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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding one who is recused and two who are inactive), so 7 votes are a majority.

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

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

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]

Administrators[edit]

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Standard. Some slightly different boilerplate has been used in other cases recently, but combined with the following principle, the same ground is covered. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Questioning of administrative actions[edit]

2) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions is acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal preference to 2.1. I have a minor semantic comment/quibble. I've typically referred to actions that only administrators can take (blocking, deleting, etc.) as "administrator actions" rather than "administrative actions." To me, "administrative" tasks (cleaning up noticeboards, installing categories, etc.) are things any editor can do that happen to be more administrative rather than content-oriented in nature. "User:X is qualified for adminship based on her excellent record at helping out with administrative work." Am I right to have picked up this nuance, or am I nuts? (Responses of "both" will be disregarded.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Equal preference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second choice. Also per Newyorkbrad, would prefer to see the term "administrator actions" rather than "administrative actions", which is a far broader category. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Proposed 2.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of administrative actions[edit]

2.1) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to reasonable queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable provided they are within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. Administrators should be careful to assume good faith if their actions are questioned; however, they are not required to continue doing so if the questioning becomes frivolous and vexatious.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternative. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference to 2. I changed "expected" to "required" in the last sentence; please revert if you like "expected" better there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. reasonable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal preference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First preference. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too detailed. Needs to be kept simple and left to admin discretion. "respond appropriately" and "justify them where needed" is all that needs to be said. If an admin gets that judgment wrong, then they will in turn be judged on that. Frivolous and vexatious are too often seen in the eye of the beholder. Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Vassyana and Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. In partial agreement with Carcharoth. I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm concerned this revision will take the teeth out of it. Despite the clause about assuming good faith, I'm worried that some administrators who are not very communicative already assert that many questions are groundless and/or troublesome. I'd rather not inadvertantly throw fuel on that fire. If the bit of extra detail is necessary, a mention of constant questioning where bad blood exists and beating dead horses would serve the point in a fashion less prone to abuse and more directly relevant to this case. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrative tools in a dispute[edit]

3) Administrators may not use their administrative tools to further their own position in a dispute.

Support:

1. This formulation has been passed in a number of past cases, and the qualifications listed in some other formulations (the one in the C68-FM-SV case, for example) detract from its force. The key is recognising when there is a dispute, and when an action is taken in furtherance of a position in that dispute. It is widely recognised that normal administrative intervention (such as warnings or blocks) taken consistently with the relevant policies (such as the blocking policy) does not put the administrator in a dispute with the affected user, so that does not need to be mentioned here (as it has not been in the past). Moreover, administrative action may be taken within the context of a dispute so long as it is not in furtherance of the administrator's position in that dispute; most emergency situations will meet this description. In short, this is a time-tested formulation of principle which, read properly, conveys the point completely and with all necessary force. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Interpreting this requires judgment and self-awareness, which is what is expected of admins. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think the qualifications that have been introduced in recent cases are valid (which I suppose is not surprising as these are decisions I wrote). But I don't read this more general formulation as rejecting the qualifications so much as downplaying their practical importance, so I can support the broader principle as outlined here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved[edit]

4) Administrators may not use their administrative tools in any situation unless they are uninvolved. An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of user-specific tools such as blocking, if they have a prior history of conflict with the affected user(s). An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Administrators should also refrain from action if there is doubt as to whether they are involved, or if they could reasonably be perceived as being involved.

Support:

1. Modified somewhat from the workshop for readability. Second paragraph added, drawing on some other proposals. As above, it is widely recognised that normal administrative intervention taken consistently with the relevant policies does not put the administrator in a dispute with the affected user, so that does not need to be mentioned here. Administrators must ask themselves the question, "am I, and will I be seen to be, uninvolved?" There are more than 1600 administrators currently, so unless the answer can confidently be "yes", administrators should defer to one of their colleagues. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. There might be a few exceptions, such as move protection or some BLP exceptions, but even in those cases, it is good practice to get a review of any "emergency" actions taken, and to minimise even those actions. I find a good rule of thumb is to consider how an editor became aware of a situation. If you have an article on your watchlist, is it because you previously took an administrative action there, or is it because you previously edited the article? If, on the other hand, you read about an incident on a noticeboard, that is a way of being independently notified of an incident. In an ideal world, administrators would have a separate watchlist for articles they had substantially edited, and would use a different watchlist for articles they had taken administrative actions on. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I made a minor correction [1] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. We have administrator noticeboards where anyone can post a request for administrator action, and that includes administrators who may be perceived as involved. I am concerned not only that some administrators choose to take actions when they could reasonably be seen to be involved, but also about the recent practices of taking what even the administrator considers to be a controversial action and then posting to a noticeboard for review of the action. If the proposed action is potentially controversial enough that one feels the need to place it on a noticeboard, then it is better to do so before taking the action rather than after the fact. I do agree to some extent, however, with Newyorkbrad's point. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. I think 'substantively' is important to qualify what administrators may do while remaining 'uninvolved'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think the last sentence of the first paragraph ("An administrator will involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article") is too broad. I would consider an administrator too involved to grant or lift page protection if he or she has played a role in the dispute leading to the protection request, or has been involved in content disputes on a page. On the other hand, if I worked on non-contentious parts of a page and months later an edit-war or a BLP problem warranting protection or IP vandalism warranting semiprotection takes place on the page, without more I would not necessarily consider myself too involved to protect the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the spam blacklist[edit]

5) The Wikimedia spam blacklist provides a technical method for combating link spam. The blacklist is "intended as a last resort for spam which spreads across multiple projects, and which is pursued by multiple individuals or IP addresses" (m:spam blacklist/About, see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). To a lesser extent it is also used to combat malware links. Each Wikimedia project also has its own local blacklist, for use against link spam affecting only that project.

As blacklisting is a method of last resort, methods including blocking, page protection, or the use of bots such as XLinkBot are to be used in preference to blacklisting.

Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.

Support:

1. This is drawn straight from the documentation pages here and on Meta. I consider the suggestions on the workshop that these descriptions do not represent the applicable policy to be without foundation, given there have not been any efforts undertaken to make any substantive changes to these pages until last Friday, and given that as one can see from the relevant page, the discussions about adding various links all seem to revolve around the question of whether or not the links have been spammed. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is fine as a statement of present policy. Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Based on my own observations on the workings of the spam lists, there is and historically has been considerable variance between actual practice and written policy in this area. This is not unusual given the longstanding Wikipedia philosophy that policy is intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive. Risker (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prolongation of disputes[edit]

6) Several essays and guidelines on Wikipedia encourage editors who feel aggrieved over decisions not to needlessly perpetuate a dispute. Editors are encouraged to "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass", not to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in order to win a content dispute, and to get over it if their views are not adopted. Escalating minor disputes and perpetuating them is disruptive to the writing of an encyclopaedia.

Support:

1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Good point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. WP:SPIDER has been one of my favorite wikispace pages since I discovered it early in my tenure here. The identity of the author is irrelevant to our decision, but is worthy of note as an irony. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. While I see the point of those who oppose, and agree that at least some of the essays, though having a valid point, have terrible titles, there is definitely a point where continuing to press a position or concern becomes disruptive, as can be seen in at least one other contemporaneous case. Risker (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. Sometimes persistence is needed. Judging when and how to carry on with dispute resolution should not be confused with forum shopping or beating a dead horse. In my view, the former took place here, not the latter, and the prolongation was in part due to a refusal on both sides to engage with the issues, ending up with a slow circling of the issues rather than proceding through dispute resolution. If an admin took actions in an area where they were involved or had the appearance of being involved, sometimes walking away from the topic area is not enough. The admin needs to both undo the actions in question (allowing someone else to take them over if need be) and to acknowledge the general principle of recusal and being uninvolved. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. There's a fair point lurking underneath all those silly links; but the latter are, nevertheless, entirely too silly to be quoted here. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per above. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. A good point, but I'm not sure it is the appropriate message in this context. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of dispute resolution[edit]

7) There are a wide variety of approaches to dispute resolution, but the principles listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests should be followed, including the advice to "Be clear and descriptive so as to be understood, but also be brief so as to be read." Dispute resolution is hierarchical, and care should be taken to incorporate feedback at each stage and to avoid forum-shopping between similar levels of dispute resolution, unless explicitly asked to take the dispute to a different venue. In particular, the reasons for escalating to a higher level of dispute resolution should be clearly stated.

Support:

1. Attempt to address the principles involving dispute resolution that were, well, disputed here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. reasonable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. "[B]etween similar levels of dispute resolution" is a highly problematic phrase for me, though I appreciate the point. Essentially, there could be multiple aspects to the same issue where it is appropriate to visit multiple similar venues and I believe this fails to accomodate that view. (I do not believe it is necessarily relevant to this particular case, but I believe that it is something that should be accounted for.) For example, I could be wary of a source and its handling in an article, believing it to be a fringe source of questionable reliability. I could start off at the reliable sources noticeboard to review its reliability. I could progress to the original research noticeboard to reviews its handling in the article. I could finish my go-round through "similar levels of dispute resolution" to review the potential fringe aspects of the source. It might be a bit much to go through three content noticeboards in such a case, but I'd be loathe to call such use forum shopping. --Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was hesitant to add the bit you are objecting to, for the very reasons you give. I'm sure this could be overcome with appropriate tweaking of wording, though. Maybe: "In particular, the reasons for escalating to a higher level of dispute resolution, or for taking different aspects of the same dispute to different venues, should be clearly stated." I think that would cover your objections and wouldn't invalidate the current support votes. In relation to this case, there has been a clear theme of people characterising escalation of dispute resolution as forum shopping. I am concerned that accusations of forum shopping are being used to obstruct dispute resolution, but equally people do need to explain why they are raising something again in a different venue and what has changed since the last time the topic was raised. The "explicitly asked" bit is to address cases where one person says "not here, go over there" and the person arrives over there and is met with accusations of forum shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Some clarity might be possible by differentiating between consecutively using similar levels of dispute resolution to prolong the same dispute while avoiding higher levels, and concurrently using similar levels, which is more akin to canvassing. Consecutive use of the same level can also be forum-shopping, and can also be appropriate to gather views on different aspects.

   An important aspect of this principle is "care should be taken to incorporate feedback". A considerate contributor will make note of previous discussions when an issue is transplanted across to a new forum, and will make use of the existing views obtained, even if they are an opposing point of view. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not sure I entirely agree here, but I don't disagree so much that I feel the need to oppose. Risker (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication[edit]

8) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. This applies in all areas, not just dispute resolution. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.

Support:

1. Trying to bring out the communication problems here on both sides. Both a refusal to listen and an inability to be properly heard due to excessive length. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. reasonable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. In particular, if the editor receives feedback that the manner of communication is problematic, then the editor should be responsive to the concerns expressed and not brush them off as irrelevant or unimportant. Risker (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disengaging[edit]

9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision, but unresolved issues will still need to be addressed. Conduct issues may need to be examined in general terms related to other actions, as well as specific terms related to the action in question. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. If an admin disengages from a topic area and walks away, they should consider how to handle disputes involving their previous actions in that topic. Sometimes the best way to disengage is to undo disputed actions and let other admins redo the actions if needed.

