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, 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.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Wikipedia 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 incivility,assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Adds nothing to proposed principle #1, which applies to everyone. If anything different is to be said about administrators, it should be that, as experienced users, they should be highly familiar with and scrupulously adherent to all behavioural policies, as opposed to new users who may not be familiar with those standards. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one. It is also inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policies. Nevertheless, discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric without attempting to seek help and advice from others in other areas of the project.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. "vituperative rhetoric" is a bit wordy, but the point is valid. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. It should not be used as a platform to push for a certain type of agenda or a view. When in doubt about achieving consensus at the WikiProject level, users are always encouraged to seek help beyond that (i.e. sister WikiProjects, Village pump, etc....).

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wikiproject lobbying is a bad thing. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Good principle. Made small copyedit. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. In the spirit of WP:RAP and WP:SENSE. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm not sure this is always strictly true. Controversial IAR acts will rarely be good for the encyclopedia, so I support the essential point of the finding, but I think IAR may legitimately extend important policies like BLP—even if controversial. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) Usually, there is no clear distinction between proposed policy, guidelines, and official policy. Policy at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, tradition, and practice. While the principles of the policies are mostly well established, the details are often still evolving. Policies are not drafted like legal documents and users are urged not to be legalistic about reading policy pages. Policies are actually there to help Wikipedia work, defining more closely what should be done and preserving a good atmosphere. A narrow view of a policy or guideline is not likely to resolve matters. All policies and guidelines together convey to the same ideas as the five pillars.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. In the spirit of WP:RAP and WP:SENSE. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Indeed. Policies are more like discussion FAQs than laws. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. It is long established that actions which violate the spirit of a policy/rule/guideline, even if they are within its letter, are considered problematic. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Particularly the last sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) Administrators are expected to provide timely and civil explanations for their actions. All administrator actions are logged and offer a "reason" field to be used for this purpose. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. And if they find themselves unable to be civil, back off and let someone else deal with it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Blocks should be made only if other means --such as warnings-- are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Balancing the degree or absence of warnings, the time since previous incidents, detailing the reasons for a block, and deciding on block lengths, is part of the judgment admins are expected to make. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. This principle should be enforced more often. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) Notifications are good practice. However, frequent and repeated notifications of the same subject directed at the same user may be perceived as harassment. Instead of notifying the same user of the same thing repeatedly, users are advised to seek other venues and let other uninvolved users and/or administrators to deal with it.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. The key here is how the person being notified reacts. If they blank the notice, they are aware of it. If they carry on with the same behaviour, a follow-up note is appropriate. More than that, and if they continue to ignore you, then getting other opinions is needed. If the person being notified has responded, any follow-up should take that into account and not repeat the same pattern of notification. If there is an ongoing general issue, it is better to raise the general issue rather than focus on an individual editor as an example of the general issue. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The second part is good (and concomitant with principles in the recent Abd and JzG case, for example) but I think the first part risks diminishing the concept of harassment. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

12) Although notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace, administrators should avoid hinting to blocks to users with whom they are in a content dispute.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand the meaning but the wording may be confusing to some one that does not fully understand the dynamics of these situations. Many admins do not understand that their words are perceived as being threatening unless they are careful to couch them in language making it clear that they are speaking as an editor and they will not take admin action. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Important concept so we need to tweak this wording some so get the right point across. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per FloNight. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. With FloNight here. Don't want this to be a blunt instrument. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Prefer 12.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. 12.1 has better wording. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I am concerned that this could be used abusively. As an example, some standard warnings and notices, which are commonly and appropriately given out by involved parties, mention blocks. I agree with the point that admins should not bully people around by threatening and hinting at blocks, but there is also the other side of offering legitimate warnings and advice. --Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hoping someone comes up with better wording per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.1) Although notifying users of potential blocks is commonplace, administrators should take care to avoid comments that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to block a user with whom they are in a content dispute.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 16:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. (with minor CE)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I don't think that making this "objective" via the reasonable person quite fixes it. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   We want Wikipedia admins to talk to new users and help them learn the ropes. Sometimes that will involve explaining the possibility that an user might get blocked if they keep up problematic conduct. Admins are expected to abstain from using their tools in disputes. Other users look for admin involvement that might disqualify an admin from taking action. If other users do not see the discussion as a threat but see the discussion as informative, then I think the admin's comments would be fine. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13) The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Other than to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. However, unless explanation is provided in another appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page, the rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit nor should it be used in content disputes.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Agree with Vassyana, can we take out the phrase. Support 13.1 instead. --FloNight♥♥♥ 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   prefer 13.1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It is expected that reverts of well meaning edits are accompanied with a comment somewhere. We should not focus on "rollback"; the focus should be on the need to leave an explanation somewhere. For standard rollback, the edit summary is not available, however it is still reasonable to revert and leave a longer note on a talk page. For example, a contributor may add the same link to 10 page without understanding the finer details of our External linking policy. Rollback would be acceptable on these edits, with a {{uw-spam}} message on the contributors talk.
   I am have changed the last phrase "nor it should be used in content disputes" to "nor should it..". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Open to alternatives though. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per John Vandenberg. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Second.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I disagree with the closing statement, specifically the "However, unless" clause. The rollback tool should never be used under those circumstances. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

13.1) The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Other than to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. However, the rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit nor it should be used in content disputes.

Support:

1. Second choice. Prefer 13.2 now. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Add alternative with out "unless explanation is provided in another appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page,", FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Slightly prefer this finding to 13.1. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The second sentence conflicts with the third in this version; "widely spread edits... by a misguided editor" could very easily be "good-faith content edit[s]". Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

13.2) The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Rollback is typically used to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits. The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes. However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page.

Support:

1. Proposed alternative, for clarity and attempting to accomodate all concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. First preference. Note: I corrected a minor grammar slip. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First preference. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman 02:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Best version. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

14) The recall process is voluntary. However, for the sake of mutual trust and respect between administrators and users and administrators themselves, it is recommended that administrators who opt for being open to recall respect their own words and promises. It is also recommended to have one's recall procedure explicit (in the administrator's userspace) in order to avoid any unnecessary requests for clarifications.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In just about every case where administrators volunteering for recall have been called on it, their standards change and/or they back out of recall. Similarly, I have seen a number of administrators play coy when questioned about recall standards, (apparently) purposefully obfuscating their recall standards. Sadly, in common practice it seems to be more of a political tool used to quell concerns and pass RfA than an earnest openness to review and recall. This is destructive to the relations of the admin corps with the broader community and extremely disrespectful to those who support an RfA or wave off further dispute resolution in light of a promise to be open to recall. I appreciate that it is voluntary and non-binding, and similar appreciate that some recall pledges may have been ill-thought. However, the appearance of dishonesty, generated drama, and harm to the climate caused by disregarding previous recall pledges cannot be ignored. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that is over stating the problems. We have admins honor the pledge and go through the process. I don't want to over look them since some have lost their bit over it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I would just make it binding, especially if it's to be a valid commitment for AFD. I think binding recall would give the community confidence to elect more admins. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam makes a good point below, but since administrator conduct is a key aspect of the Committee's mandate, and as community trust in the administrator corps is essential for them to be able to do their jobs, it's my view that if the community are going to put their faith in these promises (by using them to formulate their opinions in requests for adminship) we ought to support them in that. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Minor copyedit. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I've added a link to WP:AOR. While I agree with the principle here, it is not clearly drawn upon in the Findings below. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Agree that withdrawing from AOR should be done with extreme caution because it will effect an users reputation. But I think we need to have a way for admins to remove themselves if they do think remaining in the it is a good idea, so I the word recommend is to strong. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not sure it is reasonable to make findings and issue guidance about something when we indicate it is voluntary. If, at some point in the future, policy develops to an extent that administrator recall becomes more formal, then the committee will have to revisit the issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

• (Copied from above to avoid bogging down the voting section) In just about every case where administrators volunteering for recall have been called on it, their standards change and/or they back out of recall. Similarly, I have seen a number of administrators play coy when questioned about recall standards, (apparently) purposefully obfuscating their recall standards. Sadly, in common practice it seems to be more of a political tool used to quell concerns and pass RfA than an earnest openness to review and recall. This is destructive to the relations of the admin corps with the broader community and extremely disrespectful to those who support an RfA or wave off further dispute resolution in light of a promise to be open to recall. I appreciate that it is voluntary and non-binding, and similar appreciate that some recall pledges may have been ill-thought. However, the appearance of dishonesty, generated drama, and harm to the climate caused by disregarding previous recall pledges cannot be ignored. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is over stating the problems. We have admins honor the pledge and go through the process. I don't want to over look them since some have lost their bit over it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of only one request that could be construed as essentially fulfilling the recall process and that was a few years ago. The administrator resigned upon a full certification of recall, in lieu of the full recall process. They had a passing RfA a few months later. Almost no requests reach the recall stage. In some cases, the process was subject to trolling requests or short-circuited due to other factors. After digging around, I cannot find a single other instance of the recall process being fulfilled. In the only other example of a recall reaching certification that I could find, an administrator closed down the process early with some protest and shortly resigned thereafter. --Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you should discount the people that are open to recall that have a recall preceding opened against them but does not get certified. And there have been a number of those. The same thing happens with RFC sometimes, too. I'm not the process is to blame. Resigning after certification or close to it is a fair outcome, I think. And given the relatively low total number of involuntary desysop in the past years, I don't know that the recall process can be judged to be a net positive or loss compared to other ways we do it. Very often the user will retire under a cloud whether they are up for recall or not. MZMcBride case was an example of how other methods of desysopping can not go smoothly. These situation are always going to be difficult, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15) Users and administrators whose actions have been questioned many times are expected to avoid repeating mistakes should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of severe sanctions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I would prefer something indicating community feedback and/or concerns from editors in good standing. The plain wording could easily be misused for skillful trolling. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should neither be used abusively nor the concerns raised there should be ignored.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Both sides of this are common problems with some user RfCs. A fair number of editors avoid the process for this explicit reason. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

17) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. The effect on Wikipedia is the key. If you call someone up to deter them from editing, we can and should take notice of it. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. I would lose the qualifier "egregiously", but this is fine. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per CHL and bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

18) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing, is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

19) Discussions held in the #wikipedia IRC channels have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel(s) usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion. There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically or in private discussions) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked or moving or protecting a page, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Removed the bit about finding 15, which makes no sense outside of the case where this was originally proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. If anything, this doesn't go far enough. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Luke. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Would also go further than this, but OK for now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

20) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Context is everything. This sort of consideration can, for example, mark the distinction between a need for a topic ban and a situation more suited to a full site ban. --Vassyana (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Within reason. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Though as Kirill and Vassyana allude to, this should not be read too widely. Past conduct will be relevant where it informs us on the prospects for the success of particular types of remedies. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

21) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in the actions of administrator Ryulong including but not limited to his questionable blocks and use of the rollback tool while the other arises from the editorial conflicts over the verifiability of the content of articles falling under the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu. A common element is the involvement of administrator Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Mythdon (talk · contribs) in both areas.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has edited Wikipedia since February 2006, and has been an administrator since January 2007. He has made more than 82,000 edits to Wikipedia, has taken more than 10,000 administrator actions including blocks, deletions, and page protections, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comments on proposed principle #20, not relevant. In general the Committee should avoid making value judgments about the worth of editors. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Wikipedia since December 2007. During that time, he has shown a strong interest in the same content area as Ryulong and a high level of dedication to the Tokusatsu WikiProject.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comments on proposed principle #20, not relevant. In general the Committee should avoid making value judgments about the worth of editors. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) During the time of his adminship, Ryulong has made around 7,000 blocks. A small percentage of those blocks were contested by members of the community as referenced by the first and second RfCs. Some of those blocks were made without prior warning ([1], (March 09)) and ([2] one hour after the user's last edit.)). Some others were excessively and unnecessarily long or with a user he's in dispute with or after a single edit with email disabled and talk page editing disabled and no reason for blocking was given (see detailshere). Many of those actions were made prior to or during the second RfC.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am unconvinced of the impropriety of blocking a vandalism-only account without warning or the blocking of a spammer, but the block of an editor one is in conflict with is clearly problematic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We need to separate out or remove the stuff about blocking vandalism only accounts. True vandalism only accounts that no one warned yet but need a block to stop the vandalism can be done at an admins discretion. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. --Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per FloNight. Wizardman 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per FloNight. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per FloNight. Clearly there is a problem here, but it needs to be clarified. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight, as usual. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Awaiting rewrite of this finding. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per Flonight. needs rewording for clarity. The block of an editor one is involved with is serious enough to stand this point on its own. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Flonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5) Ryulong's first RfC was opened on July 2007. The RfC concerned mainly his blocking attitude. In general, the community believed administrator Ryulong is a good asset to the project but that he's quite strict to when it comes to using the block button and that some of his blocks are excessive both in nature and in length. The community also agreed to give it another chance.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. There's a bit of nuance to the RfC, but I believe this accurately summarizes in short form. --Vassyana (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Ryulong has misused his administrative rollback tool to revert edits that may be considered unnecessary and non-vandalism, in Power Rangers content disputes. This occurred on multiple occasions. He was blocked for this on March 4, and continued the behavior after the block (see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]).

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. This edit speaks to me that this is a major problem. As an admin, he could have done that request. Instead, someone else had to retrieve the request and action it[9] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Casliber. That and the diffs don't seem so bad to warrant a finding. Wizardman 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Casliber. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Minor point. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Sorry, I don't see a rollback diff post March 4th. Agree with the first bit on rollback usage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Casliber. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. There is an issue here about misuse of rollback but I don't think this finding captures the essence. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Sam.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. 6.1 is better. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6.1) Ryulong has misused rollback by using it to revert edits within content disputes (for example see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Ryulong was criticised during the second request for comment about him for so doing, but has continued misusing rollback in this way since then (for example see [16], [17], [18], [19]).

Support:

1. Proposed as an alternative to #6. Moves the diffs from #6 back up to a modified first part, where they belong, and provides some supporting example diffs (all from May) for the second part. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Overriding the original FoF. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weakly, since some of the diffs aren't so bad. Wizardman 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see a March 4 block in his block log. Or am I missing something? Wizardman 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Tiptoety's mention of this on the talk page. Not sure how that came to be in the original finding. I've removed mention of any blocks, and replaced with a mention of the second RFC instead, since the point is the same. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

1. I have simplified the wording, as ", or edits made by banned users or malfunctioning bots" sounded out a little of place with the ", or ". In any case, the principle of rollback has been agreed upon above, so we dont need to explain what these edits were not. this edit was not to do with content, but it is still very relevant. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7) Several editors posted to Ryulongs's talkpage in regards to the rollbacks. Some protested the rollbacks, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential violation of policy. Ryulong's responses to some of the queries were cursory, while others were reverted by Ryulong, sometimes in an uncivil manner such as here.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, but noting Cas's point that a non-Mthdon diff would help here. Wizardman 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is much more important than the finding above. Hitting rollback is no big deal as long as you work well with others. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Wizardman. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Admins should be able to stay cool. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. For the moment. Other diffs from other editors apart from Mythdon should be added here. One can understand (but not excuse as such) curtness when dealing with an editor with whom relations are cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Casliber; can add instances that dont involve Mythdon? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Casliber and Jayvdb. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8) Several editors have stated explicitly their concerns concerning Ryulongs's general administrative actions (see mainly both RfCs and the recent ANI thread). While Ryulong has disputed some of the concerns, he has maintained that he has been improving his overall performance as an administrator.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. NB, copyedited to remove a contraction. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. With an eye to appeals or future RFAs (given that the desysopping motion is passing). Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Ryulong and Mythdon have frequently interacted with each other in the course of article writing, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. The interaction first started positively before it became negative. During these interactions, Mythdon would leave notes on Ryulong's talk page, but Ryulong generally found these to be unhelpful or lack validity. Mythdon has shown a continually strict interpretation of policies, and Ryulong has grown gradually more impatient with Mythdon as a result, multiple times stating that he would seek Mythdon be blocked for disruption.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) During the dispute between Ryulong and Mythdon, the former has in a few occasions referred to Mythdon being blocked. One of those comments made on December 08 this one may be seen as a clear threat. Ryulong stated that 'there is no reason to believe it is not a block threat, and is one of the many instances where he has lost his patience in dealing with Mythdon.' The other two made on January 09 and February 09 are debatable whether they constitute a threat or not or whether the intention is clear or not or just referring to actually 'seeking' a block made by someone else (see here and here).

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) Ryulong's second RfC concerned mainly his use of rollback, and several instances of blocks he had performed. It also concerned his interactions with user:Mythdon. It was created on March 3, 2009 by user:Tiptoety and closed by the same user on March 20, 2009 just after this arbitration case started by user:Synergy. 13 members of the community endorsed the March 4th statement of Synergy where he said that "[he] is here to request that [Ryulong] steps down, or be prepared to have a Request for Arbitration filed in regards to this RfC upon a reasonable number of signatories endorsing this very statement". On the other hand, Ryulong responded to the RfC filing and saw 'no use to it, other than it being used in some future RFAR should he pisses someone off, again.'

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

12) During this case hearing, there have been substantial improvements from the part of Ryulong. He's started to use the 'Undo' button instead that of Rollback when it is not necessary though not always leaving an edit summary for the revert (see here). However, during this case, Ryulong sometimes still used the Rollback button for non-vandalism edits (see here, here, here and here as examples).

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The edits appear to be good faith, though to someone familiar with the series I could see some being borderline cases. Wizardman 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Although this is fairly minor. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. (with trivial copy edit)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

13) A number of administrators have indicated that Ryulong has been seeking administrative actions from other administrators via Wikipedia IRC channels (see here and here). Requests made by Ryulong have spanned over a period of 2 years. Some indicated that they had warned him of the questionable nature of some of the requests (see here). Ryulong has confirmed these allegations.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

14) According to this evidence, Ryulong requested a page move and protection from administrator Risker on IRC.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

15) Mythdon has been posting notes at Ryulong's talk page for more than a year. Examples include Before your account (19 January 2008), username transaltion (18 January 2008), Fast responses (Why else would you respond very fast - 10 March 2008), Why? (Why is it that you archive your talk page every month? - 5 February 2008) and Ryulong on Youtube. However, most of Mythdon's posts in early 2009 consisted of warnings in relation to Ryulong's use of the rollback tool. On May 6, 2009, Mythdon marked an unsigned comment as "unsigned" belonging to another user --an edit that Ryulong undid (see [20]). Mythdon considers that some of those questions were 'just foolish and dumb questions and not intended as harassment'.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

16) After Mythdon's exclusive monitoring of the use of the rollback feature by Ryulong, Mythdon has started in recent weeks to warn or investigate other users and administrators (see [21] [22] [23][24]). Mythdon has taken to patrolling through edits with the stated purpose to "look for rollbacks" to question editors about potential misuse of the tool.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

17) Throughout his time on Wikipedia, Mythdon has sometimes shown an excessively strict interpretation of policy as admitted by themselves here. This led to several confrontations between Mythdon and other editors including Ryulong, particularly within WikiProject Tokusatsu. In other cases, he was probably correct in raising the concerns though he has never tried any alternative methods or venues to seek assistance or wider opinions (see here and here).

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. In examples such as this, yes. On other occasions his strict interpretation has been OK (for example a couple of sourcing discussions). --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

18) Mythdon's contributions are mainly revolving around the Power Rangers area and topics. Mythdon has shown over the time that he holds a fixed view towards those subjects. Views include a determination of presenting some articles to AfD even after themselves finding reliable sources. (see [25])

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. If sources exist for verifiability, then merging should be considered, not deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I think the last part overstates the position a bit, and the cited diff needs to be taken in context of the full thread in which it appears. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

19) On-wiki, Mythdon has asked Ryulong if he were user Ryulong on Youtube (see here). Off-wiki and back in March 2008, Mythdon did contact the account named Ryulong on Youtube, asking whether or not that user was the same Ryulong as the one on Wikipedia, in which the user declined to answer. Mythdon kept asking over and over for a period of time in hopes of receiving a response but never got one. This year, just about a few months ago, he attempted to ask again, but since the newer message didn't go through as far as he knows, there was no response, which implies that the user blocked him from contacting him. Besides that, he declares he has never attempted to contact Ryulong anywhere off-wiki. (see here)

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

20) According to User:MBisanz, Ryulong approached MBisanz last week to inform him that he had found out Mythdon's real life identity through a Youtube page. According to the same information, a couple hours later an IP from the same US State as Ryulong harassed Mythdon calling him a 'little kid'. MBisanz says he confronted Ryulong and he denied socking, blaming his University's geolocation for the similarity (see here). The Arbitration Committee was satisfied with Ryulong's response that he was unlikely the IP behind the edit.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Move to abstain. On reflection, I don't think that I'm satisfied as much as I'm unwilling to pursue the matter further at this time because doing so would complicate the situation more than resolve it. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "Unlikely" meaning only that I would not take an even money bet on it. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think it is helpful to put this in the past; we have no evidence to support this edit being tied to any editor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ryulong's explanation was a good one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. The CheckUser results suggested a different editor was behind this. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Still have concerns as to the origin of the IP edit (there are other possibilities), but this finding is accurate. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I suppose I do accept that it is unlikely, am I satisfied? Not so sure. Would find it easier to remove note on arbitration committee's view on their satisfaction with evidence. However, I am not standing in the way of achieving consensus if this is enough for the rest of the committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Move to abstain per above comment. -FloNight♥♥♥ 14:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

1) For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong is desysopped. He may regain his adminship either through RfA at any time, or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case.

Support:

1. First choice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. It came down to this. Wizardman 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice, regrettably. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Assuming this includes the rollback button since users can have it but not the admin bit? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sadly first choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to address the concerns of the community for a long period, Ryulong is placed under ArbCom probation for a period of 1 year. In case Ryulong misuses the tools again, he shall be desysopped at the discretion of ArbCom via a motion.

Support:

1. Second choice if 1 doesn't pass. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Wizardman 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice, to include rollback button, see above comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. --FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Two RFCs should have achieved this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) Ryulong is strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism. In case of further misuses he may be blocked briefly for each violation —depending on the blocking administrator's discretion— extending to the removal of the rollback tool after 3 violations.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Redundant and leaves him the rollback button, a major issue in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. (with trivial CE)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Whether he is granted rollback is a later decision for admins to make. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Yes, but the enforcement provision is redundant. Wizardman 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) Ryulong is admonished:

(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Support B. Cannot support A since there is no finding that Ryulong was actually seeking Mythdon's identity. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) Mythdon is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. The terms are:

(A) Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

(B) Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

(C) During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor. The mentor will be asked to assist them in understanding community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not the biggest fan of mentorship, but hopefully it works. Wizardman 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Wizardman. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

(D) Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

Support

1. Prompted by this  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes, but I don't think he should be commenting about/to Ryulong period, mentored or not. Wizardman 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would make things easier for the mentor if all interactions with Ryulong were restricted for the duration of the mentorship, and Mythdon advised to avoid antagonising Ryulong even after the mentorship ends. Equally, Ryulong should exercise similar restraint. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

5) Mythdon is admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. Should Mythdon engage in any harassing behaviour on or off wiki, which includes attempting to seek Ryulong's identity on or off wiki, or attempting to contact Ryulong off-wiki, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Mythdon is strongly urged:

(A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions;

(B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I support (B) but don't see any need for (A). --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

7) All participants are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cool Hand Luke 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Vassyana (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Trivial CE)  Roger Davies ^talk 18:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Part of the broader need for fiction guidelines, but yes, particularly a strategy with respect to sourcing. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should Ryulong misuse the rollback tool he may be blocked briefly for each violation —depending on the blocking administrator's discretion—, extending to the removal of the rollback tool after 3 violations.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my oppose vote for remedy 2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. If he is granted rollback, and it is abused, simply remove it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. (moving from support) Wizardman 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Ryulong's Rollback privilege is revoked for 6 months. At the end of that time it may be returned via the usual means. If it is returned, for the 6 months after it is returned, should Ryulong misuse the Rollback tool he may be blocked briefly for each violation —depending on the blocking administrator's discretion—, extending to the removal of the rollback tool after 3 violations.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too harsh at this time. Wizardman 03:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It was a major issue in this case and should not be ignored. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not needed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose remedy 2 and see no need for us to address the issue with additional enforcement now. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. This should be a remedy, not an enforcement provision; I would support it as the former. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Let rollback-granting admins decide this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Although such a ban will presumably have to go through us anyways, so this is more a warning than an independendly enforceable provision. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Basically, this finding says that he likely will be banned if it turns out that he's done this. If anyone has any evidence now or after the case closes, please email the committee. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not necessary. We have not made any finding that Ryulong has sought other users' identities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Although his access to the administrators' IRC channel would cease if he was desysopped. I know there are other IRC channels. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Should Mythdon violate his restriction without him consulting with his mentor or against the will and advice of his mentor, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mentors are advisors, and Mythdon is required to consult one first. The mentor is not a gatekeeper; Mythdon can ignore the advice, but at least needs to consult first. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. On the condition that the mentor does not advise on whether blocks are needed. The mentor should say what advice was given, and others should judge if enforcement is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Mentors are advisors, providing helpful and needed guidance, not gatekeepers for what is or is not a sanctionable action. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Vassyana; also unneeded. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

5) Should Mythdon be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. As in #2 above. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Passing at this time:

• Proposed principles: 1-11, 12.1, 13.2, 14-20
• Proposed findings of fact: 1-3, 5, 6.1, 7-20
• Proposed remedies: 1, 3-7
• Proposed enforcement: 2-5

Not passing at this time:

• Proposed principles: 12, 13, 13.1
• Proposed findings of fact: 4, 6,
• Proposed remedies: 1.1, 2
• Proposed enforcement: 1, 1.1

KnightLago (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

verified pass/not pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

1. Close, we're done here. Wizardman 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. I am happy with it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Close. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Oppose close. We still need an alternative for proposed finding of fact #4. --bainer (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]