Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:23, 22 October 2024

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: X! (Talk) & Lord Roem (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk)

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. 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.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

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

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

Proposed by NuclearWarfare. AGK [•] 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a copyedit, per comments made on arbwiki. T. Canens (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

No expectation of perfection

2) While editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and practices to the best of their abilities, they are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to listen to feedback from others and, where appropriate, learn from it. Repeated and serious editing errors can be disruptive as they create unnecessary work for others.

Support:

Proposed by Roger Davies. AGK [•] 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far better than my draft; thank you Roger. NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Minimum standard for stub articles

3) Community expectations for the creation of stub articles are outlined in the applicable guideline, which requires a stub article to contain, as a minimum, sufficient information to provide verifiable context and establish the subject matter's notability.

Support:

Proposed by Roger Davies. AGK [•] 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a copyedit to address the comment of ThemFromSpace on the talk page. Feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to all articles, and it is worth pointing out that convention allows editors a certain amount of time to develop an article so that it can demonstrate notability. The community does frown upon tagging a new article for deletion too hastily. While I understand the reason for this principle, I wouldn't like it to be used as a rationale for speedy tagging of a new stub that could reasonably be developed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silk puts it well; experienced editors should know to bring stubs up to par, however it's not expected that this will happen instantly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fresh eyes

4) Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched. Therefore, unresolved questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—through a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Support:

Proposed. AGK [•] 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Brad's proposed c/e. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without asserting wrongdoing on the part of specific editors. NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though "Fresh eyes" is probably a better heading, Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked header to "Fresh eyes". Revert if you can't live with it. Roger Davies ^talk 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the new title. AGK [•] 11:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "Fresh eyes" though Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor copyedits; revert if any disagreement. I also propose one copyedit that is less minor, but not substantial enough to warrant offering an alternative proposal: deleting the words "at the first opportunity." It is important that refer unresolved disputes for an RfC or a 3O, but if these procedures are invoked every time two or three editors are discussing a wording, the already-understaffed RfC and 3O queues will become impossibly long, so judgment needs to be used regarding how long to carry on a talkpage discussion before posting the RfC or 3O templates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Broadly agree, though I have a few quibbles. The title is awkward - "Outside help" or even "Fresh eyes" is better. The implication behind "Sober eyes" is that those disagreeing have lost reason, rather than they just might not be able to reach agreement. Would prefer "are best referred" rather than "should be referred" - making it more a matter of advice on best practise, rather than an obligation that would become a cause for later criticism. My final quibble is regarding the sense that as this is a principle in an ArbCom case there is the sense that if people do not request outside help it could be seen as something sanctionable, and I'm wondering if seeking outside help is mandated in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as something that "should" be done. We certainly require that if people are in disagreement that they discuss the matter and attempt to resolve it, but I'm unclear on the point at which we require them to themselves see they are not making progress. If they are still talking, then they might still be working toward a solution - or at least believing that they can together find a solution. I think that not utilising outside help can be seen as a fault if the disputing parties have been advised by several people that their dispute is entrenched, and they should seek outside help, and the parties refuse to do so to the detriment of the article or distraction from working on the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would support with the absence of the phrase "at the first opportunity", which I don't think is actually the first step in resolving these disputes. Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor interactions

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

Proposed. AGK [•] 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators

6) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Proposed. Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Repeated types of edits and community concerns

7) Editors whose contributions reflect repetition of a particular type of edit, such as creating placeholder stubs based on a database, should be sensitive to community input regarding whether their contributions are useful, whether the contributions contain repeated errors or are otherwise problematic, and how the contributions could be improved. A concern that would be mild and easily addressed if it affects one new article, may create substantial issues if it affects dozens or hundreds of articles. By being especially responsive to the views of other editors about the quality of such mass contributions, an editor maximizes the value of the substantial time he or she expends on these edits and helps to ensure their usefulness in creating the encyclopedia.

Support:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 11:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 20:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 18:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Following another editor's contributions

8) It is important to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor whose contributions are problematic, which is acceptable and in some cases necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, an important policy that addresses these issues. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Support:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though perhaps a light copyedit to reduce sentence lengths might be in order? Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that NYB is long-winded? ;-) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting to simply the wording would be fine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 08:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 20:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Problematic editing

9) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 20:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
though I would change "asked to refrain from" to "restricted from performing" as "asking" doesn't cover what the next steps are if someone refuses to stop on simple request. Courcelles 18:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Doncram

Uncollegial behavior

1.1) Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])

Support:

Proposed by NuclearWarfare. AGK [•] 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 06:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the diffs are a bit iffy, but I can broadly support this, Roger Davies ^talk 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to Roger Davies, I support this broadly. Risker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Roger Davies. Proposed copyedit: for clarity, change the last few words ("have concluded otherwise") to "have found his allegations to be unfounded" or similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly support, though this is a depressingly common rhetorical device used by many across Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Problems with articles

1.2) Doncram has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant. ([6], [7], [8]; Elkman and MSJapan's evidence)

Support:

Proposed by NuclearWarfare. AGK [•] 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I should say that to me, failing to respond to concerns about those subs is the greater problem. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

On reflection I cannot support this as it's asking us to make a judgement on content rather than behaviour. Better to have a finding that people have raised issues about Doncram's stubs, and he has not responded appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially because though far too short to be helpful, the context was sufficient for me personally to understand why the articles were created. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

While I gave these examples as general ones, Doncram is correct when he points out on the talk page that they are from 2011. I have added a "in the past" clause for now, as I think the problem is emblematic of the overall issue we have seen over the last few years. NW (Talk) 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the past, and he's moved on, do we need a finding? Roger Davies ^talk

Well, he has and he hasn't. His newer stubs are often a bit better, but not always. This issue was the primary driver of the disputes prior to 2012 though, and so I think it's worth keeping the finding. Perhaps a reword would be beneficial. NW (Talk) 06:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What do you suggest? Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Doncram has a history of repeatedly creating articles ..." Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, Roger Davies ^talk 10:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on the problem with the examples cited - they all have an assertion of notability in that they are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. While it may be the case that not everything on that register meets Wikipedia notability, to state that a place is listed on the register would provide some context for an outside observer. If the finding was "Doncram has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs that other users have found problematic", and we had diffs of users complaining to Doncram about his stubs, that would be worthwhile - but this finding is asking us to make a judgement ourselves about the content value of those stubs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of the problem here isn't that Doncram has created a lot of short stubs, or even that he's created a lot of short, mediocre stubs. The problem is that he's created hundreds of stubs in a specific format based on a database, even though other knowledgeable users have repeatedly pointed out to him that this format leads to confusing text (that a building "was created or has other significance circa 1910"), inaccuracies (such as listing buildings as extant that have been demolished), in multiple articles. I find no misconduct, and in fact praiseworthy editing, in Doncram's having taken on the ambitious job of populating our coverage of places on the (US) National Registry of Historic Places; where I see an issue is in his indifference when multiple other editors pointed out that these articles were problematic, and offered explanations of why. I think the proposed decision also would benefit from noting that Doncram has been blocked for this conduct before, and the blocks have withstood scrutiny on appeal. It may also be worth mentioning the parallel between Doncram's creation of NRHP stubs and his article work on Indian caste articles, where he again sought to incorporate information from an external database into articles, misinterpreted some of the data, and refused to accept community input that he should slow down and check his work much more carefully, ultimately leading to a community-imposed topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring

1.3) Doncram has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.([9], [10], [11], [12])

Support:

Proposed by NuclearWarfare. AGK [•] 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 03:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added two (2011) diffs, Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though again, this is not that uncommon. The key is really whether conduct changed or not when complaints were raised about it (if they were). Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Are there more diffs please? While I suppose twice is "repeatedly", that doesn't in itself seem too terrible. Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two added, per SoV's talk note, Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs show evidence of move disputes between Doncram and SarekOfVulcan - not sure that they indicate the wording of the finding. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could always add a parallel finding about SoV, Roger Davies ^talk 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, proper procedure in the case of disputed move requests was not entirely clear. In 2012, the community created a move-review procedure to help address such disputes, as I noted in a case we heard last year concerning a move-war (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed decision. I believe that all these diffs pre-date this time and I am not certain whether they are the best examples we could offer of Doncram's problematic conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady

2) On many occasions, Orlady (talk · contribs)'s engagement with Doncram has been unprofessional and hostile (cf. Doncram's evidence). Moreover, Orlady has pursued Doncram across the project, and followed Doncram to new pages more often than could reasonably be expected from a contributor who merely has an irreproachable concern about the actions of another contributor (cf. The Devil's Advocate evidence). While Doncram's edits more than warranted further scrutiny, Orlady's persistent criticism of Doncram's edits yielded diminishing returns and made it more difficult to resolve this dispute without arbitration.

