Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 11 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Aksi_great removed as a party

1) Aksi_great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is removed from the list of involved parties in this case.

Passed on 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Arbitration rulings

1) All Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee. Encouraging or assisting other editors in violating them is inappropriate, and may result in sanctions.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. FloNight 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Private correspondence

2) In the absence of permission from the sender and all addressees, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This is inconsistent with RealWorld(tm) standards. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. While this sort of behavior is usually a bad idea, I don't think there is any hard and fast rule. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Jdforrester. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Jdforrester. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... authors only

2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Support:
  1. Only need approval of author(s) - copyright and privacy binds to author. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Added link to the policy page that requires this. James F. (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice.
  4. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. While this sort of behavior is usually a bad idea, I don't think there is any hard and fast rule. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Like Fred, I feel it would be a mistake to make a hard-and-fast rule here that will be taken way outside of context. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Private correspondence

2.2) There is no official Wikipedia policy regarding the disclosure on-wiki of private correspondence among contributors. However, experience has shown that such disclosures, in the absence of permission from the original author (as well as the authors of any included prior correspondence), are usually divisive. Such disclosures should only be made with due regard for fairness, appropriateness, and effect on mutual trust within the Wikipedia community.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) First choice.
  2. Fred Bauder 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. I can support this, though it is pretty minimal. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No need for "official" policy if community practice is already clear, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. The copyright policy applies everywhere, actually. James F. (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. True, but ineffective. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

3) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. Long term blocks and bans of established users are likely to be controversial, and to minimise distractions due to problems on unencyclopedic matters resulting from this, such actions, especially in complex situations, should be discussed thoroughly prior to such actions being taken. This is to achieve the most appropriate outcome possible and minimise the subsequent conflicts and upset caused by the possibility of later reversals and U-turns.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Lack of evidence

1) As the evidence presented to the Committee is unclear in its provenance and veracity, sometimes contradictory, and generally speculative, the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate to any degree of confidence.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
FloNight 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Changed my mind after reading the talk pages. The incivility, personal attacks, and bad conduct between users on the arbitration case pages alone is too much to be ignored. FloNight 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. As far as the off-wiki stuff goes, yes. There's plenty of other stuff though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Blocks by Rama's Arrow on April 22

2) On April 22, Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) blocked Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), with the reasons given as "meatpuppet of Hkelkar", a banned user. Rama's Arrow cited email evidence which he possessed to justify his blocks. Scheibenzahl (talk · contribs) and Anupamsr (talk · contribs) were also blocked, citing a checkuser report by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). All of these were of indefinite duration. The blocks were reported on AN/I after they were implemented - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive233. In such a complex case, a discussion first would have been preferable since the users in question were established editors, and the blocks were likely to be complex and controversial. After some protests, the blocks of the first two users were commuted to six months.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Validity of the blocks

3) Rama's Arrow cited emails which showed discussion between the blockees and Hkelkar about Wikipedia on a mailing list to justify his blocks. By the definition of WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets, this applies to new accounts, usually by new editors with the intent to swaying debates, voting, or to get extra reverts, by distinct individuals at the request of another. Since in the case of Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy, they were active long before Hkelkar was banned, Rama's Arrow was contending that Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy were making edits on behalf of a banned user.

  1. Since Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have similar ideological religious and geopolitical worldview, and the fact that they already did edits in agreement with Hkelkar's POV before he was banned, it is not possible to show that they would not have done similar edits and reverts without explicit orders from Hkelkar to do so. As such, the emails are not sufficient to establish proxying for a banned editor.
  2. Sbhushan was shown discussing another Wikipedia user with whom others on the mailing list, including Hkelkar, have had disputes. He was also indefinitely blocked as a meatpuppet. As he pointed out, his edits do not align with those of Hkelkar. The Wannabe kate shows that he has edited only four articles, Out of India theory, Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India, Indo-Aryan migration and Proto-Vedic Continuity. An inspection of the article lists show that apart from Indo-Aryan migration, none of the other three were edited by Hkelkar. In the Indo-Aryan migration page, a check of the history shows only a handful of edits by Hkelkar and then two by his sock Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs). The Rumpelstiltskin edits were to remove a paragraph sourced to a website which was removed by another edit, and the Hkelkar edits were to revert BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), which involved altering the description of some historians to "Marxists". None of these two types of edits were related to the edits that Sbhushan made to the article. Thus there were no grounds to condemn Sbhushan as a meatpuppet of Hkelkar
  3. In late February, Anupamsr, who edits under his real name and had not been previously blocked, abandoned his account and started a new one, Scheibenzahl, which started in early March. Since this is a permissible use of multiple accounts, and they were not used in tandem, the indefinite blocks on both accounts are unjustified. Rama's Arrow appears to have withdrawn the blockWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Workshop#Anupamsr. However, Anupamsr remains blocked, and Rama's Arrow stated that only one account is allowed and the user must serve time on a block for using two accounts.
  4. The discussion at ANI was evenly split and did not reach a consensus. This is an example of why a debate prior to blocking in such situations is preferable.
Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Somewhat simplistic in regards to what the emails may or may not have shown. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other administrative actions by Rama's Arrow

4) It was pointed out to Rama's Arrow that he had blocked while in conflict with other users in the past, and that he should show more restraint in his usage of admin tools. This was in relation to an edit conflict with Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on Muhammad Iqbal which saw Rama's Arrow block him for a week on January 8 citing revert-warring as one of the reasons. This occurred while both parties were reverting one another [1]. This was pointed out by Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on the workshop - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Workshop#Rama.27s_arrow_is_desysopped. Rama's Arrow responded by accusing Nishkid of "vicious attacks" and being a meatpuppet of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Sir_Nicholas_has_engaged_in_sock.2Fmeatpuppetry.2C_harassed_other_users_and_is_a_hypocrite_on_the_question_of_off-Wiki_evidence. Further down the evidence page, he says "The committee did not find anything wrong with my action in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, so why are Sir Nicholas and Nishkid64 whining about it as some heinous crime now? Obviously to cover-up their own crimes." A lack of a finding does not indicate a lack of a problem, and it is highly concerning that Rama's Arrow does not see a problem with a conflict of interest in blocking people he is in content dispute with. This is expressly prohibited in WP:BLOCK. It is extremely concerning that he attributes such criticism of his actions in not following such a prominent clause of the blocking policy, is due to malice on the part of detractors and will not entertain the probability that the blocks were suboptimal. In this case, they were problematic. After deciding that he would leave on May 21, Rama's Arrow was desysopped at his own request, and then re-sysopped upon request. Despite the concern expressed over his recent conduct, he then proceeded to revert and block Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) on the Hinduism page. He then locked the page. Although Anwar's edit was widely agreed on ANI to be tendentious, Rama's Arrow took this to be a guarantee of no wrong doing on his part. When it was pointed out on the workshop, that he blocked in content dispute, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Workshop#Rama.27s_Arrow.27s_block_of_Anwar_saadat, he retorted "I am certainly ignorant of the ones you've cooked up in your own delusional mind. Cheerio". In such cases, it is disturbing that Rama's Arrow fails to see any problems with blocking while in dispute, and attributes all criticism to malice. Regardless of however wrong the other party is, blocking while in dispute is not allowed as it would lead to perceptions of abuse.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Wordy yes, but covers the issues at hand. FloNight 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. There is generally no reason to self-referentially pore through someone's comments on the arbitration pages; and, to be quite honest, I don't like the overly judgemental tone here. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) At a minimum, this should be summarized and clarified. We should be specific about the particular policy violations at issue and leave out everything else.
  3. With UnC and Kirill. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Posting of emails

4) Despite a template at the top of the evidence page asking for emails not to be posted, Rama's Arrow reposted them on May 21. They were oversighted by Blnguyen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights).

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. We may have dropped the ball here. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions by Rama's Arrow to Wikipedia

5) Rama's Arrow is correctly and widely regarded by his peers as one of the finest article writers ever to grace Wikipedia. Evidence of this can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rama's_Arrow_2 (nominations), WP:WBFAN, and the fact that he was the first Wikipedian interviewed on Wikipedia Weekly for his article contributions [2]. His work, particularly on articles related to the Indian subcontinent is deeply respected by fellow users of all religious and linguistic/ethnic groups User:Rama's_Arrow/Commendations. He has 11 FAs, 10 of which were in 2006 before he became an admin in November. In his successful RfA, Q3, he linked to his editor reviews where he talks about the fact that he is relatively emotional, citing diffs showing tension and rowdy dialogue with other users. In the seven months since then, he has written only one further FA, and has exhibited more frequent and intense displays of tension and emotion on more frequent visits to ANI, and on the pages of this arbitration case. His enjoyment of Wikipedia has visibly and substantially decreased. This is in addition to the incidents noted above.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Opinionated, and irrelevant in any case. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. May be true but I prefer not to do this. FloNight 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Opinion. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] No sanctions

1) In view of the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the lack of a clearly formulated stance on publishing private correspondence, and the voluntary actions taken by several of the involved parties, no sanctions are levied against any party. Involved editors are encouraged to move forward from this regrettable incident with a spirit of understanding and forgiveness.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
FloNight 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Changed my mind. Feel that remedies are needed based on the conduct of some users. FloNight 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Me too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Mediation

2) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Admin actions between parties barred

4) As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.

Support:
  1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unfortunate that this is needed. Kirill Lokshin 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Very sad, agreed. James F. (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rama's Arrow is desysopped

5) Rama's Arrow is desysopped. He is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time.

Support:
  1. The reason for this is a combination of the fact that not only have his admin actions have been sub-optimal, combined with the fact that he has failed to recognise the suboptimality of his actions, he has vigorously dismissed and vitriolically lampooned criticism raised about blocking whilst in conflict. These incidents have lead to a lot of debate which detracted from the Wikipedia activity of everybody, since everybody was arguing extensively. It has also evidently made Rama's Arrow visibly extremely upset and clearly detracted from his enjoyment and productivity. As such I think it is clearly in Rama's Arrow and everybody else's and Wikipedia's best interest, in terms of morale, enjoyment, productivity etc if he were not an admin. Since Rama's Arrow does not agree with this, I am moving this proposal to remove him from administrator status, which I feel is also in his best interests. Although I would not stop him from reapplying, I would not think that it would be good for him to do so. I remain a strong admirer of his article writing contributions and this is not meant to be a slight on this at all. And for the record, I was also one of the people who nominated Rama's Arrow in his RfA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I understand that administrators are only human and make mistakes. However, the repeated nature of these actions and the seeming inability to understand why others find them problematic is troubling, especially since using admin powers against another party in dispute is specifically disapproved of in policy and practice. That inability leaves me with no confidence that, after this case is concluded, Rama's Arrow will have learned blocking policy and appropriate behavior as an admin. Thus, I have to support his de-sysopping, although with regret as he has been a productive and capable Wikipedian. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Some people are better off without the mop bucket. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. In addition to his poor handling of the blocks and the emails, I feel his attitude during this case shows that he does not have the qualities needed to be an admin on Wikipedia. FloNight 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. I wish that I was not convinced of the need for this. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I am uncomfortable with desysopping him substantially for attempting, in good faith, to protect the project from Hkelkar and his ilk, even if said attempts were, in retrospect, poorly handled. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    RA's ongoing behavior during this case is what pushed me to support this remedy. FloNight 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Rama's Arrow thanked for brilliant article writing service

6) Rama's Arrow is thanked for his outstanding contributions as an article writer to Wikipedia. He is encouraged to resume writing and he is advised that it may be in his best interests and for his enjoyment of Wikipedia to do so.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Rama's Arrow is, IMO, poorly suited by temperament for adminship. This does not in any way malign his excellent work on Wikipedia's content. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Presumptious of us. Kirill Lokshin 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. This is not necessary. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is evident from his FAs and does not need to be restated here. FloNight 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On notice

7) All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too soft. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. *sigh* Kirill 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. All parties in this case need stop their over involvement with each other. No more stalking each others edits or administrative actions. In the broadest sense, I advise no more blocks, unblocks, page protection or unprotection, and other use of administrative tools in a way that continues your involvement with the other parties. It is disruptive to our core mission of writing an encyclopedia so we will take strong action to stop it. FloNight 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. All parties should note that it is with difficulty that many of us have avoided the temptation to ban most of the involved parties for wasting so much of not just our time but that of many other Wikipedians. I agree with FloNight's statement above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Certainly. James F. (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Summary desysopping

1) Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Committee.

Support:
  1. A pity that some people just don't get it. Kirill 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. That would be the logical extension of remedy #7. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. See above, as in "sticks". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Unfortunately it is necessary. FloNight 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Very sad, yes. James F. (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

The enforcement remedy may to be time-limited. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll always be able to end it if there's evidence that the parties have learned to get along nicely; but I rather doubt this will happen in the forseeable future. Kirill 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
One yuga perhaps... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] 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.

  • Updated 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Passing (in addition to the Motion) are proposed principles 1, 2.1, and 3; findings 1 and 2; remedies 2, 4, 5, and 7, and endorcement 1. (The arbitrators may wish to update the wording of remedy 5 in light of Rama's Arrow's voluntary desysopping.) Appears ready to close. Newyorkbrad 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Close. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose pending consideration of remedy 7. Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Close; nothing to be gained by dragging things out at this point. Kirill 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose pending consideration of new proposals. Kirill 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Close FloNight 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A short delay while we make it absolutely clear that no further problematic behavior between parties will be tolerated. FloNight 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Close now that the new proposals have passed. Kirill 10:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close now that the new proposals have passed. FloNight 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)