Support:

1. An attempt to address the principles involved in what to do when disengaging and trying to move away from a topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. reasonable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not relevant to this case. In a situation where an administrator is involved, disengaging after taking administrative action is never appropriate; the administrator should never 'engage' by taking administrative action in the first place. As general advice to handling disputes over otherwise unproblematic actions, this is fine, but including it in this case distracts from the rest of the decision. --bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Largely irrelevant in this case. The response to Vassyana's abstention below strikes me as recommending an exceedingly bureaucratic process; it also strikes me as a barrier to sensible reversal of questionable of inappropriate admin actions. Risker (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I support most of this. While I appreciate the sentiment of the closing sentance, I fear it may be counterproductive. In cases where it would be most appropriate to take such an action, it is probably least wise. I believe you are more likely to find administrators willing to undo the actions if they are particularly inappropriate, than to find administrators willing to step into the controversy minefield by reimplementing such actions. I think self-reverting and leaving it to other admins is certainly the ideal action to take, but I do not believe it is a practical course of action. --Vassyana (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is difficult to get the wording right here. I thought "Sometimes" would cover it, but maybe not. My concern here is admins who take actions, and then walk away and other admins are reluctant to undo or even discuss the actions, while the original admin refuses to discuss the matter at all. That is not acceptable - an admin should either engage and take responsibility for discussing their actions, hand them off to someone else, or (if they think the questioning is disruptive) make a case for action against the complainant. Maybe the principle should be directed at the admins who are asked to review actions made by an admin who has disengaged or retired or whatever? My general point is that if you take bold and decisive and strong actions, like topic banning, page protections, redirecting of content, and blocks, that the admin in question needs to take ultimate responsibility for those actions, or if they leave the topic area, that someone else needs to take responsibility. Imagine, a year later, someone asking about the action - when they look in the log, should they see the name of the admin who disengaged, or the name of a currently active admin who reviewed the action and "took it over"? In cases where no-one is willing to take over responsibility for the actions, there are likely to be deeper underlying problems that need addressing. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Nature of the dispute[edit]

1) The main issues in this dispute include:

1. the presence of "lenr-canr.org" and "newenergytimes.com" on the spam blacklist,
2. allegations that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took certain administrative actions while not uninvolved, and
3. the appropriateness of Abd's (talk · contribs) pursuit of dispute resolution.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have discussed on the workshop my view of this case, which I regard as both less serious and less important than many of my colleagues. I will not repeat everything I wrote there, but instead refer my colleagues and others to that page for my remarks. Thus, I will not offer my formulations of the findings as alternatives for voting here, because I can live with this decision, but any other arbitrator is certainly more than welcome to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clear and to the point. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blacklisting dispute[edit]

2) The aspect of this dispute relating to the presence of "lenr-canr.org" and "newenergytimes.com" on the spam blacklist is essentially a question of content, and is not for this Committee to resolve. The Committee does note that some parts of that underlying dispute have already been resolved within the community.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Struck the "question of content" clause. If anyone can suggest substitute formulations that would be good. I presume there is no disagreement with the proposition that substantive decisions about what links are or are not blacklisted is not justiciable by the Committee? --bainer (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Minor copyedit (adding "resolved" to closing statement). --Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. See my comments on finding 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Kirill is quite right - moving to oppose. 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed link. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Conflicts with principle #5 above; since the blacklist is not to be used to enforce content decisions, the question of what should be on it is a decision about how best to enforce the policies against spamming rather than a content decision. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Kirill. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Torn on this one. Wizardman 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Actually, I'd say all aspects have been resolved, as lenr-canr.org is now blacklisted at the Meta level. At this point, newenergytimes.com is almost exclusively linked to project pages and talk archives. Risker (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's use of the spam blacklist[edit]

3) On 18 December 2008, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) added "lenr-canr.org" ([2]) and "newenergytimes.com" ([3]), websites related to cold fusion, to the English Wikipedia spam blacklist. In both cases he used the edit summary "+1". In neither case did he comply with the requirement to log the additions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log.

JzG started a discussion on the English Wikipedia spam blacklist talk page with respect to "lenr-canr.org", saying "Adding now, and listing here for transparency", and he added the site to the blacklist less than a minute later. JzG did not attempt any other discussion with respect to the two additions.

On 8 January 2009, JzG initiated a discussion with respect to "lenr-canr.org" at the Meta spam blacklist talk page, as a result of which the site was added to the Meta spam blacklist on 10 January 2009.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. See my comments on finding 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Extra sentence added per discussion below. 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my comment, implies a contradiction between statement and action (and thus an additional layer of inappropriate conduct) that does not exist. --Vassyana (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It doesn't come across well, but what I think bainer is saying is that, instead of starting a proposal and waiting for the discussion to end and someone else to add the link to the blacklist (if needed), JzG made the addition (21:13, 18 December 2008) and then "logged" the addition under "proposals" (i.e. logged it in the wrong place by starting a "discussion"). This was also at 21:13, though as bainer can point out, there are ways to show which edit came first (likely both were saved in different tabs). Twelve days later, no-one had commented (people may have thought: 'it's already been added to the black list by JzG - why bother commenting?'). As far as I can tell, no-one else commented until Abd posted a removal request on 7 January 2009 (with the same section title). Abd then noticed the "proposed" addition section further up the page and objected to it. Guy arrived at the removal request here with a FFS edit summary, and then went back up the page to the "proposal" he had added 20 days earlier, and archived it, thus closing the "proposal" (which was really a log) and leaving only the removal section open. Technically, it could have been done the other way round, closing the removal discussion, and leaving the proposal open, but as the links were already on the blacklist, it could be argued that a removal discussion was best, unless, of course, the objection was that the addition was done out-of-process. A mess, as you can see. The clearest picture is seen in this page version (dated 00:50, 7 January 2009). There are two sections titled lenr.canr.org on that page, the removal request by Abd here, and the "proposal" made 20 days earlier by JzG here. Does that make things clearer? Archived discussions are here (original proposal by JzG) and here (the later removal proposal by Abd). Also of interest is this timeline (from the talk page of RFC/JzG 3). Maybe wording to address this could be "and he added the site to the blacklist less than a minute later. This was in contravention to normal process where an addition to the blacklist takes place after discussion." Would that address your concern, Vassyana? Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that would address my concern. --Vassyana (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I took out the additional sentence since, per the talkpage, it's not necessarily indicative of what is actually required. --bainer (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It wasn't meant to imply a contradiction between statement and action, rather to, along with the subsequent sentence, underline that no prior discussion was attempted. Changing it to "and" is better though. --bainer (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Dirk Beetstra's comments on the talk page demonstrate that it is routine for discussion on adding items to the spam blacklist to be opened and closed after a very short time, sometimes by the same editor. In the absence of any standards for debate it would be inappropriate to hold an editor up to criticism. Failing to log the addition is a fairly mundane mistake. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention to the relevant proposed principle. Risker (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• The first link is not the addition of the site to the black list. ", though he added" should be ". He added", as there is no contrast between the statement and action (he said "[a]dding now" and did so). --Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG not an uninvolved administrator with respect to cold fusion articles[edit]

4) From time to time, since July 2006, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of substantive content edits to the cold fusion article (list of all contributions), and has participated in a substantive way in a number of discussions on the article's talk page (list of all contributions).

Among these substantive content edits are a number of edits, undertaken over the course of more than a year, removing links to "lenr-canr.org" ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) or "newenergytimes.com" ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]).

Support:

1. Substantive contributions are those that materially alter the meaning of the article. Edits such as reversions of vandalism, spelling corrections or fixes to wikimarkup are not substantive contributions (one can think of many such examples). As I stated on the workshop, no judgment is made as to whether JzG's contributions to the article were "good" or "bad", that's an irrelevant question; what's relevant is that JzG had his editor hat on in relation to this topic. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although I find this a closer question than do some of my colleagues, and would prefer my wording as on the workshop. See my comments on finding 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Stephen. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I am not entirely sure I agree here, but I suppose very broadly speaking, yes. Many if not most of the edits are removal of material or addressing material to conform to guidelines. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This moves into a very grey area. The lenr-canr.org site is now blacklisted across the WikiMedia domains, which gives credibility to the removal of links to it, as well as to the en.wp MediaWiki blacklisting. There are times when admins carry out editorial tasks such as removing inappropriate content/links primarily as an administrator function rather than an editorial one, most frequently in response to editorial conduct issues, and it is noted that the editors who were most insistent on using links to these two sites are now removed from the project, in part because of their repeated insertion of these links. The proposed principles above emphasize the importance of administrators communicating the reasons for their actions, which JzG was doing on the talk page of the article. It is sometimes difficult to identify at which point an administrator crosses the line between carrying out "editor" actions for admin reasons, and when they have become too involved to use the tools. Putting together the chronology of this case, it appears that the last time JzG used administrative tools in relation to this article occurred before the request for clarification came to this Committee, at which point it was suggested by some arbitrators (this writer included) that he refrain from using tools himself. He has done so since that time, as far as I can see. Risker (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am not sure about this finding. The vast majority of JzG's edits to Cold fusion, certainly since the beginning of 2008, were to remove links he considered inappropriate. This case is about the use of the spam blacklist which would, in effect, accomplish the same thing through a different agency. If we are agreed that the inclusion of inappropriate links is not a content decision, it seems to me to be questionable saying that an administrator 'involves' himself by removing them editorially and thereby precludes acting on them through the spam blacklist. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior admonition[edit]

5) In September 2008, in the C68-FM-SV case, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), along with all other administrators involved in the case, was generically admonished and instructed to "avoid... use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute". However, that admonition was not directed specifically at JzG (see relevant finding of fact).

Support:

1. That element of the admonition was primarily directed at a different administrator. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Important to note that it was generic only, and primarily directed at another administrator. That is a mitigating factor, so Brad may want to support to reinforce that point. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Broadly speaking, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wizardman 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Newyorkbrad but with more force. This finding reads as self-contradictory - first asserting that JzG had been told off for using administrative tools while involved, then admitting that he had not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The admonition was really not aimed at JzG, who was a party to the consolidated case for other reasons. See my comments on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution[edit]

6) Since January 2009, Abd (talk · contribs) has raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to JzG's aforementioned administrative actions in multiple forums all across Wikipedia. This has included on talk pages, on noticeboards, in a request for comment, and ultimately in this arbitration case. Abd has pursued this matter with skillful and detailed argumentation and with unusual zeal and persistence – as measured by the obvious time and effort he has expended, the number of venues utilised, the declared importance he attaches to the issue, and the substantial portion of his editing time which this pursuit has consumed.

Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution has at times been excessive and repetitive; in particular, Abd neglected to advance the matter up the dispute resolution hierarchy in a timely fashion when it ought to have been obvious to him that the attempted methods of dispute resolution were unproductive.

Support:

1. Adapted from Brad's proposal on the workshop, adjusted of course to accommodate our somewhat different views of the case. I found it difficult to distil my views on the course of dispute resolution here into a finding, so I thank Brad for doing so for his views. It is one of the main characteristics of situations where admins act where they ought not have that an excessive amount of the community's time is consumed by the consequent undermining of confidence in the action taken, even where there is agreement that it was appropriate. So it is here. The extra factor here was Abd's handling of the dispute. Discussions were repeated many times over, the RfC in particular should have been initiated much sooner. Dispute resolution processes are there to be used. --bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abd has objected on the workshop that he did not utilize "noticeboards" in his pursuit of this matter. If this is correct (I have not gone back and checked again), I'd have no objection to removing that word. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dispute resolution is a means to an end, not an occupation in itself. We should, however, make a finding if it becomes clear that certain areas of dispute resolution are consistently unproductive when there is a genuine dispute that needs to be resolved. I will also note that compared to some disputes, this is not particularly long or involved. Would also prefer to see an explicit listing and timetable of the areas mentioned, rather than vague references. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. But skillful needs to be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. There's no reason for us to judge whether Abd's arguments have been skillful, and so forth. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, I'd leave out 'skilful' as a value-judgement which adds nothing to the finding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer 6.1. Risker (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Prefer 6.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution[edit]

6.1) Since January 2009, Abd (talk · contribs) has raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to JzG's aforementioned administrative actions in multiple forums all across Wikipedia. Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution has at times been excessive and repetitive; in particular, Abd neglected to advance the matter up the dispute resolution hierarchy in a timely fashion when it ought to have been obvious to him that the attempted methods of dispute resolution were unproductive.

Support:

1. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal support to 6. I think Wikipedia:DISENGAGE may be part of the problem here. There are times when you need to step back and let people absorb what has been said and done. There are other times when immediate escalation is best. Judging this is very difficult. Would still like an explicit listing and timetable of the "multiple forums". Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Equal to the first one — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. --Vassyana (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Equal preference with #6. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. Risker (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

7) {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.

JzG admonished[edit]

1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is specifically admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation unless he is uninvolved, nor to use them to further his position in a dispute.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I find this to be a closer case than does Bainer, for the reasons I have discussed in detail on the workshop, and hence would prefer my wording there. I also note that JzG disclaimed any further intention to use admin tools on cold fusion some four months ago, and I am torn as to whether we should effectively reward Abd's in my opinion overzealous pursuit of this dispute long after the real dispute had ended. Nonetheless, the remedy is an acceptable one, and I will support it to achieve a resolution of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The cold fusion part of the case is more to do with the blacklist. The parts of the case related to JzG are more to do with level of involvement as an editor or admin, and mixing the two roles. That applies to all articles, not just the cold fusion ones. Carcharoth (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Newyorkbrad. --Vassyana (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per NYB - Personally, I'd prefer "reminded", but will go with consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Surprised that some are saying this is harsh, no question to me. Wizardman 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. "Reminded" would be sufficient in this case, particularly as JzG has not carried out any administrator actions in relation to any aspect of this matter since late January 2009, prior to the Request for Clarification. It is commonplace for this Committee to reduce the level of a sanction, or even withdraw it entirely, when it is clear that the desired outcome has already been achieved, and that the editor/administrator has undertaken not to repeat the concerning actions. Risker (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That would apply to an admonition on cold fusion. Here, this is an admonition on actions in general. JzG is being told here that merely avoiding action on cold fusion is not enough. He needs to avoid acting anywhere where he is involved. Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Risker. Admonition is too harsh. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abd advised[edit]

2) Abd (talk · contribs) is advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and not beat a dead horse.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I suspect that someone will offer a more decorous wording, but I surely agree with the sentiment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This was not beating a dead horse. Passing a remedy like this will have a chilling effect. Better would be to allow people to escalate through dispute resolution without being accused of forum shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Brad. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer alternatives. Wizardman 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Brad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Insufficiently explained. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abd advised[edit]

2.1) Abd (talk · contribs) is advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution.

Support:

1. Proposed alternative. Please note the use of the word "succinctly". If making short executive summaries is difficult to do, find other people to work with who can phrase things succinctly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, "succinctly" is the key here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. Risker (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Distant second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think the first part is relevant. Abd and the people giving him feedback were talking past each other in this dispute: while he was focusing on the issue of JzG using tools while involved, those responding to him were focusing on the actual merits of the blacklisting decisions. The second part is fine, and good advice for all editors. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I don't think the first part is relevant. Abd and the people giving him feedback were talking past each other in this dispute: while he was focusing on the issue of JzG using tools while involved, those responding to him were focusing on the actual merits of the blacklisting decisions. The second part is fine, and good advice for all editors. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Shifting to oppose to hopefully make the result clearer. --bainer (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd urged[edit]

2.2) Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Needs to make clear that the option is not just to halt dispute resolution, but to move upwards further and quicker if needed. Sometimes escalating a dispute is the quickest way to resolve it - sometimes not. Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. bainer (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Risker (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Remedy doesn't come to a conclusion like 2.1, which I prefer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Vote[edit]

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

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

1. I am done here. Placeholder which others will follow at the appropriate time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks like almost everything passes, Close. Wizardman 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. With the abstention on finding of fact #3 that seems to be passing, so yes, I'm happy to close. --bainer (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose close until more arbitrators have had the chance to vote on (and hopefully pass) principle 7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   With two abstentions, the majority for that principle is 7; thus it passes. Risker (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So indeed it does. My mistake. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]