Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 9 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 5 votes are a majority.

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.

Motion to dismiss

1) While some of the conduct which led to this case is highly regrettable and some might have resulted in editing restrictions, the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable. The Committee urges all involved to read, learn and inwardly digest core policies on civility and avoiding personal attacks, as well as the guideline on assuming good faith, and dismisses the case.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Sam Blacketer (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not convinced of this. There's certainly MUCH that's irrelevant crap either due to being stale or unsanctionable, but there's some that isn't. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

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:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This is fostered by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Central and over-arching to the project, above all lesser disputes.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum and civility

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Established users are expected to grasp these and abide by them, even in the unfortunate circumstances that not all of their colleagues do.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disputes among contributors

3) Wikipedia exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Unnecessarily divisive behavior

4) Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Examples of such behavior may include interfering with the consensus process through inappropriate canvassing, undue off-wiki coordination, coordinated "meatpuppetry", or factional voting; compilation of public lists of grudges or opponents other than the reasonable assembly of evidence for legitimate dispute resolution purposes; "ownership" of articles by self-appointed individuals or groups; warnings given for inappropriate reasons; threats; and misuse of administrator or other privileges granted by the community.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Added to threats, "(as opposed to warnings of a reasonable nature intended solely to procure acceptable behavior)", to prevent wikilawyering by any person of reasonable administrator statements and warnings. Clarifying that to me, "threats" in this context refers to improper threats, as opposed to reasonable warning intended to procure acceptable behavior, or to advise of reasonable steps within communal norms if problematic conduct persists.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I don't see the need for using the term 'unnecessary' for something like 'divisive behavior' and would suggest something like 'highly harmful.' fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the adverb "unnecessarily" here is not to qualify how serious a problem "divisive behavior" is, but to quality the nature of the divisive behavior that is being disapproved of. Sometimes, an on-wiki action or proposal is inherently divisive, but is nonetheless genuinely necessary. In those instances, we need to live with the impact of the action or proposal while working to reduce the impact of the tension created. But in other circumstances, the divisive conduct is not necessary at all, and in those cases is it is to be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone during disputes

5) Adhering to the basic precepts of civility is as important during a disagreement as at any other time. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should still be followed whenever possible, unless the dispute has unavoidably devolved into an examination of a particular editor's behavior, and even then, civility remains essential. Language more suited to advocacy than to the civil explanation of one's position on an issue should be avoided. Examples of inappropriate types of comments may include the assertion that because an editor edits in a given area or participates in a given WikiProject or also contributes to another website, his or her views and contributions are not entitled to respect; misuse of oversimplified characterizations in lieu of grappling with the force of another editor's actual arguments; facile allegations of user misconduct as an excuse not to engage in reasonable amount of discussion; or unduly stressing prior unrelated disputes in which a user has been engaged in lieu of discussing the current issue.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators

6) Administrators are trusted members of the community. The work of administrators who deal with complex situations and troublesome problems should be particularly appreciated. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions; in particular, administrators who have been criticized or admonished in decisions of the Arbitration Committee are expected not to repeat the conduct in question.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The last part may allude to possible acceptance of repeated poor conduct as long as it is of different nature. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular proposal deals with repeated instances of the same misconduct or policy violations, but this does not mean that situations of persistent but varied types of poor conduct cannot also be dealt with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of administrator actions

7) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Added "AGF" as this is a key aspect of the case and when interpreting the actions of any user. Any administrator may be criticized or questioned, but that doesn't mean a "shark feeding pool" is desirable either. Good faith should be fairly considered where tenable.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrator judgment on issue selection

8) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of administrator tools in disputes

9) Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute or, except in emergency circumstances or cases of blatant bad-faith harassment, in other disputes. Except for administrators' ability to use their tools to enforce policies on matters such as BLP or copyright violations, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety

10) All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue.

This principle is not based on any idea that "where there is smoke there is fire" or that "perception is reality" (such that every allegation is presumed true). Such assumptions would fail to assume good faith, which should not be disregarded until there is clear reason to do so. As well, some administrators will always be more controversial than others because they are more active, or because they deal in more contentious areas. Rather, if an editor is repeatedly and in good faith accused of persistent policy violations, then he or she has a responsibility to assess whether his or her behavior is unnecessarily creating or contributing to that perception. If so, the behavior should be changed.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Note cleaned up grammar 'which would be to fail to ...' Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) You outdid yourself on this one, Newyorkbrad - the central sentence took me minutes to parse. Reworded slightly to not change effect but make it easier on readers. See diff.[reply]
    FT2's changes to the wording are fine with me although if FT2 thinks my prose style is too complicated I should probably either attend a writing class or retire. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Harassment and threats

11) It is completely unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment, especially including but not limited to express or implied threats against another editor, damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing or threatening should be avoided. Where an action or comment causes an editor to reasonably feel harassed or to become fearful, then even if this result may have been inadvertent, the user who made the comment should take immediate steps to address the concern. If an editor is being harassed on or off Wikipedia, other editors must not contribute to the harassment, even if they are involved in a dispute with the harassed editor. They may, however, continue to express their views regarding the merits of the dispute. Likewise charges of harassment or similar misconduct should not be made lightly or unnecessarily.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Added "completely" before "unacceptable". Needs underlining in view of the severity of the case. I doubt anyone will differ in opinion, please revert if mistaken.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Participation in other websites

12) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Postings on other websites, including those critical of Wikipedia, sometimes point out on-wiki problems that should be addressed. However, an editor or administrator who edits Wikipedia or takes an administrator action prompted by commentary from any source outside Wikipedia itself must ensure that the edit or action reflects his or her own duly considered view on the proper action to be taken, rather than simply carrying out the views of others outside Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A balanced principle. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Insufficiently acknowledges a line, to my mind. This is a case where "comment on the edit not the editor" may sometimes be a problem in practice if not in theory. There is a well known tactic where some banned disruptive or harassing users, once banned, switch to posting "good" edits to taunt or game rather than because of reform. A ban in such cases might genuinely mean editors should not have to put up with their presence, whether in person or by proxy. With ~1700 admins and thousands of users an edit can usually find someone prepared to post it. Proxy editing in this situation will often discourage and undermine our better editors on some disputed topic, who may typically have undergone extreme long-term stress to be rid of a problem. As a result, there will be some cases where "banned should mean banned".[reply]
Abstain:

Consistent standards

13) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Stressing the "at a minimum" part. The standards expected of experienced users rightly ought to be higher than those expected of newbies. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) And I would like to see the community move towards enforcing this in practice rather than theory more of the time.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Feuds and quarrels

14) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. "Seeking" is weak. We don't seek avoidance of unnecessary interactions. We just avoid them since they are unnecessary feuds and quarrels. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

15) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Classical principle for user conduct. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Drafting requests for comment

15A) An essential part of user conduct requests for comment is the provision for the requester(s), the subject of the request and any other editors who wish to comment to offer their own view of the situation, in the vein of a right of reply. Accordingly, drafting of user conduct requests for comment in userspace, which by convention is usually not edited by other users, should be limited to a reasonable period to ensure that the ability of others (and particularly the subject of the request) to offer their views is preserved. Where drafting cannot be accomplished within a reasonable period, the drafting should be undertaken off-wiki.

Support:
  1. To accompany #15 above. Something of a minor point here, but it could well be relevant for similar situations in the future. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The idea of off-wiki drafting of elongated complaints, rather than working with such a user to understand and perhaps change their behaviour, strikes me as an unbelievably bad one. James F. (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Current practice is to allow reasonable preparation time for a good faith user conduct RFC in user space, and anything which is taking too long or is not in good faith may be deleted through Miscellany for deletion. This process is working and gives sufficient flexibility. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This is, after all, a wiki; and though there may be a convention that user pages will usually not be edited by others, it's a convention that should be completely ignored in some cases, including these. I don't like the things being in userspace at all; every one I've ever seen has looked like a hit piece. At any rate, we can stay out of this issue, and should. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with all of the above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Limiting the drafting time to a reasonable period is a very good idea but I'd not support transfering it off-wiki. Better let it die here if the period exceeds its limits. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Moved from 19 to 15A for continuity. If passed, this would be in addition to, not a substitute for, 15.) I understand the point of Thebainer's proposal but believe this subject could benefit from additional community discussion as per the comments on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) But see 15B[reply]

Drafting of evidence pages containing criticisms

15B) User pages and sub-pages should not contain "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." (Wikipedia:User pages#NOT refers.)

This is of great importance since these pages are often widely read upon drafting, and there is less presumption of right of reply. Drafting of evidence and case pages in userspace should be completed quickly once started, to ensure that the ability of others (and particularly the subject of the request) to offer their fair views and any reply, is preserved. The page should usually be courtesy blanked or deleted by its owner if it is being set aside for a while or will not be imminently used -- and this should not be bypassed by excessive linking to the history revision.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Trying to redraft the above on a better basis.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We'll likely deal with this in Piotrus. I'd rather not open up this particular issue at this late date in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This falls on the wrong side of the line between recognising existing, if unspoken principles and creating new substantive policy (due to the specific detail). In any event community discussion has already been prompted on this. --bainer (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am in favour of this wording, but not in this case, as (I think) Josh indicates he is. James F. (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my vote on 15A, I think some more community input might be helpful here. Also, a related issue is presented in the pending Piotrus 2 case. Given the timing issues, that case may be a better vehicle for us to set forth our thoughts on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also think it would be better to take this up in the Piotrus case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

16) A "minor edit" is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call for review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., "sp", "punct", "format"). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by automated tools, which themselves should be used only in accordance with policy, any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Note that the concern here is not that minor edits can avoid scrutiny when examined after a dispute has arisen; it is that they would not come up on many users' watchlists or recent changes lists during the course of routine editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Absolutely. Getting rid of minor edits is neither a sensible route, as has been suggested in replace of this Principle, nor would it be effective (people would find another way to damage the wiki through mistrust).[reply]
  3. Weak support because in practice different editors have different judgments of what constitutes a minor edit. When looking at questionable user conduct it is rare to skip over an edit just because it is tagged as minor. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. but this is a minor issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support per Sam. As Morven says, this is a minor issue. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Evaluating user conduct

17) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. However, such factors may be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Definitely. The same driving license works for both highways, semi-highways and roads. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I have added the word "limited" which I hope is reasonable consensus, and is the point made by abstaining arbitrators. We may to an extent try and "bend over backwards" for a user who makes good contributions, but only to a limited extent; it isn't freedom to abuse. Reverted this, which seems a shame to me. Uncomfortable with the extent of mitigation suggested, but this only suggests "may be", and with that caveat, support. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. To the extent that someone's past good conduct is a good predictor of future conduct, and thus relevant to assessing the proper response to a present incident of poor conduct, I agree. However, this seems to go beyond that to imply that it considers substantive contributions to the project too, and I do not think I can agree with that. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see in theory the distinction that you are drawing, but I don't know that it stands up in practice. After all, a history of "substantive contributions to the project" by an editor is "someone's past good conduct" on the part of that editor Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it more bluntly, I don't believe that content contributions considered alone should be considered as a mitigating factor. However, I accept your point that a track record of good content contributions can also constitute good conduct. --bainer (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances and sanctions

18) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. Editors who are sanctioned are expected to carefully review the Arbitration Committee's decision and to take it into account in their future conduct, to abide by any sanctions imposed, and to address the issues identified to that the problems will not recur. The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction, in any Arbitration case, to reopen the case and to impose further and additional, and often much more severe, sanctions if behavior issues addressed in the initial decision are not resolved.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I know that some find this controversial, but our duty is to the project, not to "fairness".[reply]
  4. Per James F.; I would prefer to say that the 'fairness' which is assessed is fairness to the project as a whole. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Drafting requests for comment

19) (moved to 15A for continuity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Treatment of evidence

20) With respect to evidence presented in Arbitration proceedings, silence is not assent. If the Arbitration Committee says nothing about specific items of evidence, it neither validates nor refutes the evidence.

Support:
  1. Proposed. This is to clear up some obvious misconceptions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, changed to "assent". I just liked the sound of the cliche. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Made minor, purely semantic revisions to the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Clerk note: click to see "semantic revisions". Daniel (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. At the risk of opening up further semantic discussions, don't you/we mean "silence is not assent"? Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should largely go without saying. And yes, per Sam assent would probably be better. --bainer (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) As anti-gaming measure. We often do not comment on a specific matter raised (and often matters may be raised that are irrelevant, spurious, flawed, or unreasonable). Our focus on the main case and lack of comment on these, may not be gamed as some kind of endorsement.[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This purpose of this principle in a whole can be considered as a fallacy of necessity. The question whether the ArbCom should consider an evidence as a proof (thus validating and outlining it in FoFs) or not (refuting it) is moot. On the other hand, the principle itself is a formal fallacy. There should be no silence if an evidence has to be validated; a thing reflected by our FoFs procedure. I'd prefer something linking silence with refutation of 'evidence as a proof' if the purpose is solely limited to clearing up misconceptions but that would still be considered as a fallacy of necessity. Consequently, I am not supporting it unless I'd be doing it just for the sake of necessity and/or political correctness. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Conduct on Arbitration pages

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

Support:
  1. Taken directly from the Jim62sch case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. See also discussion on the workshop in which I pointed out that evidence pointing to innocent misunderstandings and trivial matters is also unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. bainer (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support and long overdue. Something which has been missing here for a long time. I also support Newyorkbrad's comments. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Strongly per above.[reply]
  7. Yes indeed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

22) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Nature of the case

1) This case originated as a request to review the conduct of Cla68, submitted by FeloniousMonk with the later support of SlimVirgin. The case was accepted to review the conduct of each of these editors. Subsequently, Viridae filed a separate request for Arbitration against JzG. Because some Arbitrators believed that request involved overlapping issues with the earlier request, the scope of this case was expanded to review the behavior of these two editors as well. Each of these five editors has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia over a period of years, and has shown great dedication to the project, but to varying degrees, they have also engaged in certain types of behavior that must be addressed. We address each of their conduct, in alphabetical order. In view of the enormous quantity of evidence presented in this case, the findings must be of a summary nature and cannot address every issue raised or item of evidence posted.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Cla68

2)(A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. Over a period of years, he has made outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia, as measured both by volume and quality. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is very hard to judge this particular case without invoking subjectivity in terms of quality of editing and dedication to the project; it plays an important role. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Duplicates FoF#1 to an extent, but given bitterness in the case it's worth stating both sides of each editor's conduct. As with others in this case, willing to endorse he is a reputable content writer but noting this may not fully counter a persistent behavioral issue with other users that is in need of change.[reply]

    Especially, areas where this user disagrees with others are marked by a number of serious negative tendencies including but not limited to undue accusations, hostility, attacks, and the like, that overshadow some of his positive input.

Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I can support the objective comments, but I'm afraid I do not feel comfortable supporting the subjective ones.[reply]
  2. I would prefer not to make any judgments on the subjective value of a user's contributions to the project. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) In addition to his mainspace contributions, Cla68 has been active in project space, where he has often been critical of the actions of Wikipedia administrators. Some of his contributions in this arena have been positive ones, including his work in uncovering the deception discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland and in drawing attention to some of the issues underlying that dispute.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(C) Cla68 has at times failed to assume good faith with regard to the character and actions of administrators and other editors with whom he disagrees, and at times has suggested the opposite. He has not always been mindful of our norm against alleging that another Wikipedian is acting in bad faith or intentionally working against the best interests of the project, unless there is substantial evidence against a good-faith explanation. The presumptive explanation for most disputes or disagreements on Wikipedia is that two or more editors have honestly held, good-faith but differing views on the merits of an issue. Cla68 could readily have made at least most of his valid or arguable criticisms of Wikipedia and administrators with whom he disagreed on a given issue (such as the Mantanmoreland dispute) without asserting or implying that they had acted in bad faith.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is the crux of the matter in relation to Cla68, I believe. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per bainer. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) And this is the problem, persistent "conspiracy theory" approaches, assuming the worst interpretations, rhetorical style of speech, attack, rather than thoughtful approaches, checking facts, and other approaches he sees others engage and knows are communally suggested, which are more productive and less corrosive, so to speak. It's not a "minor" issue, or small, it is enough to offset all his good work elsewhere if it persists -- and it's also totally unnecessary.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(D) Cla68 has been engaged in a protracted series of disputes with SlimVirgin. Although many of Cla68's criticisms of SlimVirgin fell within the realm of reasonable discussion, there have been other instances in which his rhetoric was clearly excessive or uncivil. For example, Cla68 acted within policy by creating a userspace draft of a request for comment on SlimVirgin, but some of the section headings and edit summaries that he used in the page were intemperate. Cla68 later apologized for these excesses in the RfC draft.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I would call Cla68's rhetoric excessive or harsh. Uncivil is a bit heavy. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E) In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names might be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to disclose the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. After being advised that his statement was being perceived as threatening and that several editors were seriously concerned about it, Cla68 arguably did not act to withdraw or clarify his comment as quickly as the circumstances called for. However, a short time later he explained that his statement was intended only as speculation concerning the possibility that the editors might be publicly identified by others, and that he did not mean to suggest that he would do this himself. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully. He has made no further comments of this nature in the ensuing months.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) First choice per comment on E.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Per talk page.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Per Josh. See "2(E.1)".[reply]
  2. Prefer E.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer E.1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 2(E.1). --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. We don't know that he has made no further such comments; we only know that we have not had our attention called to such comments. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per talk page. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2(E.1) In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names might be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to disclose the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. After being advised that his statement was being perceived as threatening and that several editors were seriously concerned about it, Cla68 arguably did not act to withdraw or clarify his comment as quickly as the circumstances called for. However, a short time later he explained that his statement was intended only as speculation concerning the possibility that the editors might be publicly identified by others, and that he did not mean to suggest that he would do this himself. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully. The Committee has no evidence that Cla68 has made any further comments of this nature in the ensuing months.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Per Josh, indeed (forgive the odd numbering). [First choice. James F. (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
  2. Second choice. I am confident that if Cla68 had made another comment perceived as threatening in the months this case has been pending, it would have been drawn to our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Clearer. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Committee has no evidence of many things. In other words, the "The Committee has no evidence that" could be used on every finding of fact of any case. What makes this one different? fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

2(E.2) In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names might be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to disclose the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. After being advised that his statement was being perceived as threatening and that several editors were seriously concerned about it, Cla68 arguably did not act to withdraw or clarify his comment as quickly as the circumstances called for. However, a short time later he explained that his statement was intended only as speculation concerning the possibility that the editors might be publicly identified by others, and that he did not mean to suggest that he would do this himself. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully.

Support:
  1. Per this discussion at talk page. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice. To me, the fact that Cla68 realized that his words had been read as threats and did not make that sort of comment again is critically important in concluding that a caution to be more cautious with his phrasing is a sufficient sanction. Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Whether we say that he did not make such statements again (the original proposal (E)) or merely that we have no evidence that he made them again (proposal (E.1)) is less critical but it is significant to me that we should say one or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. James F. (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

FeloniousMonk

3)(A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia. He has been an administrator since August 2005 and has invested substantial time and effort in the project. However, he has taken relatively few administrator actions in recent months.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is very hard to judge this particular case without invoking subjectivity in terms of quality of editing and dedication to the project; it plays an important role. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Duplicates FoF#1 to an extent, but given bitterness in the case it's worth stating both sides of each editor's conduct. As with others in this case, willing to endorse he is a reputable content writer but noting this may not fully counter a persistent behavioral issue with other users that is in need of change.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer not to make any judgments on the subjective value of a user's contributions to the project. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) FeloniousMonk has been a party to several prior cases decided by this Committee. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu, decided in 2005, FeloniousMonk was "admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, decided in 2006, he was "counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way."

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(C) Despite having taken a relatively small number of administrator actions during the past several months, FeloniousMonk has used administrator tools in several matters where he could reasonably be considered as an "involved" administrator, such as the protection of Rosalind Picard and Phyllis Schlafly and blocks of User:Schlafly.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(D) Some of the instances of disputed administrator actions by FeloniousMonk cited in the evidence reflect inappropriate use of tools by an administrator involved in an underlying content or conduct dispute, while others might considered more debatable. However, in all these instances, FeloniousMonk should have been especially careful to avoid protecting or blocking in matters where he was or could reasonably be perceived as involved, in view of the prior express admonition by this Committee that he should avoid this practice. None of these matters was so urgent that it could not have been referred to a noticeboard or to an uninvolved administrator for consideration.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Judgement is expected, and formal prior concerns should be taken into account when deciding how to handle future matters with a similar issue. (Re Fayssal's oppose, I've got no problem with a FoF saying what "should" have been done instead; the aim is to explain as well as analyze. A number of FoF's touch on points of principle on various cases.)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This is a finding of fact and don't believe expressions like 'should have been... to avoid' are relevant or appropriate. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E) From time to time, FeloniousMonk has edited certain articles, particularly those relating to controversies involving intelligent design, in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(F) FeloniousMonk has at times failed to assume the good faith of those with whom he disagrees in disputes on Wikipedia, particularly in controversies concerning intelligent design and related matters, and has made certain uncivil comments to and concerning other editors.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

JzG

4) (A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other valuable contributions, for more than two years he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is very hard to judge this particular case without invoking subjectivity in terms of quality of editing and dedication to the project; it plays an important role. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Duplicates FoF#1 to an extent, but given bitterness in the case it's worth stating both sides of each editor's conduct. As with others in this case, willing to endorse he is reputable and especially, that JzG contributes significantly on a wide range of difficult or thankless but important wiki-areas, but noting this may not fully counter a persistent behavioral issue with other users that is in need of change.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer not to make any judgments on the subjective value of a user's contributions to the project. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) As a result of his administrator work on some of our most sensitive articles, JzG has been subjected to significant incidents of harassment both on and off Wikipedia (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher).

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Off-wiki ("real world") harassment is from my own knowledge as well as evidence presented.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(C) Over a period of more than one year, JzG persistently directed uncivil comments and personal attacks at other editors. These comments frequently included obscene and vulgar language and abuse. Many of the incivil and offensive comments were contained in edit summaries so that they are permanently logged in page histories. Often, although not always, the inappropriate comments accompanied otherwise proper commentary, edits, or administrator actions, and the comments were often, although again by no means always or nearly always, directed at users exhibiting problematic behavior (but this generally is not a mitigating circumstance). JzG continued to make some of these types of comments even after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 called his attention to substantial community concern about his style and other users characterized it as conduct unbecoming an administrator.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To be slightly fuller, JzG freely acknowledges this as a fault. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Sam. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) JzG puts a huge amount into the project and has persistently let himself down in this area by crass comments (eg "venting" and "speaking his mind") that are completely avoidable. I note he has visibly made strides to change this though, and has both sought and taken advice to that effect at times over the last while, and I hope they will persist.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Why not merge it with E? fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because (E) pertains to both (C) and (D). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(D) JzG has taken several overly harsh administrator actions and made unnecessarily rude comments to new editors, thereby reducing the chance that these potentially valuable contributors would continue editing Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Seems to overlap C? And latter point probably applies to all.[reply]

(E) JzG has voluntarily taken a series of wikibreaks in an attempt to reduce the stress that sometimes accompanies his editing Wikipedia and the role he has assumed, and has taken other steps in an attempt to address the civility issues as self-described as of March 2008 here. A review of his more recent contributions reflects that there has been meaningful improvement in addressing these issues.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. And this is something that has been remarked on by the other parties here, I believe. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Concur.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

SlimVirgin

5) (A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. She has made strong content contributions including tens of thousands of edits spanning a range of subject-matters, including important contributions to several featured articles. She has also contributed greatly to the development of several major Wikipedia policies, including the policy on biographies of living persons. She has been an administrator since March 2005.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is very hard to judge this particular case without invoking subjectivity in terms of quality of editing and dedication to the project; it plays an important role. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Duplicates FoF#1 to an extent, but given bitterness in the case it's worth stating both sides of each editor's conduct. As with others in this case, willing to endorse she is a reputable content writer and contributes in a range of areas, but noting this may not fully counter a persistent behavioral issue with other users that is in need of change.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer not to make any judgments on the subjective value of a user's contributions to the project. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) SlimVirgin has been the subject of an unusually persistent series of attempts to ascertain, and speculation concerning, her real-world identity, location, employment history, and other private information. Her involvement in high-profile discussions and administrator actions has resulted in several instances of harassment. SlimVirgin has been an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Yes to all.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(C) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, decided in 2005, SlimVirgin was "cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation". Despite this caution, SlimVirgin has made several personal attacks and uncivil remarks toward other editors. She has also sometimes, when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues or association with other users regarded as problematic, rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) In a number of disputes, she has had a tendency to drag in matters that are not directly salient (ancient history, speculation mixed with evidenced fact, attacks, "bad faith" assumptions, and so on), and to also unhelpfully adopt a somewhat insistent stance rather than consider others' views, if others do not entirely endorse. Possibly understandable in light of intense harassment, but does not serve her well even so. None the less while some matters she raises are questionable in the context she raises them, others of her complaints are not without foundation and should be considered carefully on their merits.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would not use both 'personal attacks' and 'uncivil' remarks. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(D) From time to time, SlimVirgin has edited certain articles or policies in a fashion that has created at least a perception that she seeks to exercise excessive control over their contents, and has edited in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The crux of the matter. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

(E) SlimVirgin has designated many of her edits as minor edits even though they made material and significant changes to the page being edited. Because many editors exclude minor edits from their watchlists or recent changes, this has the effect (even if not intended) of reducing the scrutiny that other editors can give these edits.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) See comment on proposed principle 16. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I would not characterize this as a big deal, it is bad practice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Sam but why use the check box -- in controversial topics, especially that it doesn't come checked by default? I defer to Morven's judgement. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think that a minor edit from an over-scrutinised editor such as SlimVirgin is going to be subject to significantly less scrutiny. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Sam that there is unlikely to be any impact on scrutiny. Further, I don't think we have any evidence to say either way whether hiding minor edits is common or not. My perception is that it is not common, particularly given how standards as to what is or is not a minor edit vary greatly from person to person. However I also agree with Morven that this is generally 'bad form'. On balance I don't consider this a particularly significant issue here. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Per Sam, and also, is this really a major area of contention in the case? However it is discourteous and unhelpful to do this, and not ideal.[reply]

Viridae

6) (A) Viridae (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has contributed both in mainspace, where he has created several articles, and as an administrator, which he has been since November 2006.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is very hard to judge this particular case without invoking subjectivity in terms of quality of editing and dedication to the project; it plays an important role. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Duplicates FoF#1 to an extent, but given bitterness in the case it's worth stating both sides of each editor's conduct. As with others in this case, willing to endorse he is a reputable content writer but noting this may not fully counter a persistent behavioral issue with other users that is in need of change.[reply]

    In particular, a perceived tendency to take quite questionable actions unilaterally, often based upon dubious off-site views of banned users or furthering their wishes/agendas, has affected his reputation, and also given rise to a significant number of criticisms and threads at ANI and elsewhere.

Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Again, I can support the objective comments, but I cannot comfortably support the subjective ones.[reply]
  2. I would prefer not to make any judgments on the subjective value of a user's contributions to the project. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) Viridae has been involved in a series of disputes with JzG and has reverted a disproportionate number of JzG's administrator actions. In view of their disagreements on numerous issues, Viridae has agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The voluntary agreement being the only reason for not endorsing a forcible measure. I hope both can maintain their agreements.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

(C) Viridae has made several uncivil remarks toward other editors.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can't support this on the basis of the evidence presented. They show Viridae is clearly irritated at other editors, but managing to express his views (onwiki) with civility. The instances of actual onwiki incivility are vanishingly rare. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Sam Blacketer, I don't think this rises to the level of needing an arbitration finding. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As Brad says, this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an arbitration finding. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Proposed for consideration; there are several such remarks, but I am not certain whether this rises to a level warranting an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) There are comments that I am uncomfortable with and would describe as "uncivil" if a random editor made them. They are not his usual mode of speech, and hopefully will not become so, hence at this time without minimizing them they are not central to the case enough to warrant a finding. None the less please note.[reply]

Contentiousness and demoralization

7) The bitter hostility among some of the parties to this case, and other editors who may be described as allied in some fashion with them, has created a severe drain on the energy and morale of many contributors. Over a period of months if not years, as a result of disputes like the ones culminating in this case, vast amounts of editor time and effort that could have been devoted to content creation and other improvement of the encyclopedia has been diverted. Many members of the community have been demoralized by the feuding, personal attacks, and perceived double standards.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arbitrators included in this demoralization. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I would go beyond "many members of the community" to say "most", indeed.[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Members of the community have also expressed major concerns about the delay this case has witnessed. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The effect of all this in gross and subtle ways has been massive, pernicious, and onerous. The project could have benefited tremendously had those named above put their efforts into the opposite traits at times of disagreement. The dynamics of this mess have played out across numerous venues and other matters, on and off wiki, alliances have formed and battles engaged over it, other users drawn towards dramatizing, discouraged, or even had their disputes possibly non-neutrally supported or opposed as a byproduct of this internicine feud, and this has to now be wound down and concluded for good. Subtlety is not really helpful here. Expect a shift towards harsh action if it is not, because this is unacceptable.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conclusion

8) All the parties to this case have much of value to offer Wikipedia in the years ahead. We disclaim any effort to compare the contributions or records of any of the parties to this case to one another. Rather, we emphasize our belief that all the parties can—if they choose to do so, as we hope they will—continue their positive participation in the project, while conforming their conduct to the principles contained in this decision and definitively addressing the conduct issues identified above.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't see this as a finding of fact. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, per Josh, this is a remedy (a null remedy, but still). It's also not one I'm happy with, though I'm aware this will probably lead to drama; however, IMO anything we do will.[reply]
  3. Not a finding of fact; perhaps it should be reproposed in slightly different terms as a remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As others Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per abstention on the per-editor findings above. I would support a similar statement – possibly also incorporating the remarks on the individual editors – as an accompaniment to the decision, though I do not think they should be part of the decision itself. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A conclusion would be a positive thing to have but I agree that the above sounds like a remedy. fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Imitation is the best form of flattery. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Per Fayssal and others.[reply]

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Parties admonished and instructed

1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. All of which SHOULD go without saying ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, indeed. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Parties specifically instructed

2) By way of illustration and not of limitation of remedy 1, the parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following:

(i) Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith;
(ii) Any form of harrassing or threatening comments, on the one hand, and unsupported allegations of harassment, on the other;
(iii) As to those parties who are administrators, use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute; administrators who have previously been admonished by this Committee with respect to this issue should be especially cautious in this area and should refer any potential use of administrator tools that may be controversial in this regard to a noticeboard or another administrator;
(iv) Editing by a party in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion constituting or creating a reasonable perception of excessively coordinated editing or of seeking "ownership" of articles or policies;
(v) Unnecessary involvement in disputes or administrator actions as to which a party may be unable to remain civil and professional or to avoid excessive emotional involvement, provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary; and
(vi) Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin or JzG, between JzG and Viridae, or between any of the parties and any other user as to whom a party may be unable to remain civil and professional or to avoid excessive emotional involvement, provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary.
Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) And also under (iv) not just "reasonable perception of excessively coordinated editing" but of excessively coordinated "pile-on" handling of disputes. Although quite hard to define a line between reasonable and unreasonable, it is a concern.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Further review and sanctions

3) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this case, as it does over any Arbitration case. In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectations, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be submitted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. (Unless problems are severe, at least 30 days should be allowed after this case closes before submitting such a request, to allow a reasonable time over which the parties' future conduct may be evaluated.) The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances. In the event that any such further proceedings are necessary, the excessive delays that have taken place in this case will not be permitted to recur.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) First time for a given dispute is always toughest to disentangle (and this case has been a monumental one in that regard), so the last sentence is probably achievable.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not going to predict/promise any specific future result. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Other editors counseled

4) Editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

FeloniousMonk desysopped

5) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. I support Brad's "line in the sand" approach overall, and have been considering for some time whether to propose additional findings of fact or remedies beyond that. A significant concern for me was that offering additional remedies not concerning all of the parties would dilute the effect of the remedies originally proposed, by creating the impression that those not mentioned specifically have "got off" without remedy. I wish to state that it is specifically not my intention to convey anything like that. My decision to propose this remedy in spite of my concerns was prompted by three factors. Firstly, the evidence discloses a number of instances of FeloniousMonk using his position as administrator (primarily in the context of issuing warnings) in a boorish and intimidatory manner, and personalising and escalating disputes when he ought to be deescalating them. Secondly, the evidence discloses a series of instances of use of the tools by FeloniousMonk in contexts in which he is involved, not only in contravention of the usual principles regarding the use of tools, but in specific contravention of the admonition in WebEx and Min Zhu. Thirdly, of the parties here FeloniousMonk has, in my view, shown the least indication of awareness of these problems; compare, for example, Cla68's acknowledgements of the shortcomings in his conduct. In short, this remedy is warranted despite my own concerns that it may have a dilutive effect on the rest of the decision. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, with the clear understanding that this NOT indicate that the conduct of others has been good. The breach of the specific admonition in WebEx and Minh Zhu is particularly a problem. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a natural consequence. FeloniousMonk's actions were way over the line; a bit over those of the other parties. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Bainer, Matt. James F. (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Makes sense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The prior case is the breaker. A "line in the sand" is needed more often on such matters; the community has the right to expect higher standards of self-review and deportment.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Duration of case acknowledged

6) The Committee acknowledge the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've already noted it at FoF 7. Also, an apology --even when it is not asked for-- can be a remedy. -- fayssal - Wiki me up® 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changed my mind. Apology indeed can be a remedy. It's just a matter of perspective. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
#Not a remedy for anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per Bainer, and Josh (before he recanted). James F. (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. It should go without saying that four-plus months is not even conceivably an acceptable duration for an arbitration case, even a complex one. Almost all of us ran for the committee making promises to try to reduce delays, and see also the last sentence of remedy 3. However, because I was not active as a member of the committee for much of this time, it does not fall to me to comment on what happened while I was necessarily absent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per my abstention on proposed finding of fact #8 above. I support the sentiment but this is suited to a statement accompanying the case and not as part of the formal decision. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

No specific enforcement provisions at this time

1) No specific enforcement provisions beyond those stated above, are deemed appropriate at this time. More direct enforcement may or may not be needed depending upon future behaviors of those concerned.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) For clarity.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Jpgordon and Newyorkbrad. Furthermore, considering the somewhat elastic division between remedies and enforcement, this risks creating confusion and undermining the force of the remedies. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think we need to say this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Inherent in the structure of the remedies adopted; does not need to be spelled out expressly in this form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Just to note, all proposed principles except for PP 19 are in the majority. PF 2(E) is not in the majority, but this proposed finding was superseded by PF 2(E.1), which is in majority. PF 5(E), 6(C) and 8 are also not passing. All proposed remedies are in majority except for PR 5. Apologies if I've made any mistakes in evaluating the decision thus far. I'll re-review the case in its entirety tomorrow afternoon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed finding 5(E) is also passing based on the rule that arbitrators who abstain on a given item are not counted in calculating the majority on that item. Otherwise agree in toto. (Note that proposed principle 19 has been moved to 15A.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Proposed remedy 5 also has the required majority. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the catch. In this case, two Arbitrators have abstained, making four votes a majority. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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.

  1. Move to close. It appears that all arbitrators wishing to vote or offer proposals in this case have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't close for the moment; an additional request has arisen. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked the Clerk to hold the close for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Continue hold until principles 20 and 21 are voted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Continue hold for remedy 6. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ready to close now; it doesn't seem to me that 15A can pass. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. --bainer (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PP #20 and #21 pass, so I repeat my vote to close. --bainer (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hold open briefly if consensus of the Committee agrees. One proposal that didn't pass (15A) has an alternate proposed, hence a small window (no more) to see what responses it gets, if it looks like it is positively received. Other than that, yes. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Close. James F. (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision&oldid=1082863415"