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 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 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.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

Intervention

1) When a user, especially a previously uninvolved administrator, attempts to intervene in a dispute, requesting sources for disputed facts, removing unsourced information, adding ((fact)) templates and making other reasonable attempts to end the dispute and mobilize user's cooperation in the creation of a verifiable NPOV article, it is not acceptable to simply revert them and treat them as another disputant.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ownership of articles

2) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles prohibits exclusive control of articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tendentious editors may be banned

3) Editors who disrupt the editing of articles by aggressively editing in a point of view way may be banned from the affected articles and in extreme cases from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Adequate sourcing of information

5) In order for information to be included in Wikipedia it must have been published in a reliable source. Sources should be cited routinely and must be should a question arise, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Information included in the article should be linked in some transparent way with specific pages in the source cited.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and discourtesy

6) Especially among users with a history of conflict, personal courtesy is required as a condition of participation on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Responsibilities of administrators

7) Wikipedia administrators are expected to conform to important Wikipedia policies. Egregious violations of Wikipedia policies may result in removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevent here. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Agree, but don't think this finding is relevant in this case.[reply]
  2. SimonP 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC), agree with Jayjg[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I agree with Jayjg.[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is Rajput and related articles. There is an "Hindus only" version and a "Muslims too" version. They can be seen side by side here.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sustained edit warring

2) Rajput was the site of sustained edit warring between the two factions until Dbachmann's intervention [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbachmann's intervention

3) Following an intense edit war between the two factions Dbachmann protected the page on Dec 14, 2005 [2]. He unprotected on Dec 17 [3]. Added a reference section [4] (no coordination between passages in the text and passages in the references). He then marked a number of passages with the ((fact)) template [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Shivraj Singh rejects Dbachmann's intervention

4) Dbachmann's intervention was rejected by Shivraj Singh who restored the Hindus only version including a long list of "references", none coordinated with the text of the article [6]. Dbachmann reverted [7] with the comment "have you ever even seen a "References" section?". Shivraj Singh reverts without comment [8] and went on editing as though nothing had happened. Wisesabre then reverted to Dbachmann's version [9]. Back to Hindus only version [10]. DPSingh then joined in, reverting to the Hindus only version [11] with the comment "rv to Shivraj Singh's article". This pattern has continued for about a week, the last reversion to the Hindus only version being made by DPSingh on December 24 [12]. At that point Zora restored "a more neutral version" [13] which seemed to end the intense revert war. However, following that time editing has been dominated by Shivraj Singh who has essentially recreated the article in its Hindu only form [14].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Inadequate citation of sources

5) Although cited by Shivraj Singh as being adequate [15], the references cited at Rajput in the Hindus only version [16], most of which are not readily available to English speaking users outside of India are inadequate in that there is no designation of specific language on specific pages. The alternative Muslims too (also advanced by Dbachmann [17]) version is only marginally better [18] with no page numbers but consisting mostly of books an English speaker might conveniently access. There is little if any overlap.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I checked my university library, which is in Canada, and I could find most of these works, even the non-English ones. Moreover I'm uncomfortable about the insistence on English language sources. If we really want to be an encyclopedia that appeals to academics, we can't simply ban non-English sources. The lack of page references and ISBNs is a major concern, however. - SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I cannot support any deprecation of non-English language sources ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative form

5.1) Although cited by Shivraj Singh as being adequate [19], the references cited at Rajput in the Hindus only version [20], are inadequate in that there is no designation of specific language on specific pages of the references which corresponds to specific language in the text. The alternative Muslims too (also advanced by Dbachmann [21]) version also lacks any transparent sourcing of language in the text with identified language in the proferred references.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Falls short of the standard required when issues are as contended as this, although we do not require such for non-controversial cases. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DPSingh RfC concerning Dbachmann

6) DPSingh supported by other users of the Hindu only faction created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2). This RfC was rejected by the community as ill-founded. However there was no change in the behavior of the Hindu only faction and this arbitration was requested.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Possible sockpuppets

7) The ip addresses used by Shivraj Singh created Shreeharsha123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Srichandp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Alidiare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shirazian69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sroy05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The ip addresses used by DPSingh have created Gowtham.Subex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nithya.balu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sudha_reddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fuzzyworm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bala_sona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MatthieuChevrier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matthieu_Chevrier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dallaskim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Derekk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has edited under the names Matthieu_Chevrier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Russellkent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The ip addresses used by Sisodia have created Yusufzai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and edited as Khakhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gurkhaboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kunwarji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Gorkhali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same user, see [22].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks and discourtesy

8) The Hindus only faction has been discourteous and made personal attacks on Islamic editors, see /Workshop.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Expression of ethnic contempt by Dbachmann

9) Dbachmann has expressed his contempt for Indian users of Wikipedia, saying "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. [ eliding in original].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wiki-stress showing through, but the language is not just intemperate. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Unclear that this is an actual expression of ethnic contempt; it seems more an expression of exasperation at the actions of a small number of POV-pushing, sockpuppeting, edit warriors, by an admin who has been censured, rather than supported, for trying to end edit-warring between two factions.[reply]
  2. SimonP 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Certainly the wrong thing to say, but I don't think you can read this as an expression of contempt for all Indian users.[reply]
  3. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure I can unambigiously determine that this is an expression of true ethnic contempt, rather than a frustrated intemperate remark that User:Dbachmann should not have made and I'm sure realises he should not have made. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Agree with SimonP and Jayjg that Dbachmann was expressing his contempt at a specific group of people, but it's still an unfortunate remark.[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Shivraj Singh banned from Rajput

1) Shivraj Singh (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DPSingh banned from Rajput

2) DPSingh (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gurkhaboy banned from Rajput

3) Gurkhaboy (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

"Hindus only side" users banned from Rajput

4) All users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC), but I want to be explicit that we are not saying that the "Hindu only viewpoint" is banned from this article, only that this group of individuals who tried to push that viewpoint are.[reply]
  3. what SimonP said ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

NPOV reminder

5) All editors of Rajput are reminded of the necessity to more or less follow the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Advocates of an Islamic point of view are specially reminded that Rajput is a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dbachmann commended

6) Dbachmann is commended for his efforts to intervene in this matter and for his extra effort in bringing this Arbitration.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC), though it is dissapointing that only he chose to present evidence in this case, and I worry that this may slant our views.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
# —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Commend any admin who undertakes such a thankless intervention. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Despite the above. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ... and Dbachmann snatches defeat from the jaws of victory ... ➥the Epopt 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Efforts in solving the initial problem were good, but should have avoided making that controversial comment, even out of frustration, which was intemperate at best, and has been interpreted by some as an expression of ethnic contempt.[reply]
  2. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As Jayjg.[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann desysopped

6) Dbachmann is desysopped for forcefully expressing ethnic contempt.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) As I noted above in the finding, it is not clear that this is really an expression of ethnic contempt.[reply]
  2. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) It was definitely a wrong thing to say, even if not ethnic contempt, but I don't agree that this is sufficient to desysop.[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC), agree with Matthew[reply]
  4. I have been persuaded ➥the Epopt 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Significantly poor judgement in words. Not in trust to not abuse the position of sysop, however. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

1) Any party banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

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. Close Fred Bauder 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close SimonP 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More