing. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 6.1. - SimonP 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer 6.1 Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6.1) Dschor's recreation of a similar version of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish and purposefully inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, Dschor can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.

Support:

1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (clarified wording 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
2. Fine by me. Raul654 18:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Karmafist

... is desysoped and will be reappointed after two weeks

7) For wheel-warring with Jimbo Wales, Karmafist is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.

Support:

1. Raul654 18:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. prefer 7.1 ➥the Epopt 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. No; wheel warring against Jimbo is such an egregious violation of common sense and community expectations that I can't see us really having the moral mandate in giving his privileges back to him. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Karmafist has a history of using admin powers without due consideration; I think he should not be automatically reinstated without community input. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not enough. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

... is desysoped and can reapply after two weeks

7.1) For wheel-warring with Jimbo Wales, Karmafist is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which he may reapply for sysop powers (via wikipedia:Requests for adminship).

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per James above. This needs to be made clear. Support either motion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I have seen no evidence of misconduct prior to this dispute. Would be willing to reconsider my position if I were shown such evidence. Raul654 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   There is no substantial evidence presented against Karmafist. In the interests of getting this case through quickly, we should leave Karmafist to another day. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]

Dschor and Paroxysm enjoined from userboxes

8) Dschor and Paroxysm are prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage)

Support:

1. Raul654 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Though I'd prefer "All Wikipedians are ...". If nothing else, more time would be spent working on the encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. ➥the Epopt 15:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. SimonP 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reprimands

... for Carbonite, El C, BorgHunter, MarkSweep, and Violetriga

9) Carbonite, El C, BorgHunter, MarkSweep, and Violetriga are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools, and are instructed to exercise more caution in using them in the future.

Support:

1. Those who we've deemed require no more direct remedy after this case is over shouldn't get off scot-free. They were still wrong and we need to send that message. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As I commented elsewhere, "Until someone can suggest to me a realistic alternative for what Violetriga and Marksweep should have done I will strongly oppose this proposal." No one has suggested such an alternative. Raul654 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Raul654 here. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Raul654. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with Raul654 on Violetriga and MarkSweep; however, I do believe El C acted inappropriately, and to a lesser degree Carbonite. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Possibly. James F. (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... for Carbonite, El C, and BorgHunter

9.1) Carbonite, El C, and BorgHunter are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools, and are instructed to exercise more caution in using them in the future.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I concur. Raul654 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. At least. James F. (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. SimonP 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

SPUI

... is banned for two months and placed on Probation

10) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.

Support

1. Same as for Dschor Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Needs to stop. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. As if we needed people to snowball the issue. Bucking for martyrdom on this. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. A ban is unnecessary. James F. (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. A ban of this length is unnecessary - would support a short ban. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I'm on the fence. SPUI does an odd mixture of good work (for instance, the Pulaski Skyway featured article and on other transport-articles) and blatant trolling. Probation is in order, but I disagree with the ban. Raul654 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   We got through three arbitration cases with Wik using that argument. Now I'm not saying SPUI is the new Wik, but you see my point. I don't see why we'd treat SPUI more lightly than Dschor. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The point about Dschor is a valid concern. (1) Based on their respective contributions, I think you'd be hard pressed to put SPUI on the same level as Dschor, and (2) I think Dschor took a much more active role in this dispute, based on Doc Glascow's evidence. Raul654 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. As Raul. Would support probation. Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... is placed on Probation

10.1) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposefully inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.

Support

1. This would be sufficient, I think. James F. (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Raul654 00:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I really think this is too little for what amounts to purposeful trolling. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Considering his intentional continuation of this affair, and not only creating it but having it on his user page, the rest of his user page trolling resulting in it's deletion (highly unusual), and the fact that this is all after everything we've seen so far, I find SPUI's actions particularly egregious, and at least as ban-worthy as Dschor. Dmcdevit·t 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. far, far too light — SPUI saw the way this case was going, and carefully, flagrantly, and maliciously chose to join those who we are working to remedy ➥the Epopt 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Compromise proposal

10.2) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 10 days. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.

Support

1. Raul654 17:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Good compromise. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support compromise, if only because he does do a good deal of useful things when he's not trolling. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support this one. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. A tad too long, but I'll live. James F. (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. considerably too short, but I'll live also ➥the Epopt 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. SimonP 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Charles Matthews 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

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.

1. Everything has passed. Time to move on. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Raul654 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. close ➥the Epopt 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. Charles Matthews 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Close. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, for now; I think a day's more reflection would help. James F. (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]