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

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & DeltaQuad (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 by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on 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). 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 require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion to close

1) This case was opened to look into the conduct of Technical 13, including a now oversighted edit he made during the request phase of this case that could have warranted an indefinite block. The case was continued to investigate the original concerns, to fully investigate the issues presented in that edit, and to consider evidence of sockpuppetry that was discovered after the case was accepted. However, as Technical 13 has indicated his desire to withdraw from the English Wikipedia, and has been given a self-requested indefinite block by Floquenbeam, this case is closed.

The indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.

Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.

For this motion, the majority is 8

Passed on 20:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support:

Very, very weakly. I would much prefer a suspension of the case than an outright closure, but the case needs to be ended for now. Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too would have preferred a suspension, but my support is not as weak as Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been okay with a suspension, but I think we can still successfully consider the issues that were involved with this case if Technical 13 decides to appeal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All in all the best route forward. This probably needs to have a formal restriction to one account, to avoid any doubt about returning under the radar later. Roger Davies ^talk 17:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough @Roger Davies:, added, though I think no clean starts is a given on a site ban... Anyone, revert if desired. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with you; it's mostly for T13's benefit, should they have a change of heart later. Roger Davies ^talk 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't think it was explicitly needed, but having it explicit does no harm. I have fixed a typo in it though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
L Faraone 17:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best way forward considering all that has happened. He has appeal options which we can use if he wishes to deal with the situation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Just to resign so the notifications system kicks in. Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Technical 13 prohibited

1) Technical 13 (talk · contribs) has recently made several postings that constitute personal attacks. More than one has had to be suppressed as it was potentially libelous, and this would normally have resulted in an indefinite block from editing. The Arbitration Committee has decided however that as this case had been accepted before those comments were made, and there are unrelated allegations that merit investigation, Technical 13 will be allowed to present evidence in his defence if he chooses, and grants him the following limited exception to that block:

For the duration of this case, he is prohibited from making any edit that is not both (a) directly relevant to the case, and (b) on one of the pages or talk pages of this case. Any comment that may constitute a personal attack or libel if posted publicly must be submitted only via email to the Arbitration Committee, and must not be posted on wiki.

If he breaches this restriction, or makes any comments deemed to be uncivil or personal attacks, he will be blocked indefinitely and may only comment on the case via email to the Arbitration Committee.

Any block may be appealed only by Technical 13 via email to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted on 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little more lenient that I would prefer, but, ok. Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
L Faraone 16:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 17:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Motion passed to close this case which eliminated the need for a final decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]