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 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Case closed: This case is now closed, as of October 26, 2007, as indicated on the main page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Case dismissed

1) As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.

Support:

I don't see us getting anything more useful out of this. Kirill 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing the case without remedies FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want it in the first place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose so. James F. (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

1) Wikipedians are expected to state their point clearly and discuss it. False advocacy on behalf of content intended to illustrate inconsistencies in opponent's views, or intended to illustrate the outcome of those views if taken to their logical conclusion, is disruptive.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Arguments based on reductio ad absurdum are not being banned by this principle, since no one is being "false" by making such an argument. It is perfectly fine to "illustrate inconsistencies in opponent's views, or ... the outcome of those views if taken to their logical conclusion". What is not OK is to falsely "advocate on behalf of content" as a way of doing so. Simply put, if you are convinced that doing P is wrong, it is fine to argue: "Suppose we do P. But then these bad things will happen". It is not OK to advocate: "Let's do P ".[reply]
As Paul. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle but I do not think it applies in this case as the editor/parties bringing this case say it does in some or maybe all cases. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

It depends on the degree. Some "false advocacy" consists of reductio ad absurdum in the course of discussions, and is not inherantly disruptive. I'd rather not simply ban such arguments. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Limits of Ignore All Rules

2) Editors who ignore advice to refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point are, at a minimum, expected to stop once their point has been made, rather than continue a pattern of disruption indefinitely.

Support:

Oppose:

I can not support this wording and do not think is needed given the other principle regarding Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point which better states the concerns of parties bringing the case, even if I do not agree with them. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Responsibility of administrators

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Content forking

4) Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy provides that all significant points of view must be presented fairly and without bias. Content forking, where two or more articles are written from differing points of view on a single topic, is a violation of the NPOV policy.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rule frequently broken, and for good reason Fred Bauder 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True and support for now, but not sure how it applies to this case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith differences among editors regarding content disputes. However, the Committee's jurisdiction does extend to Wikiquette and policy violations even when they manifest themselves in the article space.

Support:

Oppose:

Uncomfortable with the wording here; questions of whether the NPOV policy is violated are content disputes. Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, standard position. FloNight 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First choice Fred Bauder 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

6) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but far easier said than done as undertanding the intentions of others is difficult under the best circumstances and can be next to impossible when there is loads of extraneous noise. FloNight 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus can change

7) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and the community as a whole to change its mind.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

8) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be the main principle of the case FloNight 21:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the main principle in pretty much every case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit, and encourages interested editors to work together amongst themselves and with the larger Wikipedia community to resolve these differences.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No need to combine a finding and a remedy, nor to limit the remedy to a single article. Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does include a remedy Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill, Fred. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

1.1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By custom and practice we do not decide content disputes and I see no reason to change that now. FloNight 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles

2) Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As currently written, a random person passing by would think that Urthogie and "other editors", want Israel to be immune from the apartheid allegation articles but want other countries to be documented in such articles; ie, the beneficiary of double standards. The line of reasoning presented for creating these articles was that all or nothing was required for NPOV, so that the existence of the Israel page necessitates the existence of other pages. Their argument was not that Israel should be immune while other countries targeted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles

2.1) Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.

Support:

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Paul August ☎ 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I see no evidence that Urthogie opposes the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. In fact in the fourth deletion discussion he wrote: "*Weak keep - entire books have been written on these allegations." [1]. In the other five deletion discussions he did not comment [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].[reply]

Abstain:

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles

2.2) Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles "so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV" [7], and other editors opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now as I think this is close to what happened. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Misses the point Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles created to prove a point

3) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point. [8] The Committee also finds the puzzling votes of those users who endorse deletion of the allegations of Israeli apartheid articles while opposing deletion of the other, clearly less meritorious allegations of ... apartheid articles to be evidence of an attempt to prove a point.

Support:

Oppose:

Content decision; and a bad idea to lump article creation and AFD votes together in any case. Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the stated motive of one person. Also, 2nd part is content decision. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles created to prove a point

3.1) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point ([9]).