Support:

Proposed. (Note to other arbitrators: this has been amended from the shorter rough draft I floated earlier.) AGK [•] 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the time between Orlady and doncram's interactions to be so small as to be problematic. Looking further, I do think that doncram is as much to blame for the situation there as Orlady, but I do agree to statement above. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Worm says, this isn't about "who shoulders X% of blame, but I think a reasonable conclusion that the situation was further exacerbated by Orlady's approach. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The close attention has been inappropriate, has not helped the situation, and is not a model of behaviour that should be supported. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No, I don't see the misconduct by this editor, and absolutely not enough misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding. Courcelles 01:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much the opposite from what I observed. On the contrary, Orlady has been exemplary in her civility and decorum while pursuing what she reasonably saw as problematic editing, despite being repeatedly insulted and vilified. — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 03:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above comments by Courcelles and Coren, I cannot condone a finding that is supported by largely unsubstantiated evidence sections such as the linked one from Doncram. Additionally, while the Devil's Advocate's evidence is much better supported, I disagree with a number of the conclusions TDA draws from the facts presented there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe Orlady could have been less acerbic in several of her comments over time, I do not see any issues here that reach the level of a finding. It can sometimes be difficult to find the balance between maintaining the quality of the project with a specific eye to the contributions of a particular editor, and not creating tension with that editor. I believe we should err on the side of protecting the quality of the project. Risker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also substantially per Risker, Roger Davies ^talk 04:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Orlady's conduct here was ideal, but per Risker. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Noting that I expect to offer an alternative to this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to see what what Brad offers, Roger Davies ^talk 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Also waiting for Brad's alternative. Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Since Brad's made a statement, I'll move up. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan

3) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time (Guerillero's evidence, SarekOfVulcan's statement).

Support:

Proposed. AGK [•] 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With an extra link to support the "try to have Doncram blocked" part. T. Canens (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 01:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was... unimpressive. — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 03:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a minor copy edit (from "has edit warred with Doncram" to "has admitted edit-warring with Doncram" [SoV's actual words were "I intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well"], which puts this rather big claim beyond dispute, Roger Davies ^talk 06:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan, your behavior was not logical. But I do appreciate your being candid in acknowledging what you did, and explaining why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Doncram

Banned indefinitely

1) Doncram is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.

Support:

~~Proposed by NuclearWarfare. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Enough workable alternatives have been proposed that I could no longer support a site-ban. AGK [•] 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no hope anything short of this will be effective in stopping the problems. Courcelles 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a last resort, iff no other remedies pass. Doncram's behaviour has been disruptive over a very long period and – unless some method to curtail it can be agreed upon – this may be the only way out. — Coren ^(talk) 01:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice,~~ I would also prefer some sort of lesser remedy in the hopes that Doncram will improve. I also am not certain other remedies will work, but hopefully I'm wrong. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify; this is also a "iff nothing else passes" vote, since the remedies proposed aren't exclusive. I would probably fully support a limited-term ban, perhaps six months. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if any of 2 doesn't pass. Otherwise treat this as an oppose. NW (Talk) 06:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with some other arbitrators, iff any of the alternatives regarding do not pass. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't think this is of net benefit to the project; for that matter, none of the other parties to the case are recommending this, and they are the ones actively addressing the issues that result from Doncram's problem edits. I'd like to see an alternative that addresses the core issue, which is the (essentially unfiltered) use of databases to create and edit articles in a way that results in an article that is inaccurate or confusing to the point that it becomes a disservice to the reader. Risker (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Risker. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing problems with Doncram's editing significant enough for a ban, so the ban would be in terms of Doncram's response to the way that concerns were raised at his editing, and I don't feel it appropriate to site ban an editor because of conflicts with other users in which the other users initiate edit and move wars, follow the editor closely and critically, and take the editor's article creations to a series of AfDs, unless we are also going to site ban the other users for their part in the disruption. Topic and interaction bans I can understand and support, but not a site ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time, provided that a more tailored remedy passes and Doncram understands that he needs to abide by it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the more nuanced approaches below, Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would support something harsher later if problems continue. Carcharoth (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

As I've noted internally, I think a significant remedy is required as to Doncram, but I believe it can and likely should be more nuanced than an outright ban from the project, and focused on the problematic aspects of his editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Waiting to see what alternate remedy/ies Brad offers, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

SilkTork's proposal below is along the lines of what I was considering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General editor probation

2.1) Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions.

Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.

Support:

Proposed by Timotheus Canens (who notes it is taken from WP:ARBSL#David Tombe restricted). AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly concerned that, with this remedy, we may be "piling on" to Doncram. It's quite unusual for us to pass this many remedies against a single editor. Nevertheless, I accept that this is probably necessary if this dispute is not to be resurrected upon Doncram's return to the site. AGK [•] 11:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the ban passes, this will take effect when/if it is successfully appealed. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alternate wording of something I originally proposed on the ArbWiki. I have added a sentence about how Doncram can appeal individual sanctions. NW (Talk) 02:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal should cover just about any problem arising from Doncram's editing, without the need for bureaucracy that would slow down enforcement of this remedy or render it unworkable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if 2.3 passes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is adequate, but only in conjunction with 2.3. — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though we will need to keep an eye on what involved means here, and whether this proves workable. Some time should be given for this to work, but if clarification is needed, that should be requested as well. Though hopefully those dealing with this will be both uninvolved, willing to engage in dialogue, and to recognise when the interjections of involved editors and administrators will not be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is neither narrowly tailored enough to minimally solve the problem, nor general enough to prevent it entirely. I will propose an alternate shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(See vote above) — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed at this time; the conditions of any future return can be negotiated if/when that return takes place. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Courcelles 01:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Coren, I don't see this as addressing the problem. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with this, but it's a little too vague for my liking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC) I see that some of the supports for 2.3 are contingent on this also passing. I'm not sure I agree with that linkage, but I'll reconsider this vote if needed to reach a final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too vague. Risker (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's too vague and therefore asking for trouble, Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

~~Waiting to see what alternate remedy/ies Brad offers, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

General editor probation (Arbitration Enforcement)

2.2) Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard may impose restrictions on the manner or the nature of his editing when he breaches any expected standards of behavior, or disrupts normal editorial process. Such restrictions may include bans from editing any page or set of pages; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrators believe are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Such restrictions may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator with blocks of up to one year.

Support:

Given that much of the disputed behaviour by Doncram stem from editorial standards that are currently vaguely defined or in dispute, I would much rather he not be subjected to individual opinion on whether he strayed out of line or not. I would suggest that enforcing administrators be careful in delineating any restriction as clearly as possible so as to avoid unnecessary contention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't think that Doncram has any insurmountable problems with the manner of his editing, but he does seem unable to stop doing something others view as problematic when asked; becoming antagonistic and obstinate instead. This provides a method of saying "stop doing this" in an enforceable way. — Coren ^(talk) 01:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is completely unworkable. The number of AE admins at any time is small, and any Doncram thread would almost certainly become filled with walls of text, further discouraging admins to read it. The net result is that it will likely take a long time, if not until the heat death of the universe, to get something resembling a consensus in those threads, effectively rendering the probation meaningless. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tim. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in 2.1. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per 2.1. Courcelles 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure why we need to make any general probation of Doncram enforceable only by a group of uninvolved administrators. Experience has shown that the ability to enforce this kind of remedy can just as easily be vested in the discretion of individual, uninvolved administrators. AGK [•] 11:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we came up with a remedy now than ask AE admins to sort it out on the hoof. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As shown in WP:GS/CC/RE, requiring consensus for sanctions like this is a mistake. NW (Talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per other opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

~~Waiting to see what alternate remedy/ies Brad offers, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article creation restriction

2.3) Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.

