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

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 9 active Arbitrators (3 are inactive and 2 are recused), so 5 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 Clerk talk page. 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.

Temp desysop of William M. Connolley

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators and 1 is recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

1) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is temporarily desysopped pending the final outcome of this arbitration for blocking Abd (talk · contribs), block here, during this arbitration case, which they were both parties to at the time and have an involved history with one another.

Support:

1. Proposer. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. No question. Wizardman 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Am satisfied with the assurance given here: Arbcomm [...] has now told me not to block Abd during this case. I think that is the wrong decision, but I admit Arbcomm has the right to make it, so will abide by it." Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Carcharoth and per the fact that we apparently will have the proposed decision available for voting within the next couple of days, during which all issues can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. per above. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Discussion

• Awaiting any indications from WMC as to whether he will repeat this sort of behaviour. If he agrees not to do this again, then I think we can let the case proceed without a temporary desysop. It might also be an idea for Abd and WMC to voluntarily stay away from the cold fusion talk page for the duration of this case, and limit their interaction to the case pages. Some of those presenting evidence against either party might also want to avoid blocking any of the other participants (we shouldn't really need to tell people this), or getting too involved at the cold fusion talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Isn't this more of a temporary injunction, since it expires at the end of the case and doesn't directly affect the case itself? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually just wondering that myself. hmwitht 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could make a reasonable argument either way, but on balance I would say that a majority should be required to request a steward to desysop (temporarily or otherwise, so it would be a motion). A slight rewording—User:Foo is directed not to use administrator tools until the case is resolved—would be more clearly an injunction. In any event, given the current vote, in this instance it doesn't really matter so much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Decorum

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 personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though "is inappropriate" would leave admins with discretion in grey areas. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Standard. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I have been called upon in the past (and on this occasion privately) to explain why I tend to simply not vote on this particular principle. I believe that the word "prohibit" implies a bright line over which one cannot cross; however, several of the examples given don't really have clearly delineated bright lines and are dependent on situation-specific factors. Nonetheless, I believe that the behaviours identified are not conducive to effective and appropriate editing of the encyclopedia. Now that I have explained my position, I will resume not voting on this principle when it appears again in the future. Risker (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps you could suggest a reworded version that you could support? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   How about replacing "is prohibited" may result in sanctions if deemed disruptive enough." ? Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I may propose an alternative in the future. This isn't the case to do it. Risker (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct on arbitration pages

2) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I support this (which is to be expected as I once wrote it), but I'd prefer to see it posted lower in the section, as I wouldn't want to suggest that problematic editor behavior on our own pages is of greater concern than problematic behavior elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Newyorkbrad. I support this principle, but the conduct seen on the arbitration pages is part of the continuum of behaviour that is of concern and thus not as central as some of the other principles. Risker (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sets a bad example for those following cases, so standards here should be as high as elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bans

3) A ban is a formal revocation of a user's editing privileges on Wikipedia, or on a page or group of pages within Wikipedia. A ban may be of fixed or of indefinite duration.

Bans may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, by administrators implementing discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee, or by the community.

Support:

1. Policy as it stands does not authorise administrators to impose bans by themselves, absent available discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia policy need not be written - the description follows the accepted practice - but there needs to be some actual indication that a practice is indeed widely accepted and utilised before it can be considered policy. For example, one would expect to see substantial evidence of the practice being used and supported, or well-received efforts to document the practice. In this case there has been no indication shown that there is such a widely accepted and utilised practice. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Disagree that admin can not use their tools to assist editors of articles by doing blocks or page bans. On Wikipedia policy is written that describes practices after they become commonly uses, but that does not prevent people from using their tools in reasonable ways that have the support of many people when they hear about it later. This seems to go against the community ethos that we should try out new efforts. And I don't see how anything new and not ever tried before could ever done if people are not allowed to do it because it is against policy. I'm not going to tie the hands of admins by telling them that they are wrong to do any action that is sensible and get wide support later. Every admin action can be undone if needed by someone else after review on the appropriate notice board. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. So long as the admins are acting sensibly, Flo's right. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Part of the reason administrators are expected the ordeal of Requests for Adminship is that they are, traditionally and in practice, given a fairly liberal leeway in "preventing disruption"; I see the application of a page or topic ban as a reasonable alternative to an outright block when disruption is centered in a specific area, and the imposition of such to fall within administrator discretion (and, indeed, subject to the same standard of review as other administative acts). — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bainer is correct that the actual written ban policy does not presently encompass the concept of a "page ban" or "topic ban" outside the context of arbitration enforcement. Although Abd's behavior in precipitating this case has been regrettable in many respects, as is discussed below in the findings, he has correctly identified this omission in the written policy, which should be fixed. It is nonetheless true—Thatcher has marshalled some examples on the talkpage—that such administrator-imposed page bans or topic bans have been part of de facto policy for some time, and have been generally recognized as such. It would create a mess for this committee to suddenly declare all of these page bans or topic bans invalid or suspect, and an injustice to all the administrators and other editors who have relied upon them. The appropriate way forward is contained in remedy 6, which urges the community to decide upon and document our policies in this area. As a more general comment, despite all our dozens of policy and guideline pages which in some ways seek to overly micromanage the site, eight years into the project there are still some surprising gaps in documenting, or even agreeing on, matters of basic policy concerning blocks and bans. See the long discussion a couple of months ago on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests regarding blocking/unblocking protocols, which I unfortunately cannot now locate in the archives, for an example that is worthy of further attention. But then again, how much of policy should be documented, as opposed to allowed develop over time from practice and experience, it itself a deep question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The examples given were of the community discussing and then imposing bans, which is a different kettle of fish. They cannot support any finding that unwritten policy has diverged here. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Pretty much per all the above, though Bainer is technically correct, this is a de facto policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Newyorkbrad.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I'm not seeing either position as entirely correct. The examples identified by Thatcher on the talk page generally involve discussion amongst a group of disinterested editors and administrators, either before the ban is implemented or supporting the ban following its implementation and announcement to the community. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the project would benefit from a community discussion of what practices should be encouraged. Risker (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Risker. Some admins have the clue needed to impose such page or topic bans, but some don't. I would prefer community discussions be held to clarify exactly how this sort of process should work. In addition, one of the drawbacks of community-imposed bans is the possibility that too many of those commenting are involved in the dispute. Some of those involved are needed to present the case for a topic ban, but really, decisions should be taken by those not involved in the dispute (ArbCom and mediation are the classic example of a panel of uninvolved users attempting to resolve a dispute). ANI discussions have different and sometimes wildly variant standards - how to fairly appeal a community-imposed topic ban is not clear. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community bans

4) A community ban can originate from a consensus among uninvolved users during a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, if an administrator has blocked a user, and a discussion of that block among uninvolved users in an appropriate venue reaches a consensus not to unblock the user, then the user may be considered banned for the duration of the block (unless the consensus is to alter the duration).

The possibility that a community ban may result from a consensus not to reverse a block does not absolve administrators of the obligation to exercise the blocking tool only in accordance with the blocking policy.

Support:

1. Further detail in relation to the above proposal. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, but def. prefer 4.1. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is correct, but from my experience "a consensus among uninvolved users" and the use of "an appropriate venue" is rare - more commonly, the discussion is at a drama-filled location, and includes involved users, who are deemed to form part of the consensus. Rather than have fresh opinions at each stage of dispute resolution, what happens is more like a snowball growing bigger and bigger, with new opinions added on top of the older ones. This makes resolution of disputes much more difficult than it needs to be. Genuinely fresh and uninvolved opinions should be encouraged, and those asking for a review or endorsement of a previous decision should be able to step back after presenting their case, and trust that the right decision is made, as opposed to the dispute being rehashed between the same people with only a few new voices joining in. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I fear that this formulation confusingly interchanges the concept of overall blocks or bans with page bans or topic bans; 4.1 below is better in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Newyorkbrad. The concepts of topic/page bans and blocks are very different points on the continuum of user-specific dispute resolution and sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Newyorkbrad.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The issue is a page or topic ban. Whether or whether not it was done by a single admin first and later discussed or done by the single admin alone and never discussed is not vastly different than when a single admin give blocks of varying lengths to enforce a problem with editing on an article, and no other admin comments on it before hand. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not sure where we're going with this one. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. 4.1 does the trick better. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page or topic bans

4.1) A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. When enacting an editing restriction that includes a ban on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the particulars of the ban and its duration. Editors that are page or topic banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease contributing to that area. User account blocks may be used to enforce violation of page or topic bans. Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is a reasonably accurate summary of current practice, which I can support subject to the comment that it may be superseded by a community-developed policy (compare proposed remedy 6). As a matter of semantics, I think the word "ban" is now going to be perpetually ambiguous, because on a sitewide basis, a single administrator can only impose a "block" (consensus, explicit or presumed, being required for a "ban"); but we are effectively recognizing that a single administrator can impose a page ban or topic ban (no one refers to a "topic block", even though this might actually be a better remedy for something like isolated 3RR violations). But I suppose it is too late to untangle the nomenclature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mostly support, but would disagree with "Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard" - this wording is too loose. The initial review should be brought up by the user who has been topic or page banned. Cases where the banning admin, or a user supporting the ban, brings a ban to a community noticeboard for review, can appear like the seeking of an endorsement, which is dynamically different to a review. In effect, it is a double-whammy, first the admin imposes a ban, then someone else or that admin gets the ban rubber-stamped by the community. That is not how independent reviews of a ban are meant to work. The only way the community can properly review a ban is if they have the information presented to them properly, by both the banning admin and the person who is banned. I would also quibble with "reasonable steps" - in my view, talk page notification of such bans, and logging them somewhere, is a must. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Prefer 4. Second choice. The other version's emphasis on uninvolved editors is an extremely important, and much neglected, point that distinguishes between a lynch mob and a discussion. I do not think it can be overstated how disruptive it is for highly involved editors to overwhelm noticeboards threads and/or give an inaccurate appearance of broader consensus. This is particularly problematic in conduct reports and at the content noticeboards. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Mostly inoffensive but implies administrators acting alone can impose bans. --bainer (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I support the description of page or topic bans, the method for enforcing them, and the manner in which they can be lifted by the community. I am not entirely persuaded that the community supports individual administrators applying page or topic bans without some degree of participation/discussion from the broader community. Risker (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrator tools in a dispute

5) An administrator must not use his or her administrator tools to further the administrator's position in a dispute.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. That is sine qua non, and grounds for removal of the privilege in itself. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. As a matter of copyediting, I've changed "administrative tools" to "administrator tools". Any editor can perform some administrative tasks on the site; only administrators hold administrator (adj.) access privileges. This has been a pet semantic peeve of mine for three years, but Bainer or any other arbitrator can change the wording back if desired, and I'll try not to grit my teeth too audibly. I've also rewritten around "singular they", which I'm sorry, but still grates on my unbearably; no matter how desirable it would be to have such a construction to aid us all in writing gender-neutral prose, maybe I'm just too old to get used to it. Substantively, we've discussed caveats and exceptions to this formulation of the principle in prior cases, but I can accept the articulation here as a general principle, overlooking some infrequent exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Naturally. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Basic point. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

6) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:

1. Originally proposed by FloNight on the workshop, a fine proposal. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Appearance of conflict of interest is just as damaging as conflict of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is adapted from a principle that I first introduced in the C68-FM-SV case, and a review of my explanation on the workshop there, as well as the second paragraph of the principle as adopted there (and which is omitted here) might be helpful to those with doubts about the principle. I am sensitive to the concern, expressed on the talkpage of this case, that the aspect about "repeated editing" could be misused to penalize legitimate confluence of interests or agreement among regular editors on a topic. The principle aims at reasonable, legitimate, long-term concerns expressed in good faith that something untoward is going on. Although this aspect can be included in the statement of the principle here for completeness, I see no evidence that any behavior of this nature is involved in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support in general, although I am a bit concerned about the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry section, and concur with Newyorkbrad's comments above. Risker (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would like to reiterate my view here that the same people being attracted to similar disputes as they rise through the levels of dispute resolution can give the appearance of "the usual suspects", but is in fact normal behaviour. Still, getting fresh opinions is vital to avoid any appearance of impropriety. One way to encourage fresh opinions is to improve conduct during the disputes. People are far less likely to give an opinion on an ill-tempered dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. Originally proposed by FloNight on the workshop. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Although all the relevant circumstances, including the motivation for the behavior and whether it is short- or long-term and continues despite warnings and advice, should be taken into account in determining a response to the behavior, including if necessary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Concur, although review of the situation should not stop with the application of sanctions and should include examination of the underlying situation. Risker (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. With the above caveats. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a purported topic ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article and conflicts on its talk page.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Support:

1. Minor modification from the workshop. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice; per the opposers' concerns, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not a "topic ban" but a page ban. And can not support the word "purported" since I think that the page bans were a sensible reaction to the problems on the article and article talk page, and heavily supported by the Community later. Will offer an alternative wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The use of "purported" begs the question as to the propriety of the ban. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Use of the word "purported" is a deal breaker. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Prefer 1.1. Risker (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

1.1) The locus of this dispute is a page ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Simple and accurate description. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Events leading to this case

Recent disputes

2) In May 2009, Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Abd were involved in an edit war on cold fusion [1] leading William M. Connolley to protect the page [2].

On 31 May and 1 June 2009, edit warring on cold fusion involving a number of users [3] led Causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to protect the page for two weeks [4].

Support:

1. Problems on the article have continued following the cold fusion case, involving different editors. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. That article is a recurring battleground. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley's reversion

3) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [5], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [6]. This course of action had been proposed by GoRight on the talk page (Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_33#A_simple_proposal.3F).

At the time there were multiple active discussions on talk:cold fusion concerning the state of the article, including multiple suggestions to revert to earlier versions of the article, but there was disagreement and confusion over the form of the discussions taking place, and there was no consensus on what course of action to take with respect to the article.

Support:

1. This I don't have so much of a problem with. Reverting to a prior supported version as a circuit breaker in an editorial dispute is a fine approach. Many times an article will be protected in circumstances where none of two or more competing versions are supported. The only criticism here would be that William M. Connolley might have waited longer after GoRight's suggestion to gather more input. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Factually correct. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice, prefer 3.1 (I take it these proposals are alternatives). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice, prefer 3.1. Risker (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't think these two findings are alternatives, nor should they be voted on as alternatives. If they both get support, they should both pass. They describe the same dispute, but focus on different things. This one correctly identifies the role talk page discussion (or failure of said discussions) played. The second one focuses on WMC's edit and edit summary. Two different findings of facts, not alternatives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal to 3.1, both can pass IMHO. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Equal preference. Both are accurate. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. First para is fine, second I am not so sure about. Abd was main objector, others had accepted it (??) Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley's controversial action as an administrator

3.1) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [7], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [8] with the edit summary "Lets [sic] wind everyone up", an action and comment that needlessly escalated the dispute.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Under all the circumstances, I find the edit summary more problematic than the edit itself. Note that the paragraph title here is vague and could use clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Newyorkbrad. (This was not William M. Connolley's only controversial action as an administrator, so I would prefer a more precise title to the paragraph.) Risker (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support this in addition to the previous finding of fact. I see these two as separate findings, not alternatives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
8. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Equal preference. Both are accurate. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Adapted from FloNight's proposal on the workshop. I personally don't have so much of a problem with this action but I can see how it would be seen as problematic by many others. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley's actions on cold fusion article

3.2) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [9], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [10] with the edit summary "Lets [sic] wind everyone up", an action and comment that had the potential to needlessly escalate the dispute.

Support:

1. First choice. Alternative wording provided after WMC raised an objection on the proposed decision talk page (second paragraph of that diff). I've also retitled the finding to be more descriptive and less vague. I am mindful that Brad said this case should be closed sooner rather than later, but with several arbitrators away without having marked themselves inactive, we are stuck. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Um, okay. The other one was fine i thought, 2nd choice. Wizardman 01:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We know from the facts we have before us that the dispute was escalated with these actions, none of which were particularly necessary. Using the phrase "had the potential" is not helpful, when the potential appears to have been met. Risker (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. 3.1 is more accurate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Risker.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Risker. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Purported topic bans

4) On 6 June, William M. Connolley purported to impose topic bans on Hipocrite and Abd from cold fusion and its talk page, for an indefinite duration "of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes [sic]" [11]. He then removed the full protection on the article and replaced it with semi-protection [12].

William M. Connolley did not purport to ban Hipocrite and Abd on the basis of any discretionary sanctions, and was not implementing any community consensus, and as such had no authority to impose any ban.

A subsequent administrators' incidents noticeboard discussion on 11 and 12 June (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion) approved a topic ban on Abd from cold fusion and its talk page for one month.

The purported topic ban as against Hipocrite was removed by William M. Connolley on 24 June [13].

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While WMC did not handle the situation as well as I might hope that he would, I want admins to work in these disputes and help settle them down. I see no reason that every action by an admin needs to be discussed up front. This would needlessly delay find a resolution in many cases. If any editor wants to have an admin action reviewed, then they can make a request on a notice board. This interpretation of policy would make it impossible for admin to try creative new ways to deal with a situations or to IAR when it is needed. Instead of blocking an user, a page ban is very reasonable as many people said when they saw it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Flo sums it up well. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Again, I feel that such a page ban falls entirely within the discretion afforded to administrator, and stands out as a measured response to stabilize the article. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per FloNight and Coren. Depending on which other findings are adopted, it might be desirable for one of them to write a substitute finding that would summarize these events so that the decision reflects the chronology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per FloNight and Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per FloNight, but with my previously stated caveat that it should be the sanctioned editor asking for a review, not "any editor", which in this case was someone else taking the incident to a noticeboard. That risks getting it rubber-stamped, or being done to pre-empt further interaction between the user and the admin. If a user is going to breach a ban, let the user and the admin sort things out instead of someone else needlessly escalating the dispute to a noticeboard. Only if the editor so-banned wants a review, should it go to a noticeboard. Furthermore, the practice of admins taking their actions to a noticeboard for review (which isn't what happened in this case), though tempting as a "sanity check" is really missing the point. If you need a sanity check, you most likely shouldn't have done the action in the first place. Either stand by your action (while letting the banned user know their options for appeal), or undo it and let someone else take the action instead. Admins need to take responsibility for their actions, rather than deferring to a noticeboard (and to WMC's credit, that is what he did here, as it was not him that took this incident to ANI). Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Coren. If an administrator can implement a technical block to prohibit any editing outside of userspace, a lesser sanction such as a page ban seems appropriate. Since an editor so sanctioned is not prohibited from editing outside of userspace, they have more options in seeking outside review than a blocked editor. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not entirely accurate (page ban vs. topic ban), although I am not entirely persuaded that the community accepts page or topic bans done in isolation by administrators at this point. Risker (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page bans

4.1) On 6 June, William M. Connolley placed a page ban on Hipocrite and Abd from cold fusion and its talk page, for an indefinite duration "of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes [sic]" [14]. He then removed the full protection on the article and replaced it with semi-protection [15].

A subsequent administrators' incidents noticeboard discussion on 11 and 12 June (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion) endorsed and reaffirmed the page ban placed by William M. Connolley for one month.

William M. Connolley then lifted the ban of Hipocrite on 24 June [16].

Support:

1. Timeline that does not presuppose that the ban was improper. — Coren ^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. This timeline seems to be more accurate. I appreciate that it is not predicated on the appropriateness of the page bans. Risker (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The timeline is accurate. Carcharoth's reservations about the community discussion do not render the finding inadequate. I would suggest that Carcharoth offer a separate proposal reflecting his concerns about the discussion, except that frankly it is past time to get the case closed, rather than introduce additional nuances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Timeline is correct, but in my view the community discussion had several crucial flaws: (1) It should not have been started by Enric Naval, but should have been started by Abd at a time of his chosing when he was ready to contest the ban; (2) It did not draw in enough opinions from uninvolved editors; (3) Abd's long posts disrupted it; (4) It was not open for long enough (though this was partly because Abd asked for it to be closed); (5) WMC was not given the opportunity to explain what had happened. The good point about the community discussion was that it was closed by an uninvolved administrator, but overall it was a drama-laden thread that was mostly a rehashing of previous stages of the dispute, with only a few new voices. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nothing wrong with the timeline, but again, suggests that administrators acting alone can impose bans. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. More accurate. Reservations per Carcharoth. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First block of Abd

5) On 15 June, Abd edited cold fusion to adjust a citation [17] and immediately self-reverted [18] with the edit summary "per ban". Two hours later, William M. Connolley blocked Abd for 24 hours for violating the topic ban [19].

As Abd was under a community topic ban at this point, he was liable, under the blocking policy, to be blocked for any edit made in violation of that ban. However, given the dispute between Abd and William M. Connolley about the latter's ability to unilaterally apply a topic ban, William M. Connolley should not have taken any enforcement action under the community ban.

Support:

1. A ban is a complete revocation of editing privileges: no editing whatsoever, even if one self-reverts one's changes. A block was entirely appropriate here. For William M. Connolley to perform the block himself was less than ideal, as that only provided an avenue for Abd to attempt to undermine the ban. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Flo's right, but there are plenty of administrators that could have looked over that. Wizardman 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice, per Wizardman. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Presuming that a community topic ban was in place (though see my comments about that earlier), then yes, WMC's action did provide Abd with an avenue with which to undermine the ban. Stephen is quite right here - WMC should have stepped back and let others deal with it, not because of "involvement", but because of common sense and pragmatism (letting someone else deal with this would have avoided further drama). A tweak of the wording would emphasise the minimal point being made here: "less than ideal" (in Stephen's comment) is better than should not (in the finding). In other words, it would have been better if someone else had done the block. This is part of the judgment that admins are meant to display when considering such things. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal preference. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The second paragraph spoils it. That the target of a sanction disagrees with the sanction is obviously no impediment to enforcement, and the ban having been endorsed soundly by the community reinforces its propriety. It might have been better for another admin to enforce in this case, but it does not render the block improper. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If the wording was changed from William M. Connolley should not to it would have been better if William M. Connolley had not, would you be able to support that? Same question to all the abstainers. Carcharoth (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that proposed wording would suffice for me to support the finding. — Coren ^(talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Can not agree with as worded. If the page ban was supported by the Community then that means that the ban put in place by WMC was helpful. While it is always nice when admins collaborate with each other when dealing with problem articles or a editing dispute, I don't think that every time that an admin is complained about then that admin must abstain. Only if the situation advance to true dispute resolution, then does that mean that an admin is too involved to act against an user. But I agree that it is best practice for another admin to do the block if one admin bans because it will give more support to the people working on the article. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would like to see an alternative formulation offered by one of the opposers or abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Newyorkbrad. Perhaps this needs to be broken into two parts, the first dealing with Abd's actions and the second with the decision by WMC to make the block personally. Risker (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First block of Abd

5.1) On 15 June, in a clear violation of the community-endorsed page ban, Abd edited cold fusion to adjust a citation [20] and immediately self-reverted [21] with the edit summary "per ban". Two hours later, William M. Connolley blocked Abd for 24 hours for violating the page ban [22].

That Abd was, at the time, disputing the propriety of William M. Connolley placing the ban does not invalidate it, but it would have been better if another administrator had effected it.

Support:

1. The block was strictly correct on its face; as a ban means that no editing whatsoever is to take place (a fact that Abd was entirely aware of). I agree that it would have been best if a different admin had blocked given the dispute to reduce the potential for drama, however. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Prefer my suggested tweak to Stephen's wording, but this is OK too (second choice). I changed "topic ban" to "page ban" in your wording above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose to make my preference for finding 5 clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weakly support I guess. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Second choice. Wizardman 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I appreciate Newyorkbrad's point, but a ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8) Following the expiration of the topic ban against him, Abd voluntarily submitted to an extension of that ban. On 8 August, he withdrew this submission, and on 9 August made an edit to Talk:cold fusion. William M. Connolley then reverted Abd, and blocked him for 24 hours, with the action summary "Violation of ban at t:Cold Fusion". On Abd's talk page, William M. Connolley said:

All of these actions took place during this case.