Revision as of 18:34, 25 May 2009

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

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

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Mass delinking injunction

1) Effective immediately, all editors must cease automated or semi-automated linking or delinking of dates until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

Support:

1. Proposed. (now second choice) Wizardman 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice, proposing 1.1 to make the wording a little clearer. See my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking

1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).

Support:

1. Proposed. First choice. I am not at all certain what, if any, action by the committee should result from this case. However, I can agree that it would make little sense for us to carefully consider the case while events took place that could potentially render it virtually moot. I gather from the statements that most mass-delinking efforts have reportedly already been put on hold, so hopefully this injunction will not overly restrict anyone's actually intended activities during what I hope will be a relatively short time in which the case will be pending. I have revised the wording of the initial injunction proposed by Wizardman to make it more explicit that it applies to all sides of the dispute and that it is a temporary precautionary measure not reflecting prejudgment of the merits. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case promptly so that a decision may be reached as quickly as possible which will supersede the temporary injunction.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I have no problem with this one. (first choice) Wizardman 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Risker (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
8. --ROGER DAVIES  06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Without prejudice to the outcome of the case. Although the injunction has already been enacted I wanted to indicating my support for it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Sam. I support the injunction. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Injunction enacted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Means of contributing

2) Contributors to Misplaced Pages may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wiki-gnoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and our progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Misplaced Pages policies, in any or all of these areas.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Although this should not be interpreted as making any judgement whatsoever regarding any relative valuation among different types of contributions. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. In particular, "ranking" the relative value of contributors according which which area they concentrate in is anathema to a volunteer project. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

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

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

User conduct

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-warring is harmful

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

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I appreciate the points raised below, but I feel the last sentance is especially important to highlight. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Redundant to #6 below. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill,  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Could be combined with 6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Editorial process

6) Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

7.1) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

7.2) Editors who become involved in disputes on Misplaced Pages should seek to actively engage in the procedures detailed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Redundant to #7.1 above. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I prefer the more detailed version. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional styles

8) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned an British 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.

Support:

1. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. States the Community norm as I understand it. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Mulling over wording. Wizardman 02:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Authority of policies and guidelines

9) The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I agree that an overly mechanical application of the rules is highly undesirable, but I fear that, as phrased, this is far too open to abuse. I am also uncomfortable with the expression in terms of authority, behavior regulation and conduct suppression. I would support something along the lines of explaining the rules are principles and the need to use common sense, discouraging blind implementation of the letter of the rules. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

   By my understanding, not applying rules for the sake of applying rules is a strong wiki ethos. We really don't want admins to enforce the letter of the rules when it is not needed to fix a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

   Please note that I explicitly agree with that sentiment in my comments. I am just extremely uncomfortable with this particular proposal. --Vassyana (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Alternative proposal offered below.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. In favor of the alternate. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not convinced this is useful here. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

9.1 Authority of policies and guidelines

9.1) Policies and guidelines exist to facilitate the smooth running of the project. However, they should be applied with common sense and over-rigid or over-zealous implementation can be more disruptive than the behaviour that they are intended to discourage.

Support

1.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Ok. Kirill  07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Wizardman 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. It concerns me that this does not go far enough to stop newbie biting. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Obsessional point of view

10) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The alternative is more felicitous. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not convinced this is useful here. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. This wording is from a prior ruling that passed. It is also offered by an arb in another case that will be posted soon-ish. But maybe we can re-word to lose the word obsessive. That is a heavy word. Let me look for a similar worded proposal that speaks to tendentious editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Flonight. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

10.1) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be banned from the affected areas. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

1. From Zeq case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. True, but not really relevant; differing opinions on style are not a "point of view" in the sense the term is normally used. Kirill  07:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

11.1) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Misplaced Pages. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

Support:

1. Third choice. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Third choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Taking "appropriate editing" in the literal sense, as opposed to the broader meaning it often carries on Misplaced Pages. Second choice. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Third choice.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 11.4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

11.2) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Misplaced Pages. It consists of standards to be followed and guidance where no firm requirements have been developed. It should use terminology throughout that differentiates the two, such as using MUST and SHOULD respectively. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'm unwilling to draw any conclusions from the choice of words in the Manual, given that the text itself tends to be unstable at best. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

11.3) The Manual of Style is a style guide, providing a set of standards for editing on Misplaced Pages. It must be stable and prescriptive elements should have broad consensus. Where there is not broad consensus, the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Third choice. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Third choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Taking "appropriate editing" in the literal sense, as opposed to the broader meaning it often carries on Misplaced Pages. First choice. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 11.4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

11.4) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Misplaced Pages. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. I agree with Vassyana that the MOS is sometimes lacking, but that's a flaw in the MOS itself and not in the principle. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I do not believe that the Manual of Style consistantly follows this convention, thus I find this misleading. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Style is not a pillar

12) The encyclopedia has five pillars; style is not one of them.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The first pillar—"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia"—implicitly requires us to write in a style appropriate to an encyclopedia; beyond that, I'm uncertain what the intended import of this principle might be. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. While I appreciate the sentiment that style requirements are not among the core binding rules of Misplaced Pages, I also appreciate the fact that as an encyclopedia project that our articles need to possess an encyclopedic presentation and tone. --Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Style should be given some weight.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. And encyclopedia derives part of its value and usefulness from being a solid work of reference— part of that comes from consistency of style. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style

13.1) A guideline such as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates can be changed by the Misplaced Pages community; see the policy on how policies are decided, which provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter.

Support:

1. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. First choice.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

13.2)The Manual of Style is a standard developed and changed by the Misplaced Pages community in accordance with how policies and guidelines are decided. Prescriptive elements should have broad consensus, and where there is not broad consensus the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Wizardman 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Redundant to the various forms of #11 above. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Role of bots and scripts

14) Bots are processes that modify Misplaced Pages content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fait accompli

15) Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7. (with minor copy edit)  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Responsibilities of bot operators

16) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools, such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

BAG

17) Members of the Bot Approvals Group are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; members are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of BAG status.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

MediaWiki developers

18) The projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as the English Misplaced Pages project, are run on the MediaWiki software, which is an open source project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

As it is an open source project, anyone may participate in the improvement of the software, by way of patches, however these changes are subject to approval by the core MediaWiki development team. The software developers have competing priorities, as the software is used in projects other than Misplaced Pages, which have differing needs.

The MediaWiki development team are part of the Wikimedia community, however their development work is beyond the jurisdiction of the English Misplaced Pages community and its Arbitration Committee, and changes to the software are binding on the projects. The paid development team is answerable to the Foundation, and the Board influences the development priorities based on the needs of the projects, of which English Misplaced Pages is only one of many. Bug reports, feature requests, complaints and concerns should be lodged at the appropriate forums, such as Bugzilla, mediawiki.org, mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta.wikimedia.org for larger problems, with each of these forums having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Kirill is correct that the community is not obligated to use features provided by the software; but the process of it being written nevertheless lies outside Misplaced Pages. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too simplistic. Changes to software are binding only in the sense that we have no control over what software might be running on the servers; the editorial community remains free to not use certain software features if they do not wish to do so, despite the developers having added said features. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. True, but not complete. Kirill is correct in as much that WP-en does not use every feature in the software. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

System administrators

19) System administrators are responsible for the MediaWiki software configuration of the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as English Misplaced Pages. They make changes to configuration based on a mix of Wikimedia Foundation, technical and project considerations. While their decisions may affect the English Misplaced Pages, those decisions are are binding on the projects and beyond the jurisdiction of the English Misplaced Pages community and its Arbitration Committee. The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions at meta forums, such as Bugzilla, #wikimedia-tech , and wikitech-l, and foundation-l or meta.wikimedia.org, each having their own processes and customs which should be respected.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As above; the decisions in question are not binding in any sense of interest to us. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Again true, but I see Kirill's point. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Open source

20) The software used by the English Misplaced Pages project is open source software and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable, however it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers who are in short supply is not acceptable. Developers are volunteers, and at no time is it acceptable to expect them to fix non-critical problems.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. But change or cut last sentence. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The last sentence seems to suggest that developers only work on critical tasks. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill. Wizardman 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

20.1) The software used by the English Misplaced Pages project is open source software and may be improved by anyone, by way of bug reports, design documents, code patches, technical documentation, etc. Fair criticism of open source software is acceptable, however it is incumbent on everyone to participate in building a better mousetrap. Deriding the developers who are in short supply is not acceptable; they are volunteers, and may have priorities other than fixing non-critical problems.

Support:

1. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. John Vandenberg 11:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality

21) The MediaWiki software used on the Wikimedia projects, and configuration of that software, is the responsibility of the developers and system administrators. In the same way that system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality is a technical decision, and implementation of that decision may have technical implications that need to be considered. The project community should engage the technical team in decisions which relate to use the software.

Policies, procedures and the manual of style may govern how and when the software may be used, however decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff. Likewise, decisions which will involve large scale changes (e.g. hundreds of thousands of pages), should be thoroughly discussed with the technical team, at venues like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical), due to concerns of appropriateness and efficiency.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The developers will tell us if something we're doing is causing problems; in the absence of any indication from them that that's the case, however, the editorial community is free to use, or not use, any software features the developers have made available at its discretion. Kirill  23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Again I see both points of view stated. Is this relevant to this case specifically in a way that we need to highlight the tech team instead of discussion at the Village Pump? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The longstanding dispute in this case is a disagreement between two groups of editors on the issue of linking dates. It encompasses the MediaWiki "dynamic dates" functionality (a.k.a. date autoformatting, and "DA") and the utility of the linking of dates.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Accurate description of the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Style locked in dispute

2) Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has been disputed on various forums since a straw poll at WT:MOSNUM in August 2008 resulted in dynamic dates being considered deprecated by the community. This page in the manual of style was taken to MfD on November 20, 2008, and has been protected from editing due to the unresolved dispute since November 18, 2008.

A merge of Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Misplaced Pages:Build the Web into Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) occurred on January 11, 2009, stabilising the following day, however this resulted in further disputes on these pages requiring page protection, and spread to templates Template:MoS-guideline, Template:Guideline_list, and Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines and shortcuts WP:CONTEXT, WP:BTW and WP:BUILD.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Accurate description of the background. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

RFCs have not resolved the dispute

3.1) The RFCs to date have not resolved the date delinking dispute.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Wizardman 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 3.2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. 3.2 is more accurate. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

3.2) Two RFCs held in December 2008 reaffirmed that date autoformatting is undesirable, and that WP:OVERLINKing of dates is not desirable, however consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. Wizardman 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Engagement of technical staff

4) While it is appropriate for community members to discontinue use of autoformatting, and for essays, guidelines and the manual of style to outline the problems associated with the autoformatting feature, the decision to decommission this functionality, and the mass delinking of dates from all articles in mainspace should have involved the technical staff, due to the size and resources used to perform such a large change. A request to disable mw:Manual:$wgUseDynamicDates was not initiated.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comments on the associated principles. The developers are never shy about letting us know if something we're doing is a problem; we do not need to seek their approval for routine editorial decisions. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure that "should" is the best choice if wording here. If someone decides that the technical staff needs to be alerted then they can do it. I'm not convinced that any particular user would be expected to do it before making the changes. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of issues

5) Deprecation of autoformatting and date-delinking have been problematically conflated in this dispute. While both sides of the date debate have conflated the issues, consensus for the deprecation of autoformatting has been abused as consensus for mass date delinking.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. While I appreciate Kirill's point, I believe this is correct. While they are related issues, they are not identical issues. Additionally, I do not accept that mass delinking is the automatic conclusion of deprecating autoformatting. For example, a link format change could be a possibility instead of delinking. Conflation and polarization are important elements to note in this situation. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Given that most date linking was in place only to support auto-formatting, it's implicit that deprecating auto-formatting would involve delinking a great many dates. The conflation has really been between total delinking and delinking only of links due to auto-formatting. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with Kirill that the conflation is, in the main, justified in that date have been historically linked because of autoformatting. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to re-read the arguments on both sides before I decide to support a statement that appears to be harsher with one side of the dispute by drawing conclusions of abuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug 4582

6) bug 4582 was raised in January 2006 to allow dates to be autoformatted without a causing "WP:OVERLINKing" (a "sea of blue"). This bug is more relevant to wiki projects other than Misplaced Pages, especially where the project has little need for "month day" pages, or even "year" pages.

Due to the English Misplaced Pages Date debate, and the complexity of the problem, the bug was conflated with many issues, suggestions and feature requests. A number of these suggestions were built by developer Bill Clark between September 2008 and November 2008. During the course of this arbitration case, user:Werdna resolved this bug by creating parser function "formatdate", and at the same time resolved bug 17785 (a feature request initially proposed in comment 98 of bug 4582) to add Cascading Stylesheet and Javascript control to all autoformatted dates, such as presenting them as normal text (example), or as another colour to make them stand out.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Background. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes, that's a mess. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mass delinking

7) Despite the ongoing dispute, mass date delinking has been conducted by many users via scripts, AWB, and bots, hindering dispute resolution and encouraging fait accompli. In conjunction with blind reverts, bot and script bugs, and articles being delinked multiple times, the mass delinking contributed to the tension of the dispute and was self-defeating.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. That is true regardless of whether the delinking was or is justified. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

One sided battle on articles

8) Due to mass delinking, edit wars occurred across the breadth of the project, usually consisting of one regular contributor to an article pitted against a well coordinated team of MOS enforcers and their automations. JV

Complaints and questions were directed to WT:MOSNUM and/or roundly dismissed.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deliberate prolonged battle on tennis articles

9) A battle to delinking dates on tennis articles commenced in September 2008, with Tennis expert (talk · contribs) almost exclusively pushing back repeatedly with 751 reverts. As a result, the battle become excessively personal. JV Ohc TE

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightmouse

Undisclosed accounts of Lightmouse

10) Bobblewik (talk · contribs) and Editore99 (talk · contribs) are former undisclosed accounts of Lightmouse (talk · contribs) which have a block log relevant to the community approval of bot account Lightbot (talk · contribs). ,

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bobblewik familiarity

11) Bobblewik (talk · contribs)'s inherent familiarity with Misplaced Pages procedures, policies and automation suggest that the account does not belong to an entirely new user and may indeed be a sockpuppet account. (LevelCheck#Potential sockpuppet?)

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I see this as complementary to the related findings, showing that the history of sockpuppetry is likely more extensive than currently detailed. --Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I fail to see how this is relevant to anything. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Bobblewik involvement

12) Bobblewik was a very prolific editor from March 2004 to October 2006 (65,000+ edits), who was blocked over 17 times by several administrators and arbitrators for running fast automated date delinking processes. At the time he stopped editing, there was apparently a great degree of controversy at his talk page and the block lengths were a week to a month in length. Also, he submitted several rejected date-related bots at BRFA archive and was the subject of RFC/U.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Although the early RFC/U contains little of value. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightmouse - Cleanbot

13) Lightmouse created Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cleanbot on October 19, 2008, requesting approval from the Bot Approvals Group for a new bot "Cleanbot" (account not created, and unrelated to CleanBot (talk · contribs)) to delink dates. It was advertised on three relevant discussion boards on October 21, 2008, and was mentioned on User_talk:Lightmouse.

The request was denied on October 22, 2008 by BAG member Mr.Z-man, with BAG members Bjweeks and Martinp23 also indicating that it was inappropriate for a bot to be undertaking delinking on what they considered to be an insufficient level of consensus.

The denied status was reported to the village pump (link).

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightbot repeats its own errors

14) Lightbot has passed over articles multiple times. When errors in the first pass have been corrected by others, subsequent passes have repeated the original error. 1 2 3-1/3-2

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightmouse has edit warred on content

15) Lightmouse has edit-warred to remove all date links.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightmouse has run multiple instances of AWB

16) In an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, Lightmouse has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser concurrently.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightbot used in edit wars

17) Lightbot was used in edit wars.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Linked evidence is unclear. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

:# Pending more links. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1

Tony1 has been incivil

18) Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 23 4 5 more more and more

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony1 has edit warred on style guidelines

19) Tony1 has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB MB2 LC

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony1 has edit warred on content

20) Tony1 has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles.LC TE1 TE2 JV

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony1 has contravened the Manual of Style

21) Tony1 has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Given that the Manual's instability is at the heart of the case, I don't think it's useful to focus on people contravening it. Kirill  00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill, though a point may be made about claiming enforcement of the rules while engaging in editing contrary to them. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Vassyana makes a very good point. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Unneeded to support remedies. Per Kirill and Vassyana comments this is not a straightforward issue as the wording of the Fof seems to indicate. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg L

Greg L has been incivil

22) Greg L has been incivil in his communication with other editors.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Greg L has edit warred on style guidelines

23) Greg L has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Kirill  01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Evidence link doesn't point to anything, as far as I can tell. Kirill  00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. John Vandenberg 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Ohconfucius

Ohconfucius has been incivil

24) Ohconfucius has been incivil in their communication with other editors. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius has edit warred on style guidelines

25) Ohconfucius has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius has edit warred on content

26) Ohconfucius has edit-warred to remove all date links from a large number of articles. JV V TE

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius has contravened the manual of style

27) Ohconfucius has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1 2

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in the corresponding finding above. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on the similar finding above. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Links again. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser

28) In an attempt to speed up the process of date delinking, Ohconfucius has informed users that he has operated multiple instances of AutoWikiBrowser.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius - Date delinker

29) Ohconfucius created alternative account Date delinker (talk · contribs) on November 11, 2008 with the express purpose of using it for date delinking. It performed 9307 edits without BAG approval until January 30, 2009 when it was indefinitely blocked.

user:Date delinker unlinked years even when the year was a primary component of the subject.

user:Date delinker was used in edit wars.

Support:

1. This could be broken into separate findings. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius has battled while evading blocks

30) Ohconfucius has unlinked dates while evading blocks in November 2008 using the Date delinker (talk · contribs) alternate account during a 24 hour block, and again in March 2009 when blocked for violating an injunction intended to stop the battle.

The March 2009 block evasion included reverting users involved in this date debate, and he subsequently initiated Arbitration Enforcement against the same users he had reverted.reverts/AE

In addition, Ohconfucius was blocked for evading the Arbitration injunction in February 2009.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

The Rambling Man

31) Former bureaucrat The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made comments intended to encourage a contributor to return to retirement.(, retirement, 1, 2, return, apology in April reaction/revert) (see also)

Support:

1. Weak support. There is an element of inappropriate conduct here, in my opinion, however it was not unprovoked, and TRM was the least bad offender in this harassment. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per John. Wizardman 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Factual, though not catastrophic. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Poor form, but not rising to the level of an arbitration finding in my view. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. If this was bundled with other evidence, then I would support, but as a freestanding Fof, I'm not going to support now. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has edit warred on content

32) The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles. JV

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski

Kotniski has edit warred on style guidelines

33) Kotniski (talk · contribs) has edit warred on project pages related to the date debate. MB FG V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kotniski has edit warred on content

34) Kotniski edit-warred on a single tennis article, Urszula Radwanska, and raised the matter on the talk page on the fourth delinking.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. It is insignificant in this battle. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per John; I'm wondering why this was proposed. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   Kotniski's role in the project pages appears to me to be an honest attempt at resolving the dispute; however Kotniski did end up acting more like a party, and this edit-war showed his hand to a limited extent. John Vandenberg 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Per the above. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to look closer at the timing before I decide. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87

35) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively the linking of dates. LC TE()()

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 has contravened the manual of style

36) Dabomb87 has intentionally and belligerently removed all date links from a large number of articles, even when a reason for the link has been provided, contravening the manual of style. 1

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in the corresponding finding above. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per comments on similar findings. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Per my previous comments. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian

37) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) first became involved in the tennis articles by removing date links from Billie Jean King on November 12, 2008 during an ongoing edit war. On the 15th, 2008Olympian excessively edit-warred for a few days on tennis articles and other ongoing related edit-wars. TE

2008Olympian occasionally participated in the edit-wars afterwards.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Colonies Chris

38) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates. TE ()()() JV

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

SkyWalker

39) SkyWalker (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE ()()()()

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

HJensen

40) HJensen (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. TE1()()

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Upon discussion and review, I believe this was a limited engagement with the editor since disengaging from the conflict and thus not rising to the level of an arbitration finding. (See also: ). --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Need to review timing. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dudesleeper

41) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

John

 John has submitted a rebuttal at User_talk:Jayvdb#Query. 42) John (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to remove the linking of dates. 1 2

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, but weakly, acknowledging rebuttal. Wizardman 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. It was still edit warring; I don't believe in "allowances" for misbehavior. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I appreciate John's rebuttal to some degree. However, I also feel this was more than a limited engagement with the area, delinking was sporadically controversial or of concern before September 2008, and that it was still edit-warring. --Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson

Pmanderson has been incivil

43) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has been incivil. 1 2 3 4 T1

Support:

1. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Tony1 has just now submitted more evidence. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson has edit-warred on style guidelines

44) Pmanderson has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locke Cole

Locke Cole has been incivil

45) Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has been incivil. Oh T1

Support:

1. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I need to review this more closely. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole has edit-warred on style guidelines

46) Locke Cole has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB FG ()()

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locke Cole has edit warred on content

47) Locke Cole has edit-warred on a large number of articles. Oh JV

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locke Cole's record

47.5) Locke Cole has an extensive record of disruptive behavior spanning multiple years ().

Support:

1. Kirill  00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tennis expert

48) Tennis expert (talk · contribs) has edit-warred extensively to restore linking of dates, primarily on the tennis articles however also on other articles. 1 2 3

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

G-Man

49) G-Man (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to restore linking of dates. 1 2 3 4 5

Support:

1. Weakly. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kendrick7 has edit warred on style guidelines

50) Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) has edit warred extensively on the project pages related to the date debate. V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arthur Rubin

51) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has threatened to use administrative tools in a dispute in which he was an involved editor. MB V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arthur Rubin has edit-warred on style guidelines

52) Arthur Rubin has edit warred on the project pages related to the date debate. MB V

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. --Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren  19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mass date delinking

1) Mass date delinking is restricted for six months to changes prescribed in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and may only occur at times when the page is not in a disputed state.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not useful in the absence of an undisputed page. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I think we need a longer break. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1.1) Mass date delinking is restricted for 12 months to changes prescribed in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and may only occur at times when the page is not in a disputed state.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not useful in the absence of an undisputed page. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   Would it be more useful if we started the clock on this remedy from the time when the page first becomes stable? John Vandenberg 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, although we need to have a clear criterion for stability. Perhaps the decision should be taken as part of the three-month review; either we ban everyone involved or declare the page stable and enact this restriction? Kirill  09:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Not unless we can find a way of making the page undisputed. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Prefer that we approach this in a different way. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking bots

2) Date delinking will be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group, with technical staff input as required.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my other comments about input from the technical staff. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm unclear that tech staff input is needed. Who decides if it is required? FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking bots

2.1) Date delinking will be performed in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.

Support:

1. Offered as an alternative. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Equal to the other one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Date delinking source code

3) The Bot Approvals Group will require that the source code for any bots used to perform date delinking is made available to the community.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not useful. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   It allows the community to critically discuss what transforms are being undertaken, spreads the development task across whoever wishes to participate, and also provides continuity if one bot operator is hit by a bus, or a ban. John Vandenberg 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Too detailed. We don't need to micromanage the BAG's decision making.FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I don't see why; either it works or it does not and BAG already has mechanisms in place to ascertain that which may or may not involve inspection of source. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Date delinking bot operators

4) The Bot Approvals Group will require that the operators selected to perform any date delinking have a history of being able to handle complaints well, and willing to pause their bot when problems have been identified.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not useful. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Too detailed. We don't need to micromanage the BAG's decision making. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lightmouse banned

5) Lightmouse is banned for one month.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Far too little for years of disruption. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Not enough. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lightmouse banned

5.1) Lightmouse is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lightmouse topic banned

6) Lightmouse is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

6.1) Lightmouse is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too little. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Insufficient. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lightmouse automation

7) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation in article space.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not useful. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lightmouse automation

7.1) Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Second choice. Lightmouse could continue to develop the script using test cases in user or project space. John Vandenberg 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Lightmouse accounts

8) Lightmouse is limited to using only the account "Lightmouse" to edit.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony1 topic banned

9) Tony1 is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Too broad. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Remedy 9.3 is more succient. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

9.1) Tony1 is topic banned for 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too broad. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

9.2) Tony1 is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not long enough. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Too broad. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

9.3) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.

Support:

1. First choice. Prefer to leave him with the ability to discuss and participate in style-related processes, but prevent him from taking part in any edit-warring. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

9.4) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages, and any related template pages.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill  01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Wizardman 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 restricted

10) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

10.1) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

10.2) Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tony1 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Tony1 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Tony1 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Don't see a problem with edit-warring outside of stylistic matters. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Tony1 accounts

11) Tony1 is required to obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to use an account other than "Tony1" to edit.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No cause for concern over this, as far as I can tell. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. No evidence to suggest that this is necessary in his case. Wizardman 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Greg L banned

12) Greg L is banned for three months.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

12.1) Greg L is banned for one month.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not long enough. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Greg L topic banned

13) Greg L is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

13.1) Greg L is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Too little. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Greg L accounts

14) Greg L is required to obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to use an account other than "Greg L" to edit.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Given past issues with users leaving and returning with another user name, I think that this remedy is wise. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No cause for concern over this, as far as I can tell. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Don't see evidence for this remedy to be necessary - in this case especially if the ban passes. Wizardman 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Greg L restricted

15) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. To follow the ban, if it passes. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

15.1) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

15.2) Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Greg L is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Greg L exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Greg L may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Third choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in Tony's case. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Ohconfucius topic banned

16) Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. I suspect this could be lifted during an appeal. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius automation

17) Ohconfucius is prohibited from using any automation in article space indefinitely.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius accounts

18) Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ohconfucius restricted

19) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Ohconfucius is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

19.1) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Ohconfucius is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

19.2) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Ohconfucius is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Ohconfucius exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Ohconfucius may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Third choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

The Rambling Man admonished

20) The Rambling Man is admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man restricted

21) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. The Rambling Man is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Overkill. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

21.1) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. The Rambling Man is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Minor involvement does not warrant this. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

21.2) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. The Rambling Man is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should The Rambling Man exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, The Rambling Man may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not sure that this is necessary. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski reminded

22) Kotniski (talk · contribs) is reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski topic banned

23) Kotniski is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

23.1) Kotniski is topic banned for 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Second. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

23.2) Kotniski is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Dabomb87 restricted

24) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Dabomb87 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

24.1) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Dabomb87 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Too short. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

24.2) Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Dabomb87 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dabomb87 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Dabomb87 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Recuse due to heavy recent work together on several featured lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian restricted

25) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. 2008Olympian is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

25.1) 2008Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. 2008Olympian is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should 2008Olympian exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, 2008Olympian may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Wizardman 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Colonies Chris restricted

26) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Colonies Chris is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Third choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

26.1) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Colonies Chris is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

26.2) Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Colonies Chris is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Colonies Chris exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Colonies Chris may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

SkyWalker restricted

27) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. SkyWalker is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

27.1) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. SkyWalker is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

27.2) SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. SkyWalker is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should SkyWalker exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, SkyWalker may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

HJensen restricted

28) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. HJensen is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should HJensen exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, HJensen may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

28.1) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

Support:

1. Kirill  01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dudesleeper restricted

29) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Dudesleeper is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dudesleeper exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Dudesleeper may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

29.1) Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

Support:

1. Kirill  01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

John restricted

 John has submitted a rebuttal at User_talk:Jayvdb#Query. 30) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

30.1) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. John is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

30.2) John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. John is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should John exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, John may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson topic banned

31) Pmanderson is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Only choice. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal first choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

31.2) Pmanderson is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Locke Cole topic banned

32) Locke Cole is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

32.1) Locke Cole is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Equal first choice to 32. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. (Distant) second choice. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

32.2) Locke Cole is topic banned for three month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Locke Cole restricted

33) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Locke Cole is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

33.1) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Locke Cole is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

33.2) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three month. Locke Cole is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Locke Cole exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Locke Cole may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Third choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Locke Cole banned

33.5) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. With that block log and the evidence above, yes. Second choice. Wizardman 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. In my opinion, the evidence that I have seen doesn't indicate that this is necessary, unless we are going to ban a number of the other parties for similar periods. John Vandenberg 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

   The other parties (with the exception of Lightmouse/Bobblewik) don't have records of disruption spanning multiple years, however. There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances, I think. Kirill  09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole banned

33.6) Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of six months.

Support:

1. First choice after mulling it over. A ban is needed, but to put him in the same ban time as Lightmouse feels harsh. Wizardman 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill  17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tennis expert banned

34) Tennis expert is banned for three months.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Evidence doesn't seem to justify a ban. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

34.1) Tennis expert is banned for one month.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert restricted

35) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for three months. Tennis expert is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

35.1) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. Tennis expert is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content or style reversions on the page's talk page. Should Tennis expert exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Tennis expert may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

Oppose:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

35.2) Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tennis expert is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

Support:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. Wizardman
5. First choice. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

G-Man restricted

36) G-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one month. G-Man is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any style reversions on the page's talk page. Should G-Man exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, G-Man may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

36.1) G-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

Support:

1. Kirill  01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kendrick7 topic banned

37) Kendrick7 is topic banned 12 months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

37.1) Kendrick7 is topic banned for three months from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions.

Support:

1. Second choice. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arthur Rubin reminded

38) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly reminded that administrators should never use their userrights to advance their position in disputes, or threaten to do so.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arthur Rubin admonished

38.1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill  01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. John Vandenberg 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Given his block log and threats, I have him on very thin ice, close to a desysop. Wizardman 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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