Revision as of 17:20, 4 July 2008

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 10 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 6 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

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.

Blocks of Giano prohibited

1) For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted on 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support:

1. The only way we're going to get anything useful out of this is by keeping a very firm lid on the potential drama. Kirill 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. FT2  07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Past lessons. Added "or unblocked" (seems omitted), and "other than by consent of..." (seems the intention)
3. Support. Perhaps we should have done this before. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enacted on 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

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

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wheel warring

2) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

3) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

DefendEachOther

4) Administrators are expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Support:

1. Slight modification, but otherwise straight from Tango. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

5) Misplaced Pages users 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, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

William M. Connolley

1) On 1 July, William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) inappropriately extended a block that he had made, because of incivility directed at himself. Connolley later inappropriately reapplied his block after it was reversed by Geogre.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Geogre

2) On 1 July, Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed a block placed by William M. Connolley, without first discussing the block either with William M. Connolley or other administrators, instead merely announcing that he disagreed with the block. Geogre also reversed page protection applied by MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), without first discussing the protection either with MZMcBride or other administrators.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avruch

3) Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) precipitated the situation by making a sarcastic remark to Giano II implying that he is a conspiracy theorist.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {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.

Existing remedy replaced

1) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

"Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by the consensus of any five administrators to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

Support:

1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

"Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by any designated administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

"The Committee shall, within one month of the closing of this case, designate no fewer than five administrators as designated administrators under this remedy."

Support:

1. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.2) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

"Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by any arbitrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

Support:

1. Third choice. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Geogre

2) Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are suspended for one month.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. In light of past instances of such behaviour, this may well be warranted; my mind is still not yet made up, however. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley & Geogre prohibited

3) Both William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avruch admonished

4) Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to make comments containing implicit personal attacks on other users.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Appeals of sanctions

1) All appeals of sanctions made under the provisions of remedy 1 are to be made directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. This presumes, of course, that a variant of remedy 1 passes. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

One other thing to note, it's not appropriate to edit others' comments in such a way as to change their meaning, and it's not appropriate to remove comments wholesale (unless on your own talk page, for example). Some of William M. Connolley's edits of the pages for this case sail close to the wind in this respect, this for example, and particularly this blanking. All parties to arbitration cases (as well as users in general) should take care not to edit in such a way. --bainer (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.