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Where does the plural here come from? And in what way was the one editor cited involved in the creation and expansion of the articles in question? User:Sefringle has close to zero edits on any but the Israel one; hard to see how his comment has any bearing on the actual acts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Conflicting votes

4) A number of editors voted to keep various of the allegations of ... apartheid articles after having voted to delete the ''allegations of Israeli apartheid article. While some of these votes may have been intended to prove a point, it is reasonable to believe that others were caused by a good-faith belief that the results of the earlier AFDs represented community consensus, and were to be followed for the other articles.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to encourage users on both sides of this dispute to Wikipedia:Assume good faith as this is a key Wikipedia principle that has often been forgotten in this broad content dispute. FloNight 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I don't think this sheds any useful light on the matter.[reply]

Abstain:

Sm8900

5) Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to disrupt the arbitration process by posting an inflammatory and highly partisan "call to arms" ([10], [11], [12]).

Support:

Oppose:

There were many comments that were substantially more provocative than that one in this arena. This was far from being the posts which increased tension the most. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were other postings that invited partisan editors to flood the workshop pages to "show their support" and make demands of the Committee? Kirill 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be true, I believe that we should limit cases to their original boundaries. If Sm8900's behavior poses a serious problem, a separate case should be brought forth. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but secondary. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not significant for the matter at hand. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes to prove a point

6) Seven editors (Gzuckier (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs), and Tickle me (talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.

Support:

Oppose:

I reviewed the Afd discussions on the request of one of the users on this list and agree with him that this Fof does not accurately portray his participation in the discussion. I need to review the rest before deciding whether to separate the rest of the users or just leave this oppose vote. (Since this Fof is the basis for a remedy we need to get it right.) FloNight 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to oppose. I think each editor needs to be voted on individually with supporting evidence for each one. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwilling to make such a generalization about all the editors involved; I don't like "only reasonable explanation" language, anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generalisation with which I'm uncomfortable, yes. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

A previous Apartheid Arbitration case mandated that editors negotiate in good faith

7) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid#Negotiation, "Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter."

Support:

Paul August ☎ 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) This needs to be taken into account.[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy certainly intended for these editors to use mediation to settle their future disputes. This case is somewhat broader than "article names" but I think it certainly applies in spirit. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Limitation on AFD/DRV participation

1) No editor who has both voted "Delete" in a deletion discussion regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article and also voted "Keep" in a deletion discussion regarding any other allegations of ... apartheid article may participate in any further deletion/undeletion discussion regarding any allegations of ... apartheid articles other than allegations of Israeli apartheid. The clerks are asked to compile a list of affected editors and add it to the final decision. This prohibition is to remain in force for a period of one year.

Support:

Oppose:

Not appropriate to paint everyone with the same brush here; see FoF #4. Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much too broad. FloNight 18:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Limitation on new allegations of ... apartheid articles

2) For a period of one year, no editor listed in remedy #1 above may create or expand any new allegations of ... apartheid article.

Support:

Oppose:

As in Remedy #1. Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per my objection to remedy #1. FloNight 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Urthogie restricted

3) Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article or participating in any deletion/undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Paul August ☎ 20:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)~~ Strike my support for now pending further review. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Should be able to edit the Israeli article Fred Bauder 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Sm8900 banned

4) Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Draconian. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Amnesty and reminder

5) A general amnesty is granted to all editors not specifically sanctioned by this decision for any actions they may have taken in the course of this dispute. This amnesty is coupled with an understanding that further attempts to treat Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the imposition of summary sactions against the offending editors.

Support:

Kirill 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the editors not named in some other remedy. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I think it is bad idea for us to make a habit of doing this. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and in this particular case, the editors responsible for this should have known better.[reply]
Per UnC. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Point-making voters restricted

6) The seven editors listed in Finding #6 as having voted to prove a point are prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article, or participating in any deletion/undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.

Support:

Oppose:

jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be able to edit the Israeli article Fred Bauder 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can not support a remedy with 7 editors. Each needs to be voted on separately. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Users who violate remedies imposed in this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it looks like it may not be needed. James F. (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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.

Vote

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.