Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/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 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 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] 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] Harassment

1) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Basic.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Perceived harassment

2) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Threats

3) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Conduct outside Wikipedia

4) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree but too limiting to support. Off-wiki problematic conduct does not necessarily need to be "truly exceptional" or "endangering" to be considered a fact we might note as part of the circumstances of the case. See also principle #7.

[edit] Raising good-faith concerns

5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Compliance with basic policy

6) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Yes.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Circumstances

7) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Shouldn't need to be said, really. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No legal advice

8) The Arbitration Committee cannot provide legal advice to users.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Although some of our members are legally trained. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Conduct on Arbitration pages

9) 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Jim62sch

1) During 2007, Jim62sch (talk · contribs) sent a communication to another user that could reasonably be construed as threatening or harassing. That user was involved in a content and policy dispute with Jim62sch at the time. Based on our review of the communication in question, including its tone, content, and timing, we conclude that it was intended to be taken as threatening or harassing, rather than as a good-faith attempt to alert a fellow editor to a legal or other concern. At a minimum, it was reasonably likely from the face of the communication that the recipient could construe it as a threat.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Subsequent conduct

2) When the matter of Jim62sch's conduct was raised on-wiki, several months after it first took place, Jim62sch made several comments that could reasonably be construed as continuing the harassment. However, he also apologized if his comments were interpreted in that fashion.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Additional factors

3) Jim62sch has advised the Arbitration Committee of certain circumstances that affected him when he sent the initial communication, which he requested be considered in mitigation.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Other editors

4) In recent discussion of this matter, certain editors have made comments that were unnecessarily hostile, strident, and that in some cases could also be construed as harassing or threatening.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Underlying issue

5) An underlying issue raised in this matter was whether United States military personnel are prohibited from making personal use of government computers, such as by editing Wikipedia, and whether certain persons would have a legal obligation to report such conduct. Based upon materials posted in this case and on the WikiEn-l mailing list, it appears that some of the concerns that had been expressed regarding these matters may have been overstated or misplaced. This finding is not to be construed under any circumstances as legal advice to editors.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can I make a plea for this to be reconsidered? The issue is highly relevant to the case and although (per FloNight) it is not definitive and the Arbitration Committee is not a body empowered to give legal advice, I fear that without such a finding some of the behaviour we have seen here may reoccur. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I too would prefer to see this finding adopted. However, given the split of opinion here, keeping this item open for input by more arbitrators would be likely to prolong the case by several days. The decision that is being adopted should be a strong signal to the involved editors and others in the same position, who will also have seen the comments that I had in mind in drafting the proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Oppose:
  1. Side issue and we have not researched the information in manner to make a definitive finding on the matter. I prefer we make no comment. FloNight (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. As per FloNight; however, I must note there is a difference between having a duty to report something, and threatening to do so; the latter is a choice and not a duty. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with wording, noting words "appears" and "some", but abstain as "not the point" and entering into areas outisde our purview. 1/ It is not our role to judge real-life legal obligations of individuals in often unknown circumstances in various locales. 2/ Even if it were the case, we would still rule that bringing it onto Wikipedia as a dispute is unacceptable.

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
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] Jim62sch instructed

1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice in favor of 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 1.1 that mentions block/ban if actions repeated. FloNight (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Likewise Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Jim62sch instructed

1.1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Any further harassment, threats, or bullying will result in a block or ban per enforcement provisions of this case.

Support:
  1. I think we need to make clear that further similar conduct will not be tolerated no matter the mitigating factors. FloNight (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. First choice per FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Not to be condoned by anyone, in any shape, or for any reason.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editors reminded

2) All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Jim62sch

1) Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wording slightly changed per a comment received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Noting openness of wording.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Harassment and threats

2) Any uninvolved administrator may address any incident of harassment or threats in accordance with applicable policy. Editors may report such incidents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for appropriate discussion and follow-up. Where a threat is especially serious or it involves confidential information that should not be discussed on-wiki, the report may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Grave real-world harassment

3) Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Although also covered by #2 for me, which covers "harassment and threats" ("Where a threat is especially serious... the report may be made to the Arbitration Committee").
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[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.

  • Passing are principles 1-9, findings 1-4, remedies 1.1 and 2, and enforcement 1-3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (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.

  1. Move to close. The only matter on which the committee is divided, proposed finding 5, is not essential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close. Kirill 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close. FloNight (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. With reluctance, close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)