Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Proposed decision

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the |talk page.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), 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:


 * Comments:

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:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally proposed by me during drafting, so all errors are mine. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Consensus
2) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally proposed by me during drafting. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Behavioural standards
3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally proposed by me during drafting. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Fresh eyes
4) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Insular content disputes also often have the side effect of turning arguments personal, rather than fighting about the subject at hand, and that can poison other disputes by extension. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally proposed by me during drafting. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Edit warring
5) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Ownership and stewardship
6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Property strikes me as odd here, but no objections whatsoever. NativeForeigner Talk 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps copyedit along the lines of: Wikipedia articles are not controlled or ""owned" by individual editors, but by the editing community as a whole or similar? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Locus of dispute
1) This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States. This is at least the fourth arbitration case in the past year related to American political and social issues. Every time a case is concluded a new dispute seems to pop up elsewhere. Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of  content as the problems move from one area to another.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll support, although I'm not certain whether the phenomenon of disputes arising across multiple "American politics" articles is a systemic problem or more a series of isolated ones. Some political and social issues are contentious by nature, and hence so are their wiki articles, and articles about the US particularly so not because US politics and US social relations are especially nasty or divisive, but in large measure simply because we have the most editors from here. I think the real point here includes that in some instances we have some of the same editors finding themselves in disputes on multiple topics within the broad subject-matters, and parallel disputes arising on page after page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Brad has some fair points, but a lot of the same actors are involved in these disputes so I don't thik it's merely cultural bias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to note that there is likely a tendency for heavier representation of US politics and culture, just due to demographics. We do see some repeat actors, but I'm not sure that their participation is problematic because they are involved in US centric areas, or if they have tendencies which are problematic, independent of American Politics & Culture. Even assuming that these issues are actually causally independent from American Politics and Culture, I agree there are numerous parallel disputes in this area between the same group of editors which need to be dealt with. NativeForeigner Talk 17:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per NativeForeigner. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with NF -- the region is relevant in this case because it is in fact the common thread that binds these editors and issues. L Faraone  23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Broadly in agreement with NativeForeigner. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Arzel (edit warring)
2) Although there was no evidence that he had breached the three-revert rule (3RR), Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view.           This has had a disruptive effect on the topic area, and has increased tensions.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I understand the concerns below, I think this is ultimately correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * There was a user-conduct RfC on Arzel, and I generally agree with the talkpage observation that the finding should focus primarily on post-RfC conduct (although earlier conduct is relevant background). I think the crux here may be that Arzel has failed to benefit from the guidance provided at the RfC and improve his behavior&mdash;is that right? (My apologies for not having raised this sooner.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more or less it. Requests for comment/Arzel 2 was closed on April 15. This case was opened later that day. So the "post RFC" period is really exactly the same as "the period the case has been underway". The ability to behave while the sword is hanging over one's head is not quite as compelling, and there was some evidence that problematic behaviors were still ongoing during the RFC, even right up to the end.
 * My overall impression is that Arzel is a user whose heart is in the right place. I do not believe he acts in bad faith, he is honestly trying to make Wikipedia more neutral. It's his approach to that task that is the problem, hence these findings and proposed remedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should probably be rephrased as such, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. (Although most of the later diffs are good examples of this.) NativeForeigner Talk 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps if you put up proposed re-wording it would be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of "Following the RfC arzel failed to address the concerns brought up therein?" (Not at all a final wording, but that's the general idea. NativeForeigner Talk 23:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part, I do not see why any re-phrasing is required – so I will support the original version. It is fine as is. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I probably will as well, but I tend to agree with Brad's analysis that post RfC is significantly more important than pre. NativeForeigner Talk 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Arzel (personalising disputes)
3) Arzel has personalized and/or politicized disputes with other editors, often accusing them of being "activists",  which increased tension and hindered the community's ability to apply the dispute resolution policy to the affected  topic areas.             (Note that these diffs are only a selected portion and that there are many more diffs in the submitted evidence showing the same types of behavior)


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.

Discretionary sanctions (general directive)
1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input


 * Support:
 * Given the ever-shifting nature of these issues and the fact that this is at least the fourth full case, this seems the best way to "cut the knot". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also add that editors who participated actively in this case and remain active in the topic-area are invited to be especially mindful going forward of the relevant policies and guidelines that apply to all editing, because I see a couple of areas that are quite likely to become the first subjects of this remedy soon if the current bickering does not stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I realize this may seem like it will open the door to lots of amendment requests, and indeed it probably will. That seems to me to be a much better solution than needing lots of full cases, of which this is at least the fourth in the past year. So in the end this should actually help curb disruption more quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've disambiguated the section header with (general directed), so it's clear to a casual reader that actual discretionary sanctions were not authorised by this remedy. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We're asking for a flood of requests here, and requests that only the Committee will be able to handle by being at ARCA. Is there a reason we can't delegate application of sanctions on problem articles to AE? I don't think we need a full clarification request to determine when an article has become a problem area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and was thinking of proposing something along those lines myself, but haven't yet got around to it. The problem, in my opinion, is that this can be perceived as giving admins too much power, since, historically, only ArbCom and the community have been allowed to authorise discretionary sanctions here, they'd be allowed to authorise and then enforce discretionary sanctions; so I was thinking that, subject to the standard appeal process, we could allow admins to impose discretionary sanctions on individual articles or group of articles specifically identified for a limited period of time, I was thinking three months (or six months or whatever we decide); after the period is up, the imposition of DS has to be renewed, if the disruption hasn't stopped in the meantime. Alternatively, we could restrict the admin authorising discretionary sanctions for an article from enforcing them afterwards...  Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone proposed something like this on one of the case pages, but I felt it was not wise to give a single admin the ability to impose DS in our name. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions authorization
1.1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action for up to six months. All such sanctions placed must be logged at the case page of this case under the appropriate log area. If at the time the sanctions are due to expire disruption in the area is ongoing, a request for amendment may be made to place sanctions for a longer term or indefinitely. An administrator who places sanctions on an article or area should avoid personally enforcing the sanctions placed by that administrator, although imposition of such sanctions does not constitute involvement.


 * Support:
 * First choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First choice. I'd like to point out, however, that the clause as an arbitration enforcement action means that the decision to authorise discretionary sanctions is subject to the standard appeal process, i.e. consensus at AN/AE or a request for amendment to ArbCom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This gives administrators authority over something that I think to be too far outside their area of expertise. AGK  [•] 02:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem can and should be addressed by the committee handling any amendment requests by motion expeditiously. I'm also not convinced that the AE appeals process, which is designed for individual sanctions, is a good fit. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not something that I believe should be left to individual administrators. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm sympathetic to this approach, I'd like to see how it actually works in front of the committee. Moving it to the community is probably a bit too optimistic, and it's precedent breaking enough I can see it causing more drama than it solves. NativeForeigner Talk 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Since this is an alternative to placing the entire topic area under DS altogether, I think allowing admins to place time-limited sanctions will take some of the load off of us to take care of "hot spots", especially through the upcoming election season. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be grossly irresponsible of us to allow any single admin, or even a single arb, to endlessly expand an arbitration decision on their own authority. This seems like an idea motivated solely to reduce arb workload. While this is a concern for many arbs, myself included, I do not see it as being a sufficient cause to delegate such a sweeping power to any single admin and I think it would be very prone to gaming. Find one sympathetic admin and you can get DS placed wherever you want, and nobody can undo them because we have authorized them to act in our name. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not really share your concern, here; in my opinion there are enough checks that should prevent this remedy from being misused; if, however, that happened nonetheless, any interested party could still appeal the decision to AN/AE and to us. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really intending just to reduce workload, though I think that's an important consideration. ARCA requests aren't often acted on as fast as AE requests, and that will be even more true if the caseload backs up farther with many of these requests. I'm not knocking anyone for that; there are just fewer of us to handle them and many require a formal vote if any action is to be taken. While we're doing all that, any disruption that existed continues until we finish with the forms. The delegation to AE will allow DS to be temporarily placed on the article, either to immediately cool down disruptive behavior due to a particular event (likely to crop up in politics), or as a stopgap measure while we evaluate longer-term sanctions. I think the provision against admins enforcing sanctions they themselves laid is sufficient safeguard against your single sympathetic rogue admin scenario; even should such an admin place them, someone else must then be responsible for enforcing them. And just like any AE provisions, should an admin get to abusing them, they'll get appealed and we'll reverse the action and if necessary sanction the admin. (Per Salvio's comment above, I quite deliberately intended the "as an arbitration enforcement action" to allow appeals of these actions through the normal channels.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, my idea will almost certainly result in a number of amendment requests, and they will probably move a little slower than just letting any single admin just take a quick look and decide on their own. But my idea will not allow single admins to just decide for us where the boundaries of this case lie, which is an idea that seems so obviously bad to me that I don't even know how to argue against it if you can't see how disastrous it is likely to be. And I don't think we would have long to wait for it to get very, very bad.


 * The mere act of authorizing this is likely to spark a firestorm before anyone even acts on it. As I've mentioned on the talk page, if this were something that could be handled by single admins acting on their own judgement it never would have required the committee in the first place. It certainly was not my intention for this case to end with essentially granting every single admin permission to act as an representative of the committee whose actions cannot be overturned unless the committee itself decides to do so, a broad new authority that the community is not likely to view positively.


 * Here is the best-case-scenario as I see it: We authorize this. Somehow it does not totally blow up in our faces immediately. An admin applies DS to a topic. that decision is immediately appealed to the committee, so we end up making the decision anyway. repeat ad nauseum. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Arzel: 1RR
2) Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.
 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth trying rather than a difficult TBAN or other harsher sanction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd lean toward a TBAN, but this is worth a try first. I'd strongly remind Arzel that continued potshots at other editors ("activist", etc.), are likely to lead to a topic ban from the area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Too lenient, but I won't obstruct. AGK  [•] 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A revert limitation is in order, though I'm not sure about the frequency. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Arzel warned
3) Arzel is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited "blocks" by replacing it with a ban from the project, as that is usually how the committee operates. We ban people for misconduct, but we rarely "block" in matters arising from full cases. Revert if you meant something different, naturally. AGK  [•] 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * General support, even if not exactly the wording I'd use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I would note that this is basically a rewording of the end of the closing statement of the RFC, and that this simply turns that non-binding statement into an "official" warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

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.''


 * The page was last edited by User: at (UTC). Implementation notes last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 03:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Proposals which pass
 * Principles - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (all)
 * Findings - 1, 2, 3 (all)
 * Remedies - 1, 2, 3
 * Standard enforcement provisions pass by default


 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Principles - none
 * Findings - none
 * Remedies - none


 * Proposals which do not have a majority to pass or fail and will not be included in the final decision (fail by default)
 * Principles - none
 * Findings - none
 * Remedies - 1.1

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * We're not quite at net four on 1.1, but I think the result is pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Close. All aspects of the voting are resolved. The editors who are continuing to bicker on the talkpage are referred to my comment on remedy 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments