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

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

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

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Collegiality[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. A novel formulation (i.e., not the standard language we usually use), but well stated, and certainly an appropriate aspirational goal for everyone connected with the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. A welcome development in the boilerplate. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Collegiality and prohibited conduct[edit]

2) Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Same general comment as paragraph 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Good lord yes. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recidivism[edit]

3) 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. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   For what it's worth, we probably should use a slightly less legalistic term for the header. I won't bother proposing a copyedit here, but noting for future cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. As 2). The Cavalry (Message me) 12:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Can we just call it "Repeating previous problem behaviour" next time --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct of administrators[edit]

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Responding to the abstainers, I saw a relevance when I voted initially and I see a greater relevance today (see next proposed principle that I have added). There need not, in my view, always be a one-to-one correspondence between principles and findings. While I would not (for example) vote to adopt a remedy against a user without a corresponding finding and hopefully a corresponding principle, the converse is not true: it is sometimes in order for the committee to adopt a principle articulating or emphasizing a general rule that is implicated by events discussed in the case, even where no individual violation of the rule warrants criticizing a specific editor by name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Reaffirming general principle - sometimes it's helpful to reaffirm what the actual principle is, in order to confirm that it has not been breached. In the event of a complaint against an individual, it can be as important to say that you have not supported the complaint or have exonerated the individual, as it can be to confirm that you have found for the plaintiff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Agree, but relevance to this case has not been demonstrated in findings. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Xeno John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators[edit]

5) Administrators are expected not to take administrator actions arising from disputes in which they themselves are involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. As a specific and clear application of this rule, an administrator who is a party to a pending arbitration case may not block another editor who is a party to the same case, particularly when the case arose in large measure from disputes between the two of them.

Support:

1. It may be well to reaffirm this principle and articulate the second sentence in view of recent developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are hundreds of other administrators. When in doubt, go find one of them and convince him or her of the urgency of the block. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Again reaffirming the principle is good. This is a new articulation of involved I believe, but there is no logical inconsistency with the underlying policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. –xeno^talk 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MickMacNee (I)[edit]

1) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism by engaging in a variety of disruptive, hostile, and uncollaborative conduct. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])

Support:

1. The items linked are only a small sample of the evidence. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The sad thing is that I think MickMacNee believes in the goals of the project and also believes that his contributions are helpful in achieving them. Unfortunately, the sheer amount of inflammatory invective and personal abuse he aims at other editors negates the value of his participation. This is an example of a situation where keeping one editor around risks, in the long run, driving off too many others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As an added comment, I should note that I have reviewed User_talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration_evidence, despite its length (I am not a proponent of rigid word limits in arbitration cases, particularly as applied to a main party—although this is not a criticism of the clerks who have enforced our procedures as they stand). On reading it, one sees a very different picture of MickMacNee from the one who comes through so many other times, and that side of MickMacNee could make valuable contributions again someday if Mick is able ultimately to address the concerns that have led us to the point of this decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB. One needn't assume bad faith to point out that expectations are consistently not being met, nor is corrective action being heeded. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sadly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Brad and Jon; the best intentions do not excuse the worst behaviors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MickMacNee (II)[edit]

2) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly sanctioned for disruptive conduct by numerous administrators. The sanctions to date have included three indefinite blocks, as well as sixteen other blocks longer than 24 hours in duration. ([9])

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Even when multiple block-log entries arising out of the same or related incidents are considered as one, and a couple of the more borderline blocks are discounted, this is a very problematic record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. It is entirely possible to have an active, multi-year Wikipedia career without acquiring a single block, even when working in contentious areas. I strongly suspect MickMacNee's block log is well more than 2 standard deviations outside the norm. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think that it's important that the blocks not be taken as evidence of misconduct in themselves, but they certainly are evidence that Mick was aware that many of his colleagues had serious concerns about his behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. At the least, it shows that he did have the problem 'pointed out' to him often enough. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Rd232[edit]

3) Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used his administrative tools for questionable purposes. ([10])

Support:

1. Administrators' tools are not toys. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The admins tools shouldn't be used for personal purposes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Amending in light of recent developments. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   To those changing from oppose to support on this finding based on the recent block—isn't that covered by 3.1, so that supporting this as well would be double-counting? Or put differently, the block may not have been proper (see principle 5), but was it really for a "questionable purpose"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The link is to Rd232's block log, which reflects three instances in which Rd232 blocked his own account to enforce a wikibreak (the last of these instances having been motivated, at least in part, by his dissatisfaction with the community's handling of MickMacNee). While self-blocks and wikibreak-enforcement blocks are not supported by policy, they are hardly a serious threat to the project, nor do I think they reflect use of the block button as a "toy." Rd232 has been an editor since 2004 and an administrator since 2005, has a strong record of positive contributions to the project, and through his input on the workshop page in this case has more than convinced me that he remains an asset as an administrator. I do not feel that it is necessary or helpful to criticize him in this decision; but for the happenstance that MickMacNee was before us, this situation would probably not have even warranted our discussing it. If we desire to address this subject in this decision, a principle reminding administrators that self-blocks are deprecated would, in my view, be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Largely per NYB,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Moved to support for obvious reasons,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Opposing with reference to the FOF as made, with it's diff. Self blocking to enforce a wikibreak is silly, not abusive. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I'm not a huge fan of self blocks, but don't consider this to be worrisome enough for a finding. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   per PhilKnight. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. per PhilKnightCasliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with PhilKnight. Self-blocks are not something I support, but they're not a huge problem either. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. As per PhilKnight. - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think that was poor judgment, but not raising to the level of a finding. — Coren ^(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Would oppose, but I've self-blocked before so... –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232[edit]

3.1) Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used his administrative tools while involved. ([11])

Support:

1. One party blocking another case party is not on. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I cannot imagine an instance where one party to an ArbCom case blocking another one is a remotely good idea. That'd be as silly as an admin wheel warring with an arb while his case is under review... Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Obviously. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too general. Would support a copy-edit or alternative suchlike "Rd232 has used his administrative tools to block another party to this case in contravention of the guidance given to involved administrators." –xeno^talk 13:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. This block under the circumstances was ill-judged and increased rather than reduced the level of disputation, but in view of Rd232's explanation for it, I believe an affirmation of the general rule and its application to arbitration cases should be sufficient. See new proposed principle 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Newyorkbrad. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per NYB. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. per Brad --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Think this makes more sense in a general statement without a specific callout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft[edit]

4) Hammersoft (talk · contribs) engaged in conduct that created a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere and materially contributed to the escalation of disputes within the scope of this case. ([12])

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Well, the comment cited was certainly unhelpful and over-the-top and should not be emulated, even though directed at a difficult user. Nonetheless, this comment appears to have been an isolated incident, and as pointed out on the evidence page, Hammersoft apologized for it a couple of days later [13]. I have considered the possibility that the diff provided was just a sample of the evidence against Hammersoft, but as far as I can tell there is very little other discussion relating to him on the evidence page or the workshop. Thus, I cannot support this finding at this time. I will reevaluate this vote (as any vote) if there is relevant evidence or discussion I have missed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'd see it as a conflict of interest for ArbCom to sanction Hammersoft for a post in which he criticizes... ArbCom. I can see and empathize with the frustration therein, and I've certainly seen plenty worse. While I would not have expressed things in precisely the same way, I do not see the example linked rising to the level of a finding. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Largely per JC,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Disagreeing with JC, in that I believe Arbcom could sanction editors for certain kinds of abusive attack on Arbcom. However, this one-off comment is nowhere near falling into that category, or even supporting the FOF as it stands. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've no objection to sanctions for misbehavior directed at the committee simply because it was directed at the committee; but I'd consider it only in especially egregious cases — not an isolated incident of frustration. — Coren ^(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ[edit]

5) Δ (talk · contribs) engaged in conduct that created a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere and materially contributed to the escalation of disputes within the scope of this case. ([14], [15], [16])

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Re: NYB, I'm pretty sure Al Capone was guilty of more than just tax evasion, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The edit warring wasn't necessary. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per JC Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This incident by itself, in my view, would not warrant an arbitration finding, but I want to think further about how we should view it in light of Δ (formerly Betacommand)'s overall record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to stick with this abstaining vote because unlike some of my colleagues, I'm not sure that this case is the best vehicle for addressing issues relating to Δ. What is important, in light of two prior arbitration cases, seemingly endless community discussions, and the recent motion and discussion relating to that, is that Δ understand that this is really his last opportunity to change his style of interacting with other users if he wishes to remain engaged in this project. (I would also emphasize, however, that this is not license for Δ's critics to engage in abusive commentary or personal attacks, either.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. recuse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

MickMacNee banned (1 year, then indefinitely)[edit]

1) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.