Support:

Taken from Orlady's suggestion. A number of others have suggested this over the years, but it has never been taken up. I think this is worth trying rather than banning a productive user. If an article is not good but has potential we fix it rather than delete it - we should do the same with our users. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be an appropriate and proportionate remedy, though perhaps not the only one necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the probation (2.1). This is an oppose if 2.1 does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would support this only as a supplement to 2.1.~~ I suggest that we renumber it to #7? NW (Talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to leave the numbering as is, to keep all the Doncram-specific proposals in one place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to conditional this support. I'm happy with this passing by itself. NW (Talk) 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. I'm still happy with 2.1, and see this as a possible supplement. I would also be happy if it passed without 2.1 Worm^TT(talk) 11:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would help with one of the principal points of contention. I'm unconvinced it will suffice, but I'm willing to give a chance for this to work. — Coren ^(talk) 21:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine to me; if it's meant as an alternative to 2.1, I think I'd prefer 2.1, but I'd support this as something in addition to 2.1 as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should become obvious if Doncram attempts to game this. If Doncram edits productively under this remedy and the userspace articles are positively reviewed and moved, I would be willing to support lifting it early if others appeal it on his behalf. Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not worded like this. What about turning an existing redirect into an article? What about making the redirect, and then a few weeks later turning it into an article? I haven't even scratched the surface of how to game this remedy. Courcelles 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Admonished and restricted

2.4) Doncram is admonished for edit-warring, and is indefinitely forbidden from making any reverts (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations). For purpose of clarity, the restriction would be to any edits involving use of the undo or rollback feature, or to restoring a page to an earlier version via revision history, but would allow revisions in which text was appropriately amended or removed as part of other editing. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Risker (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too complex to be effectively enforced. Kirill ^[talk] 13:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill, this would consume far more time at AE, though I might go further and say it would go effectively unenforced, it would be such a time sink. Courcelles 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment below. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

NW (Talk) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I get what the second sentence is meant to do, but it's unduly restrictive and prone to gaming. T. Canens (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but I've noticed problems previously on revert restrictions where it's not clear if a general edit in which some recently added text is removed counts as a revert. In general, edit wars tend to arise in moments of heat, when a single click reverts the "offending text" with no regard for what else occurred during the edit in which the "offending text" was added. If an editor is making a considered edit, they are less likely to be simply responding in a knee-jerk fashion, and I think it would be inappropriate to sanction someone for a considered edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady interaction ban

3) Orlady is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with Doncram (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:

Proposed. All else being equal, I think it is apparent that Orlady needs to be separated from Doncram; the two have been in dispute with one another for a significant period of time, and before anything else happens we need to make sure they don't continue interacting. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3.1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see the level of misconduct by Orlady to justify this, and in addition, I've said my peace before about the effectiveness, game-ability, and fairness of one-way interaction bans. Courcelles 01:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely can't support a one-way ban here. T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I believed an interaction ban was warranted (and I do not), making it one-way is a disaster waiting to happen. — Coren ^(talk) 01:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like one-way bans, as they are too easily gamed and imply that there was no misconduct on the part of the person not sanctioned, which is the complete opposite of the case here. In light of the fact that Orlady's efforts to clean up Doncram's contributions has left him feeling harassed, I would recommend that Orlady consider taking a step back and allow/assist others to take the lead on these cleanup efforts, but I do not believe that any formal remedies are necessary w/r/t Orlady. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not a one way ban here. I would probably support a two way interation ban. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are compelling reasons otherwise, interaction bans are more appropriate and workable when they are two way. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot pass this without a finding. I would hope Orlady's comments during the case indicate that the way Orlady interacts with Doncram will be changing. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

~~Waiting to see what alternate remedy/ies Brad offers, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- I've decided that the appropriate remedy regarding Orlady, if any, depends on the remedy against Doncram. For example, if Doncram is required to clear any new articles with other users before moving them to mainspace, as has just been proposed, it might be in order to suggest that Orlady not volunteer to be the person reviewing them. (And I doubt very much that she would object to this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady–Doncram interaction ban

3.1) Orlady and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with one another (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:

I still think it is necessary to separate these two parties, so I propose this as an alternative to 3). First choice. AGK [•] 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, I feel that an interaction ban between these two parties is necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 08:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A step in the right direction. It should now be up to the Committee to resolve concerns regarding Doncram's editing/behaviour. If we put in place firm and workable remedies, there would be no need for Orlady to interact with Doncram. However, as we know, ArbCom remedies do not always work, so closing this particular door should prevent Orlady from being tempted to step back into the dispute if ArbCom remedies don't work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm not sure I see the point of this; the friction between these parties stem entirely from the dispute around Doncram's editing. If that is fixed, then there is no issue to solve. — Coren ^(talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while I would advise Orlady to step back a bit, I do not see any need to formally require her to do so; further, if Doncram is misconducting himself in interactions with Orlady or any other user, the remedy being considered above ought to be sufficient to handle things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The personal friction between Doncram and Orlady has clearly intensified this dispute, and I am skeptical that—even with Doncram topic-banned—these two editors are capable of productively collaborating or interacting. I consider that to be primarily Doncram's fault, and the only reason I proposed an interaction ban on Orlady (at first) was that I thought it likely Doncram would be topic-banned—and that we would ban him from interacting with Orlady if he successfully appealed his ban. Now that we are faced with the prospect of both editors moving on to other areas of the project, I think we need to seriously consider whether we want them to continue interacting. To me, if any of us would personally advise Orlady not to interact with Doncram (and vice versa) then we ought to be prepared to make our advice binding. AGK [•] 20:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold calls this one. Courcelles 05:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support a remedy without a passing finding. T. Canens (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is deeply circular… Do you oppose the substance of the finding? If so, why? If not, would you propose a softer alternative? AGK [•] 11:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an advisement at most. NW (Talk) 16:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed here is something instructing the parties to this case to not enforce it, but to step back and let others do the enforcement here, and to come to us if they feel enforcement is inadequate. I hope something along those lines can be proposed before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

SarekOfVulcan

SarekOfVulcan admonished

4.1) For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.

Support:

Proposed. First choice, and may revise to my only choice if both proposals are close to one another in the level of support they attract from my colleagues. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was really bad behaviour from an administrator. But it was some time ago and there is no evidence that this is likely to recur (and I'm certain that SarekOfVulcan understands the inevitable consequences if it does). — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iff 4.2 fails. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As 4.2 has a majority supporting, this vote should be seen as an oppose now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was not acceptable behaviour from an administrator, and Sarek needs to understand that. However, given the lenghth of time ago this happened and the likelihood of it re-occuring in my opinion, this is my first choice. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. NW (Talk) 21:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice at this stage. Any future similar conduct is likely to result in desysopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. And if this passes rather than the desysopping then it would be appropriate for SarekOfVulcan to consider submitting himself to a reconfirmation RfA to see if the community still trust his judgement. I think that would be helpful for both the community and Sarek given the number of Committee members who are supporting the desysopping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice at this stage. There was not a sufficiently indepth review of Sarek's administrator activities to indicate an ongoing issue, and the significantly inappropriate issue occurred in the distant past; he has recognized that as a serious error of judgment. Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Insufficient for the level of misconduct here. Courcelles 01:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment above. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of 4.2. Admonishment is needed if the desysopping fails to pass, but is really insufficient for the conduct here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

SarekOfVulcan desysopped

4.2) For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is desysopped. He may only regain his administrator permissions through a successful RFA.

Support:

Proposed. This is my (distant) second choice. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is one thing when you forget the 3RR, or just flat-out believe you're right and lose your head. Tactical and deliberate edit warring to get rid of an opponent, however, is reprehensible, and cannot be tolerated in an admin. Courcelles 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was an attempt by an involved administrator to game the system to get an editor blocked by edit warring with him. I consider this action to be worse than if Sarek had simply blocked Doncram himself, as Sarek clearly knew that doing so would be incorrect and tried to find some alternative, creating more disruption to the project in the process. Furthermore, there were multiple instances of edit warring as noted in Guerillero's evidence, including one instance of move warring. This is unacceptable conduct, and this is the only appropriate response. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, first choice. While "admins are not perfect", I cannot reconcile cynically gaming the system with continued access to the tools. Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, per comments above. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. I did consider a site-ban with the "Super Mario Problem" in mind. If SarekOfVulcan had not been an admin a site-ban would have been a consideration for deliberately initiating edit wars; however, I don't think a site-ban would be beneficial to the project. I don't think any of the users here need to be site-banned - I think people have over-reacted to Doncram's editing, and have not handled the situation in an optimum manner, but I think all parties have acted in good faith in doing what they feel is best for the project. SarekOfVulcan's over-reaction is serious enough to call his judgement into question. We expect admins to follow procedures, and not to deliberately break the rules because they are not happy with the way things are going. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hersfold and others. Being honest enough to admit this means I wouldn't support a siteban, but desysopping is appropriate here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is out of proportion, given that there was no evidence that this was part of a pattern of misconduct. Certainly, Sarek displayed extraordinarily poor judgment in such gaming of the rules; but I see no reason to believe that he will not have learned to not repeat the performance. — Coren ^(talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficiently far in the past that I am willing to give Sarek the benefit of the doubt that such a thing will not occur again. NW (Talk) 02:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Coren and NuclearWarfare, desysopping is not needed at this time, although it is likely to be necessary if SarekOfVulcan behaves this way again (I find that Sarek's block log is troublesome for an administrator). Moreover, even though it's a standard precept that when we accept a case we do so to look at the behavior of all concerned, I'm reluctant to desysop Sarek for incidents that were long-forgotten, and would not have been reviewed by us if we hadn't accepted the case to look mostly at ongoing problems rather than past ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing with Coren. This was damn boneheaded of Sarek, but he admitted the mistake and we do not have evidence of continuing issues of a similar thread. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote in 4.1. Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

5) SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:

Proposed. Courcelles 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relation between those two editors is volatile enough that they both behaved atrociously as a consequence. This may help separate them enough to prevent a recurrence. — Coren ^(talk) 01:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iff the ban on Doncram does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose. I don't see the point of interaction bans when one of the party is blocked/banned. This could also use an additional finding about the nature of the interactions between SoV and Doncram, though the evidence is certainly there. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, we write remedies under the assumption that any party who is site-banned (even indefinitely) will at some stage be unbanned. This is a statistically sound assumption. AGK [•] 11:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I think it would be rather silly to block SoV for mentioning Doncram in some post, if the latter is indefinitely banned. I could support something that suspends the interaction ban while either party is under a site ban. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a finding addressing this specifically, but this would be helpful, I think. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 4.1 or 4.2. Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think this needs to happen. AGK [•] 11:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is necessary. Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be supported by more findings, but can support this, though why we are allowing an interaction-banned admin to retain his tools, I'm not sure. Certainly if there is any sign that this remedy is being gamed, desysopping and possibly a short ban would follow swiftly. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I recognize that this is already passing, and while I don't particularly think that this would be a terrible idea, I'm not convinced that this remedy is entirely necessary. NW (Talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Changed my mind. NW (Talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Renumbered from #4.3 to #5. NW (Talk) 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure why I did that, as it was intended in addition to the 4's, not as a third choice... Courcelles 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub content debate remanded to community

6) The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

Support:

Proposed. I don't think we need to go so far as to make this discussion happen, but the community may wish to tighten the stub policy separately from this case. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little timid, but there is very little else we can do. Ultimately, this is a strictly editorial decision and we do not even have the luxury of having a limited number of straightforward options we can guide the community into selecting from. — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this has been discussed at length before (mostly along the lines of "Is 'John Doe (1895-1960) was an American businessman.^[1]' a valid stub?") so I don't know that a discussion will amount to much even if one is held, but I could be wrong. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 05:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Silk's issues with this remedy, but I think it's useful to clearly demarcate what is in our remit and what's not. This is a thorny issue--and so in the interests of avoiding more cases on our doorstep, at ANI, etc., it would be great for the stub issue to be sorted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I am uncomfortable with the Committee using its position to make such suggestions. We are not aloof from the community - all members of the Committee are part of the community, and we are just as capable as anyone else in rolling up our sleeves to help out if we see a problem. Pointing out a problem, saying "sort it out", then walking away is not only not helpful, it may be seen as somewhat arrogant and insulting, and may contribute to the dissonance that sometimes occurs between ArbCom and the community SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't going to change anything, but this isn't a remedy. We've set up binding RFC's in the past to settle things, and those are remedies, but this is just a vague hand-wave in the general direction of a problem. Courcelles 18:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am not sure that the problem is with the guideline. If arbitrators feel that there is a problem, they should raise it at the guideline talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not convinced that these sorts of remedies have ever been particularly useful, but I don't oppose it either. NW (Talk) 21:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with NuclearWarfare. Risker (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Renumbered from #5 to #6. NW (Talk) 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that WP:STUB is an editing guideline (not policy) and that I can support this with an appropriate copyedit, Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change made. NW (Talk) 21:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also tweaked the header from "Stub policy ..." to "Stub content ...", Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is axiomatic that the general guidelines for when stubs are useful can be found at WP:STUB, and that the community can edit or augment that page by consensus at any time. The question here, in this not-the-most-important-paragraph-of-the-decision, is whether this Committee should urge the community to revisit the issue. In disagreement with SilkTork, I think the ArbCom has every right to point out when a policy or guideline page is ambiguous, confusing, or outdated and should be revisited, and I think the segment of the community that spends time honing such pages would welcome our input, since we are among those responsible for applying the policies and the guidelines in the most contentious concrete cases. And in response to NuclearWarfare, I've written a couple of this type of remedies into decisions, and I can think of instances in which this type of remedy has led to helpful clarifications of policies, and other instances in which it hasn't.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure I'm ready to support this remedy, not because it's objectionable in principle, but because I'm not sure that WP:STUB requires a high level of attention right now. I've carefully reviewed the current incarnation of WP:STUB and I expect that the page gives as much concrete guidance as such a page is capable of doing, bearing in mind that we are a general-purpose, wide-ranging encyclopedia whose stubs can span the entire gamut of human knowledge. And if a broadranging RfC and community discussion most likely would not lead to greater clarification, then we should not use our ability to call for one: the time and effort of our editors, including the cadre of experienced, policy-oriented editors who would participate in this type of discussion, is the project's most precious resource, and should be carefully husbanded.

The real issue here (or one of them) is whether a particular type of stub, created from a particular database, was a useful addition to the encyclopedia or whether it did more harm than good. I agree that in the abstract, such decisions are the community's call; but it's not going to be resolved by an abstract, generalized community discussion of "the question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article," but by discussion of more concrete situations. In this instance, perhaps an appropriate wikiproject could convene such a discussion, if this particular stub-dispute remains a live controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Standard Enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Involved administrators

1) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article, or (iv) they are listed as a party to the case. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Support:

Proposed, per Carcharoth's suggestion at R3.1. Adapted from WP:ARBCC#Involved administrators. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be obvious, but no harm in making this one explicit. Courcelles 02:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Doesn't everybody know what "involved" means? I don't see why this is necessary. AGK [•] 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary intent is to exclude parties to this case, with whom Doncram has had significant acrimonious interactions, from taking enforcement action. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a significant issue in Climate change (See Lar, StS' actions) but I don't forsee that it will be an issue in this one. Surely SoV and Orlady know to not try to enforce these sanctions themselves. NW (Talk) 06:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to clarify, but I don't see that this is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either this proposition is equivalent to our general rules (which, to me, seems to be the case), in which case it is pointless; or it is not, which would make it needlessly confusing. — Coren ^(talk) 18:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC) by User:SilverLocust.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	13	0	0		·
2	No expectation of perfection	13	0	0		·
3	Minimum standard for stub articles	13	0	0		·
4	Fresh eyes	11	0	0		·
5	Editor interactions	13	0	0		·
6	Administrators	14	0	0		·
7	Repeated types of edits and community concerns	14	0	0		·
8	Following another editor's contributions	13	0	0		·
9	Problematic editing	14	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	Doncram: Uncollegial behaviour	13	0	0		·
1.2	Doncram: Problems with articles	11	2	0		·
1.3	Doncram: Move warring	11	0	0		·
2	Orlady	4	10	0		Cannot pass
3	SarekOfVulcan	14	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Doncram: Banned indefinitely	7	6	0		1	3 support votes are conditional upon no other Doncram remedy passing
2.1	General editor probation	9	5	0		·
2.2	General editor probation (Arbitration Enforcement)	1	12	0		Cannot pass
2.3	Article creation restriction	12	1	0		·
2.4	Admonished and restricted	1	8	1		Cannot pass
3	Orlady interaction ban	2	11	0		Cannot pass
3.1	Orlady–Doncram interaction ban	4	7	0		Cannot pass
4.1	SarekOfVulcan admonished	11	3	0		·
4.2	SarekOfVulcan desysopped	9	5	0		Cannot pass	Failing due to stronger support on 4.1.
5	SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban	14	0	0		·
6	Stub content debate remanded to community	8	3	2		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Involved administrators	2	3	0		6

Notes

Vote

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

Don't think this is going to change any more with relation to what is and is not passing, so move to close. Courcelles 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was just about the propose the same. NW (Talk) 04:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose for now to propose a new enforcement provision. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...which is obviously not getting traction. Let's close this. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 05:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any substantive addition or change to be likely by now. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly waiting is causing issues. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Waiting for a conclusive result on 3.1. AGK [•] 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments