Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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). 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 require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is one of those that makes me wonder why we vote on boilerplate principles every single case, it is that obvious. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The implication is that when the disputes between editors are not good faith disputes, we will rule on the. even to the extent of deciding on content if some of the content is introduced in bad faith. Or do we mean that even in bad faith disputes, we will never rule on content? Perhaps we need to say which explicitly.

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. prefer my alternate, which I think necessary in this instance. This has been quite specifically a cause of problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

suggested supplementary sentence: Wikipedia covers events from a world-wide point of view. Any possible undue emphasis of courses from one particular country or region should not over-influence the presentation fron more diverse sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)(proposed below)[reply]

4.1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Since Wikipedia covers events from a world-wide point of view, any possible undue emphasis of courses from one particular country or region should not over-influence the presentation fron more diverse sources. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

1. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Every so slightly prefer, but my vote here won't have an impact. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think the addition of specifics is necessary here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

5) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my standard, if somewhat quixotic, opposition to the assumption that SPA's are a problem simply because they're SPAs. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Euryalus, and indeed enshrining by "expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda",  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. LFaraone 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

•  Clerk note: Hey Courcelles, you voted twice here. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Courcelles (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. suggest "seemingly draconic or unusual" DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. And we're definitely here. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. LFaraone 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. And we're at that point here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Courcelles. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yup,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This area has been the subject of two previous arbitration cases, the Palestine-Israel articles case and the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case.

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. LFaraone 18:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) In the Palestine-Israel articles case, the topic area was placed under an early form of Discretionary Sanctions. Those sanctions were superseded by a 2011 motion that placed "all Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, [..] under discretionary sanctions". While these sanctions are routinely used (log), they have been ineffective in controlling the disruption (Ivanvector's Evidence).

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. LFaraone 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. LFaraone 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

1.1) The General 1RR restriction is rescinded. In place of it, the following is enacted. An editor may not insert the same new material twice, or delete the same material twice, in any 24-hour period. The only exceptions to this rule are as follows:

• Vandalism and BLP violations may be removed without penalty.
• Editors may revert themselves without penalty.
• Material added or removed by anonymous IP editors or by accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure is exempt from this restriction but is subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I think this is just setting things up for arguments about what constitutes "the same (new) material", which will not resolve the problems. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Thryduulf, this will to too complicated to administer. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Does not constitute an improvement on the current 1RR. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good idea in principle, but especially in this area, too subject to gaming and lawyering. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Pile on,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

See below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If R2 passes, the next to last sentence here makes no sense, as reverting IP's and newer accounts would be enforcing a topic ban, it should not be subject to the usual rules on edit-warring, just as the enforcement of any other ban. Also, "An editor may not insert the same new material twice, or delete the same material twice" is subject to so much gaming, that this should just be one-revert only per day. I may propose an alt to this. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Support:

1. I would regard Guerillero's concerns below very seriously if we were proposing this as a general rule, but this is simply an ad hoc rule for one particularly difficult situation were othe measures have failed. If we find we need it elsewhere, then we will need a more general discussion --and have a basis for one from our experience here. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. We're at the point of trying something drastic, and this could work. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. All the conventional remedies have failed to resolve the disruption in this topic area, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. While this remedy is unfair to some users, our goal has to be what is good for the encyclopaedia rather than what is good for individual editors, so something like this is worth trying. If this passes, I would support a mandatory review after 9 (or maybe 12) months to see if it is working as intended. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is certainly an "at wit's end" remedy I'd hope never to need to use again, and I've given it a lot of thought. In this case, nothing else has worked, and not for lack of trying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice to 2.2 NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Past time for me to make a decision. This is my preference as we are indeed "at wits end" in this area and from my personal observations in this area best matches the extent of the problem. I also would like to see a review in a year. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Because I don't like the idea of imposing such a restriction on an indefinite number of articles. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Reasonably construed" is too vague and covers articles where there is no issue to be addressed. This needs a DS-style notification system as outlined below. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

We have never done this before. The closest we have ever come is banning the entirety of the church of scientology. However, in the words of one evidence section "Anyone can't edit" due to the socks. This would cut down on that problem but we trade our openness for supporting the collaboration and encyclopedia portions of our mission. I haven't run the numbers yet but my initial guess is that less than 1% of accounts make 500 edits. Aaron Swartz's research suggests that our project was built by low edit count IPs and accounts that this propsal would keep out. It is a nuclear option, and one that has worked very well in the GamerGate area to stop disruption.

The idea of doing this has kept me up at night. Is this the same folly as ACTRIAL and will it have the same results? Will this become a common sanction in future arbcom's tool boxes? Is this the beginning of a slippery slope towards us ending IP editing in controversial areas? I feel very conflicted by proposing this and I would like to hear the community's opinion on this before I vote. I would especially like to hear from former arbs who have faced ideas like this, WMF board members, Jimmy, and AE admins that will be tasked in enforcing this thing.

If you want to know what has held up this PD it has been this remedy. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we enact this I think we should take Brad's concerns to heart. I have no problem, given the scale of disruption, with imposing such requirements on a limited basis, but such usage of broadly construed will doubtlessly lead to tremendous discussion. I hope productive discussion, but fear this will become another battleground. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.2)

Support:

1. This might be a better option. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Preferred to the option above. if adopted, can also be imposed en masse to the hotspot articles, as proposed below, if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Preferred to above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Passes the buck back to an already strained AE system, and is a halfmeasure that virtually guarantees ARBPIA4 will be on the plate of the 2016 committee. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not strong enough for the core dispute. See comments. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. We need to take the responsibility ourselves, and take it now. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. AE hasn't worked here. That's certainly not to fault the AE admins, as they've absolutely made every effort to curb disruption when it comes up. But it never stops coming up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doug Weller (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I think what we actually need is to impose this directly on the core articles (I'm not sure yet how to define them though), and have this option available for the wider group of articles (perhaps only after semi-protection has been tried as suggested on the talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3)

Support:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Utterly worthless as a remedy (should be an FoF), but accurate enough. Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Courcelles, not really a remedy, but won't hurt to have it spelled out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: 4.1

Findings: None

Remedies: 2.2

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: All (except 4.1)

Findings: All

Remedies: 2, 3

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None

Findings: None

Remedies: 1.1

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

1. Appears we are finally done. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. with hope that this is what finally breaks the back of this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. but without much hope that this will break the back of the dispute here until the Real World dispute is settled. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I symbolic protest vote due to my opposition to the General Prohibition --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments