1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. The standard boilerplate. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. There has been a serious breakdown of this process here as evidenced by the edit warring, spiteful back and forth and battleground mentality developed in the topic area. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd not say a breakdown so much as a complete lack. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view.

Support:

1. While we obviously can't rule on content here, it's clear that many of the editors involved feel so strongly about their viewpoints that they work to exclude other significant views. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shorter than the versions of this principle that I prefer, but Shell makes a good point that those with strong views on any topic do tend to overly marginalize views that readers with less strong views should be allowed to read about and form their own opinions on. Carcharoth (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with those above me. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions.

Support:

1. It's important to respect the purpose of Wikipedia even when strong viewpoints are involved. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Self-awareness is needed when editing. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. YAND (Yet another nationalist dispute) SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) 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 personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. In addition to the poor behavior on these case pages, the evidence gives multiple examples of many of the editors involved in this area acting in an unseemly manner. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Behavior in this case mimics the behavior in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. Several of the editors involved here have been to more than one Arbitration case, sanctioned at AE, blocked and repeatedly warned. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Last-chance saloon approaching for some people. This topic area needs sorting after multiple arbitration cases. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. The parties are tired of being here, and I think ArbCom (as a monolithic entry) is tired of dealing with this area. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cool Hand Luke 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Indeed, it can be said that the worst misbehavior on Wikipedia, and the one behavior that always eventually leads to a ban, is failure to get the message. — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. KnightLago (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus is user conduct on articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed.Updated: 13:28 20 May 2010

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Would say "formed part of" rather than "belonged". Technically, this definition excludes the Eastern bloc and Warsaw Pact countries (which didn't "belong" to the Soviet Union). In supporting this finding, I'm assuming the restriction to just the Soviet Union and former Soviet republics was the intention here. I also prefer the wording used in the topic bans: "the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed" - that would almost certainly include the Soviet aspects of countries in the Eastern bloc and Warsaw Pact, as the 40+ years post-WWII history of those countries is tightly bound up with the actions of the Soviet Union. This might need clarification. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Updated: 06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Further updating to indicate my support for the 'all related articles, broadly construed' wording. 11:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Supporting the updated/revised version. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Several editors in this topic area have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from related articles.

Support:

1. Obvious by the tenor of talk page discussions and even behavior on this case. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. yes SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Poor" is rather the genteel understatement. I would have said "atrocious". — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Russavia (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [1], [2], [3], [4]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Russavia's editing has been problematic, but this collection of diffs is not an especially strong one; for example, the first is stale and relevant mostly as background, and the third looks to me like a relatively routine AE report. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Russavia has used the personal information or private communications of other editors in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation. [5], [6], [7], [8]

Support:

1. There are times, such as the SPI, where giving information might be appropriate, however, repeated references to a person's information when asked to stop and repeated references to private emails despite requests to stop goes over the line. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. There was a failure to realize that the behavior had gone over the line. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Biophys (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [9], [10]

Support:

1. Biophys clearly has a strong point of view and has not been able to moderate his editing or responses to other editors. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Biophys' editing in this area has been problematic, but the two diffs cited do not strongly support the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6) Biophys has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Edit_warring

Support:

1. The 3RR is not an entitlement for continued edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. 3RR is an absolute limit, not an entitlement. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Repeatedly skirting 3RR is worse that actually stepping over it in the heat of the moment. It demonstrates deliberate gaming of a rule, and full awareness of the inappropriateness of the warring. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) has used the personal information of other editors in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation.[16], [17], [18]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Unacceptable behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) Vlad fedorov has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Vlad fedorov has often exhibited a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wikipedia is not a game of "us vs. them". — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) Ellol (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [30], [31]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I will support this because Wikipedia editing generally should not be considered in terms of "sides," as per the first diff (and some other evidence). The second diff I find of limited relevance inasmuch as it is two years old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) Ellol has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [32], [33], [34], [35]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

12) YMB29 (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [36], [37]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I interpret the diffs cited as an expression of exasperation toward a particular user, rather than as necessarily demonstrating broader problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13) YMB29 has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [38], [39], [40], [41]

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

Support:

1. There is obviously remaining tension between Russavia and the editors from the EEML and this is causing these editors to react more strongly to each other than they might otherwise. While I don't believe Russavia created any of the AE or SPI reports maliciously, the one way ban on interaction is clearly not sufficient to deescalate the situation. There are other editors in the area who can report problems if/when they occur. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is particularly key. Risker (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. One of the key locuses of this case. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. With the understanding that "necessary" is as determined by uninvolved admins, and not by Russavia himself. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Shell. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. To be interpreted in a reasonable and sensible manner, rather than in such a way as to create unnecessary disputes. Note that the converse was already provided for in the "EEML case" itself (remedy 11A). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Russavia is admonished for posting personal information or communications of other editors.

Support:

1. It's important to respect editor's attempts to remove personal information as well as to avoid continually inflaming disputes by referring to private emails. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would have been stronger in this instance. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Shell, especially with regard to unnecessary publication of private information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. Recusing on this point. I have previously blocked Russavia for linking to material that had previously been oversighted, in my role as an oversighter. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Editing in this area has been clearly problematic. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good to build in a review point in advance. Note that this is effectively an indefinite topic ban until Biophys requests a review at the one-year point. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agreed in all areas. In practice, this is an indefinite ban until reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with above. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I would prefer to think of this as presumptively a one-year ban rather than an indefinite one, and would personally be open to reviewing it in a somewhat shorter time if Biophys edits positively in other areas, but I don't think I speak for the committee on these points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year. This restriction will run consecutively with the topic ban.

Support:

1. Repeated reverting damages the ability to discuss article issues and contributes to escalating the problem. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Subject to the review of the topic ban being successful, of course. I would also recommend that the ArbCom that is seated at that date consider modifying this remedy based on the outcome of the review of the topic ban, as it may not be needed at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Since conditions for removing or relaxing the topic ban will be set at the time the topic ban is lifted (if it is), in effect this is a recommendation to the committee members who review the subject at that time, and a default setting then if they don't provide otherwise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, Vlad Federov may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Again, it needs to be made clear that this is an indefinite topic ban and that Vlad fedorov needs to apply to have it lifted (in this case, the earliest date for appeal is 6 months). Creates more work for ArbCom, but I think this is the right approach in this area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. In agreement with Carcharoth. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. This is actually a somewhat lenient sanction in light of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Vlad fedorov is admonished for posting personal information of other editors.

Support:

1. Especially when editors have taken proper steps to remove personal information they may have released, it's important to respect that. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have concerns that editors do not get to stuff the identification genie back into the bottle, if they knowingly and voluntarily make that identification, but I do support this. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Again, this could have deserved more than an admonishment. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Shell. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Ellol (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, Ellol may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per previous comments, these topic bans remain in place until ArbCom approves them being lifted, with 6 months being the earliest review point here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I would prefer a less severe sanction in the first instance, with the possibility of escalation if problems continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8) YMB29 (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, YMB29 may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per previous comments, these topic bans remain in place until ArbCom approves them being lifted, with 6 months being the earliest review point here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I would prefer a less severe sanction in the first instance, with the possibility of escalation if problems continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9) Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Support:

1. Everyone involved in this topic area needs to ensure that they are following best practices. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. With more topic bans to follow by amendment if people don't get the hint here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. More topic bans, and repeat parties should be well aware by now this is their last chance. This is a topic ban. The next step is dropping the word topic, and adding the word site. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. With more draconian measures to follow if people don't get the hint. I am tired of dealing with this. KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked. In the event of repeated violations, the maximum block may be increased gradually up to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

1. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not sure we need to be so vague, and it will be interesting to see how different admins interpret "gradually", but it is better than arguing over whether to have swiftly escalating blocks, or slowly escalating ones (up to the one year limit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Steve Smith (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree that leaving some leeway to AE is the way to go in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. KnightLago (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Everyone should note that the discretionary sanctions provisions of our prior decisions in this area also remain in effect, both as to parties to this case and others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

All principles, findings, remedies and enforcement provisions pass:

Proposals which pass

Passing principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Passing findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Passing remedies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Passing enforcement provisions 1

Proposals which do not pass

Passing principles n/a

Passing findings n/a

Passing remedies n/a

Passing enforcement provisions n/a

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

Four net "support" votes 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.

Support

1. — Coren ^(talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Shell ^babelfish 19:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Slight delay as requested by one or more of the remaining arbitrators yet to vote. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Previous comment in page history, concerns now addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]