Support:

1. First choice. It's naive to think that a ban will solve the fundamental problem in and of itself; the more likely outcome is that MickMacNee will simply wait it out and return to his old ways once it expires. It's ultimately up to MickMacNee to show that he can be a productive member of the Wikipedia community, however. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference with 1.1. I might wind up suggesting a copyedit to the second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC) See also my comment on finding 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. This is essentially an indefinite ban, with appeals starting after a year. Would prefer a copyedit along the lines of 'until he demonstrates his return to editing would be a net benefit to Wikipedia'. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, I'm not a great fan of fixed length terms for the reasons articulated by Kirill,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. He knows how he needs to behave, I'd rather just unblock ofter 12 months and he can show change or not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice, per Cas. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think Kirill's argument regarding the block length is compelling. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. The wording has a re-education sound to it, but this is a step in the right direction, and this is something we already do for community ban appeals. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Such arrangements can get caught in limbo, would prefer a definite duration. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Like Xeno, I'm not a fan of making indefinite lengths after a certain period; better to force reevaluation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MickMacNee banned (1 year)[edit]

1.1) MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference with 1 at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC) See also my comment on finding 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice, per Cas. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. While opposing partially for tiebreaking purposes, I see no reason for blocks to be of an arbitrary length: either he "gets it" and the appeal after one year is a no-brainer and we regain a productive and civil community member, or the auto-expiration after one year dumps a recidivist MickMackNee right back into the community. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, I'm not a great fan of fixed length terms for the reasons articulated by Kirill,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 1. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Didn't we try this already. Need some kind of dialogue to confirm that the issues are now understood. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Rd232 admonished and warned[edit]

2) Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for using his administrative tools inappropriately, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Amending in light of recent developments. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Amending in light of today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Switching because of recent developments,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the proposed finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Despite the Rd232's ill-judged block of MickMacNee as the case was winding down, I am letting this vote stand. See my comment on proposed finding 3.1; see also new proposed principle 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   In light of Rd232's comments about the block, I'm also letting my vote stand. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh... I agree we ought to start getting tougher on administrators who abuse their tools... but this is not what I had in mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Moved to support,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. A bit over the top, here. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Over the top --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Now that it's being tied to the involved block, I oppose because a simple reminder is enough. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

as above. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft admonished and warned[edit]

3) Hammersoft (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the proposed finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not sufficiently supported by the findings above. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hammersoft tried to rectify the problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. No basis established --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ admonished and warned[edit]

4) Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. IFF 4.1 does not pass. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per my (interim, at least) vote on the proposed finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) See also my comment on proposed finding 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. recuse.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ banned[edit]

4.1) Δ (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, Δ will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.

Support:

1. In light of his track record and recent topic bans, it is clear that Δ's interactions have consistently harmed collegial community action on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too soon after the recent motion to now vote to ban without letting the dust settle first,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too soon, per Roger. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Roger. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Roger Davies, but see my comment on proposed finding 5, which should be taken very seriously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think he needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in areas where he's less likely to run into conflicts, first. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Motion seems to have considerably reduced the volume already. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Not sufficiently supported by findings. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Need to look at chronology of all this again before I vote here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. recuse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Passing findings: 1, 2, 3.1, 5

Passing remedies: 1, 4

Passing enforcement provisions: n/a

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: n/a

Failing findings: 3, 4

Failing remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 4.1

Failing enforcement provisions: n/a

Calculated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (with F. 3.1) by AGK [•] 16:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (with principle 5) by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (with finding 3.1) by NW (Talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie is officially inactive. I've updated template:aca after he confirmed via email that he is inactive on this case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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. I think we can wrap this up now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. –xeno^talk 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Re-affirm. –xeno^talk 13:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sorry my vote was so tardy --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Recent action may cause arbitrators to reconsider. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've got a few last-minute bits to still vote on... Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Striking my oppose. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment