Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Proposed decision

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the, you should [&section=new post] to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Decorum
1) [Old 2] Wikipedia 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:
 * Proposed. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on how relevant this principle might be to this particular decision, but it remains foundational. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's peripherally relevant as it explains why Ludwig2's conduct was deserving of a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it applies to multiple participants, actually. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and PhilKnight. Perhaps the missing piece to tie the principle to this case would be an added sentence at the end along the lines of "Administrators have the responsibility for enforcing these requirements, and are expected to do in a reasonable, thoughtful, and proportionate fashion" or some such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 05:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Working in complex areas
2.1) [Old 8] Administrators who address Arbitration Enforcement requests handle one of the project's most sensitive and stressful administrator tasks; among other things, they must frequently assess and resolve complex issues arising from bitter long-term editing disputes and involving intractable and strongly opinionated editors. The Arbitration Committee appreciates the work performed by these administrators, without whom long-term remedies imposed in our decisions would be meaningless. To share the workload, the Committee encourages more administrators, particularly experienced ones, to become involved in this task. More administrators are also urgently needed to handle other tasks at the front lines of addressing user-conduct issues, such as review of unblock requests on-wiki and on the unblock-l mailing list.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:MEDCOM and WP:OTRS are looking for more volunteers. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said for over a year now this area is crying for more people. The more, the better. SirFozzie (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 05:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Double underline urgently. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Administrators are not perfect
2.2) [Old 1] Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgment may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship. If revoked, the user may have a temporary or permanent limitation placed on reapplying.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second Choice SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing support, I like the alternative better. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will support, but this could use some copyediting; for example, "may result in reapplication for adminship via RfA" is unnecessary, as any required new RfA would follow a revocation (or perhaps a long-term suspension, but we don't do that much) of adminship. The last sentence, while true, also sets an unnecessarily harsh tone for the introduction to this case and I would omit it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer something closer to this. Would favor such an alternative if it's proposed. Cool Hand Luke 03:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 2.2.1. 1.2 Risker (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2.2.1. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2.2.1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Administrators are not perfect
2.2.1) [Old 1.2] Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Administrators should exercise care and judgment when using their tools and when imposing sanctions delegated by the arbitration committee. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.


 * Support:
 * Proposed per above comment by CHL. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems better, first choice. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC).
 * I've revised this to be better applicable to this case. NYB has already approved, but the others should check my diff. Cool Hand Luke 02:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 05:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only choice. Risker (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Learning from experience
2.3) [Old 10] An administrator's actions taken for purposes of Arbitration enforcement may be overturned following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors, on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard or another appropriate venue, or in rare instances, by the Arbitration Committee on appeal. When this occurs, the administrator whose action was overturned should assess why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. However, the administrator should not take the overturning as a personal rebuke; over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project will have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This principle should be extended to other administrator-review functions--it just came up the other day at WP:DRV. The focus is on getting the outcome right, and doesn't shift onto the administrator taking a reversed action until a pattern of repeated or egregious differences between actions taken and community expectations. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What this is about is an individual administrator learning from mistakes. Could this be reflected in the heading? "Reacting positively to reversals" or similar as that provides a bit more context for the principle?   Roger Davies  talk 05:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Roger Davies with respect to a more effective title to this section. Support the principle. Risker (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Roger that the title could be better. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions
3.1) [Old 4.0] Because of the increased risk of disruption around enforcement of discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia administrators are expected to be especially deliberate and careful in applying their discretion and to seek consensus in a suitable venue over unilateral action when there is no pressing need for immediate action.


 * Support:
 * There is no reason, for instance, where an administrator that notices problematic behavior from an editor that has already been warned cannot open a new enforcement request of their own impetus to discuss the matter with their peers before making most enforcement decisions. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will support this, and might offer another principle: that, similar to a Use of force continuum, administrators should prefer the least dire remedy necessary to end the disruption. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * this is the ideal, especially with the phrase "when there is no pressing need for immediate action." It is not a remedy as the suitable venue already exists. Equal second choice with 4.1 below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * No. Everything so far from the Arbitration Committee in regard to discretionary sanctions has been based around 'any uninvolved admin', if we are changing this towards a consensus model that should be a remedy, not a principle. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Phil. SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per above. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2,  Roger Davies  talk 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2 . Risker (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * This is ok, but I would like something stronger&mdash;that decisions must be supported by independent uninvolved admins users at AE unless there is a pressing need for action. I would also prefer to leave out the word "consensus" because the sanctioned party rarely agrees, and partisans on his or her "side" frequently also oppose sanction. If we want to use the c-word, let's at least say "consensus of uninvolved users." Cool Hand Luke 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a rewording in that direction; my problem is with unilateral action without discussion when there is no pressing need to do so. Tweaked accordingly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that it's a problem. Cool Hand Luke 02:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions (alt 1)
3.1.1) [Old 4.1] Because of the increased risk of disruption around enforcement of discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia administrators are expected to be especially deliberate and careful in applying their discretion and to first prefer seeking support of uninvolved editors in a suitable venue over unilateral action when there is no pressing need for immediate action.


 * Support:
 * I recognize this is a departure, but this case was taken so that we would slightly modify AE; it's been far too cowboy. I think this proposal strikes a good balance by keeping the process unyoked from the heavy burden of CONSENSUS, but by requiring some third-party support when the situation is not urgent. Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With great power comes great responsibility--responsibility which, had it been appropriately exercised in the first place, would have avoided this fiasco entirely. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except it HAD been appropriately exercised, you noticed that the finding was that while the remedy wasn't the greatest from Sandstein, there was no consensus to remove it? Seems to me that in lawyer speak, I'd be saying "Objection, assumes facts not in evidence". SirFozzie (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My evaluation of the appropriateness of such exercise is informed, but not bound, by the community's or the committee's findings. It's been obvious from our first discussions of the case that the committee is of multiple minds on this. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * this is the ideal, especially with the phrase "when there is no pressing need for immediate action." It is not a remedy as the suitable venue already exists. Equal second choice with 4.0 above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This works. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Same as 3.1 4.0 . PhilKnight (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as 3.1 4.0 . We have a situation where there are enough "uninvolved" editors who "just happen to show up" with normal issues, and AE is hyper focused on things that can have significant amount of push back from the sanctioned editor's colleagues only makes it worse. I prefer the current situation, as MastCell says, AE in GENERAL is not a significant source of harm to the project. SirFozzie (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say there are not enough uninvolved editors? Honestly, I'm not sure what incentive an uninvolved editor would have to participate with restraint when any other admin can shoot from the hip without any realistic chance of being reversed. If this is not the root of the problem (which I think it is, and Coren apparently does as well), what part of AE in PARTICULAR is harmful to the project? Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying there's "uninvolved" editors, and by that, I mean "Really involved/partisan but will say they're not so they can prevent fellow partisans from being sanctioned." I'm saying AE in general is NOT harmful, period, as MastCell does on the talk page. Are there problematic actions taken? Obviously, but not enough I think to change AE, and this is speaking as someone who's worked there. The admins working there need our support, not having their hands tied further. SirFozzie (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per above. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2,  Roger Davies  talk 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2 . Risker (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions
3.1.2) [Old 4.2] Because of the priority given to enforcement of discretionary sanctions, administrators must be deliberate and careful in applying their discretion to impose sanctions. In general, sanctions should be imposed in situations where there has been a serious violation or a pattern of violations of a remedy contained in an Arbitration Committee decision, and a prior warning or warnings have not resolved the problem. When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or when an administrator knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action, it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally.


 * Support:
 * This may address some of the issues raised in the votes on 3.1 and 3.1.1 4.0 and 4.1 &mdash;hopefully without raising too many new ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Cool Hand Luke 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. accentuates positives. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be to capture the essence of my proposals without being quite as binding. Equal support.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * New first choice. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree, however shouldn't this be a remedy? PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not written as a remedy. Is your position that modifications to policies should be listed as remedies because they're new? I don't think that's the correct distinction: our principles often fill in gaps between policies with common sense. In this case, the underlying policy is our own construction, and if we were to formally modify it we would not call such amendment a "remedy." Cool Hand Luke 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem with this,  Roger Davies  talk 05:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rationales in warnings and sanction notices
3.2) [Old 7] In imposing a sanction or giving a warning based on an Arbitration Committee decision, an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken. The scope of any sanction imposed should also be specified as clearly as possible. A sanctioned editor may respond by asking the sanctioning administrator, in a civil fashion, to explain or to reconsider the imposition or scope of the sanction. The administrator should respond to appropriate questions raised by the sanctioned editor, and when appropriate should also advise the editor that he or she may request a review of the sanctions by a request to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.


 * Support:
 * I'm adding three principles now, and perhaps one or two more later on. This one sets forth some expectations and recommendations, for clarity and emphasis. This is not meant to suggest that these procedures were not followed in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * commonsensical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this without reservation, though I'm not certain that this was an issue in the present case. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I might want to go a bit farther, this is certainly a good start. Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, within reason. If a user edit wars, then I guess it's still ok to use a template such as uw-aeblock and give the reason as 'edit warring'. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Particularly in this case, there's a school of thought that says that had the warning in this case been clearer and explicitly advised what was expected (ie redaction), the subsequent block would not have been placed and therefore there would have been nothing to overturn.  Roger Davies  talk 05:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Like Roger says, clear warnings can stop a problem in its tracks; there are some reasonable differences of opinion here about whether a different warning might have had a different outcome. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitration case sanctions
3.3) [Old 3] The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I think that what's more relevant to this case is that actual enforcement might benefit from this? &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO sanctions should also clearly specify the justification. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and John Vandenberg; would support a copyedit or addition along these lines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Opposing until this is clarified ... Is this principle saying that the scope of discretionary sanctions for any particular topic should be defined in the case remedy on a case by case basis? Don't we already do that in the area of conflict stuff? Or it is saying that the type of available sanction needs to specified in the case remedy? I agree that santioned editors need to be informed about appeal options but I'm slightly unclear about "the procedure, if any". Aren't there numerous appeal options already available?  Roger Davies  talk 05:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This principle was taken from the Henri Coanda case, where you supported it. However, if you feel that it can be improved, then I suggest you go ahead and create an alternative. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure but context is everything ... and in Henry Coanda it was about specific case remedies rather than discretionary sanctions. As, in the context of this case, it can easily be misunderstood/misconstrued, I'm not sure that it, or an alternative, really helps much :)  Roger Davies  talk 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This case is about AE not ArbCom sanctions; needs reworded if that's what was meant. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Not seeing the relevance in this case. Risker (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Care in invoking remedies
3.4) [Old 6] Arbitration remedies are a powerful but blunt instrument to protect areas of the project that have already proven difficult. They should not be invoked where normal policy and practice would suffice to resolve a problem, or where a lesser remedy would be adequate.


 * Support:
 * A pithy way of restating this might be "Thou shall not take AE's name in vain". Because enforcement actions are more powerful, they should be used as little as possible.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * First, this strikes me was very gameable: this argument is always available ("your AE request was invalid because you provided no evidence ANI wouldn't work!"). Second, discretionary sanctions only exist because the "community" failed to resolve a dispute. Within those topics, I think AE is the presumptively correct venue. AE admins should understand that a range of lesser remedies will be appropriate in many cases. AE has every tool at its disposal, from blocks up to one year (or much shorter), topic bans, page bans, and "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary." If AE is failing to properly give out the lesser remedies when appropriate, we should reform AE rather than insist that small stuff be handled by "normal policy and practice." (If AE is abnormal, it ought not to be.) Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Before becoming an arbitrator, I was an admin who handled requests at WP:AE, and my approach was that, in general, sanctions that resulted from reports to the WP:AE noticeboard should be logged as enforcement sanctions. While we could stipulate this approach is wrong, that should be a remedy, instead of a principle. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per Cool Hand Luke and PhilKnight. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2, which covers similar ground,  Roger Davies  talk 03:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1.2 4.2, which I agree covers similar ground. Risker (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Phil and Cool Hand have good points here, but I also agree that the first response at AE shouldn't be the harshest. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I stated in the workshop something similar, that AE is not a hammer, and not every editor under those sanctions is a nail.. but we put discretionary sanctions in to give administrators more options, this and other findings would restrict them more then I feel comfortable with. SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per SirFozzie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a revised version that takes the opposers' comments into account. (Some of this may now be covered by my new 3.1.2 4.2, if adopted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Phil's point is well-taken. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral reversal is prohibited
4.1) [Old 5] Arbitration enforcement should not be reversed unilaterally: it is not appropriate for an administrator to simply substitute their judgment for another's. Even if the disagreeing administrator believes that the enforcement action was erroneous or mistaken and discussion with the enforcing administrator has not led to a solution, substantial community consensus or Committee permission must be sought before overturning an act explicitly stated to be pursuant to an arbitration remedy.


 * Support:
 * Specifically, an administrator preparing to overturn such a decision needs to realize that they are exactly as likely, in the end, to be in error about the validity of the enforcement action than the original admin might have been. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with JClemens, but would add that as a new principle. Once an explained AE decision is made, it should not be overturned easily. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * not totally ideal but lesser of two evils really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I can imagine an exception for blatant or obvious errors, which we might want to write in. With regard to Jclemens' point below, I might support a principle in line with his comment, but think it raises a separate (albeit related) issue to this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But I also agree with the points that simply calling something an AE block doesn't make it one. Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I think it would add an appropriate level of responsibility (see above) to require detailed and specific justification for AE sanctions. Part of the problem in this case was that the blocking admin referred to a block as an AE block without appropriate explanation, such that other editors not participating in the discussion were not able to see how the block was, in fact, an AE block.  Blocks are not AE blocks because the blocking administrator calls them AE blocks, they are AE blocks because they are applied pursuant to the specific constraints of a previously enacted remedy.  The presumption that a mere "this is an AE block!" statement makes a block a valid AE block until proven otherwise by widespread consensus is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per Jclemens John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comes at "Trusilver" from a slightly different angle. For clarity, I'd rather have just one principle on this, using the Trusilver text verbatim, which is elsewhere here.  Roger Davies  talk 05:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is, the Trusilver text applies of this principle by setting out a specific procedure. It's the "remedy" to this principle.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 4.2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Procedure for reversal
4.2) [Old 9] In March 2010, the Committee by motion specified the procedure for overturning discretionary sanctions. The applicable section reads:

''Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:
 * ''(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
 * ''(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

''Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee. ''Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.


 * Support:
 * This needs mentioning specifically.  Roger Davies  talk 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Background, but is this a principle or a FoF? Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Principle, but please tweak it if you don't think it sounds sufficiently like a principle.  Roger Davies  talk 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth stating in full for background. I've swapped round principles 9 & 10 to give a more logical sequence. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a principle based off a past remedy. It's "the facts on the ground", so to speak. SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The description of good practice is a principle; that it was adopted in a prior decision is a fact; if we instruct people to abide by it going forward it's a remedy. Given the need to finish this case and to focus on the substance of our decision at this stage rather than matters of form, I don't think we should debate at length which section or sections of the decision this paragraph belongs in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * This makes no sense to me as a principle. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (To be clear; this is a remedy based on an unstated princple much like proposed 5. above and not a principle itself). &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) This request for arbitration was requested by, claiming that substantially overturned an administrative act of his – a block of  – in contravention of a prior arbitration ruling.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unusually, the facts are much less controversial than the principles behind AE. Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I think we took the case to review wider issues relating to the Arbitration enforcement process, not primarily this single block and unblock. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added "– a block of –" for completeness and to introduce the third major protagonist.   Roger Davies  talk 04:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, as far as it goes. The root cause was an editing dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience which led Ludwigs2 to initiate a thread at the administrator noticeboard. It should be noted that the initial dispute was not addressed by the community, whose attention was diverted by the block of Ludwigs2. However, the reason for accepting the case surrounds the actions described in this finding. Risker (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Case acceptance rationale by arbitrators
2) In accepting this case, several arbitrators expressly did so as an opportunity to examine the general background to arbitration enforcement and to consider the underlying principles involved.


 * Support:
 * To help frame the case better,  Roger Davies  talk 05:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had concerns, both specific and general with regards to AE. So far, after reviewing the notes, my concerns have GENERALLY been ameliorated, not to say I think everything out of AE is perfect, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...although there are PARTICULAR problems with AE. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a pure matter of drafting style, I prefer to work this into the locus finding rather than treat it in a separate paragraph. However, I strongly suspect that no one else cares. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This may not apply to me that specifically, but certainly "several". &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ludwigs2's inappropriate remarks
3) This dispute was triggered by a posting made by Ludwigs2 on 8 March 2011 at the Administrators' Noticeboard. The last paragraph of Ludwigs2's posting contained inappropriate remarks, which included: "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up" and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly".


 * Support:
 * For completeness.  Roger Davies  talk 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Factual enough. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't have warranted an arbitration case in and of itself, but it's relevant as background, and I can't say that Lugwigs2 was so innocent in the situation that it's inherently unfair to mention him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will note that Ludwigs2's use of intemperate language had the effect of distracting reviewing administrators and community members from the issue that he sought to draw attention to, and as such was pretty much an own goal; I have noticed similar but less colourful posts during this case as well. Ludwigs2 should seriously consider moderating the tone of future posts so that hyperbolic language does not overshadow the subject of his commentary or, in some situations, consider whether or not his comments are more likely to assist other readers or distract them from the subject. Risker (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree also with NYB. Cool Hand Luke 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker has a very good point here. Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

September 2008 notification to Ludwigs2
4) Ludwigs2 had been previously notified about the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, in respect of another case in [ September 2008].

Among other things, the notification stated "These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions."

The notification also states: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."


 * Support:
 * Background,  Roger Davies  talk 05:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Background; but note the recent discussion, in an unrelated request for clarification, in which we discussed whether these general "notice to all editors on the articles" notices constitute the type of "warnings" that should precede the imposition of discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

March 2011 block warning to Ludwigs2 by Sandstein
5) On 8 March 2011, Ludwigs2 was warned by Sandstein both in the [ AN thread] and on [ Ludwigs2's talk page] that a block was contemplated. The AN message stated that Ludwigs2 "had previously been warned" and linked to the September 2008 message.


 * Support:
 * More background,  Roger Davies  talk 05:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Put diffs into temporal order  Roger Davies  talk 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ludwigs2 requests clarification
6) Sandstein's warning message to Ludwigs2 requested the latter to "show cause why [he] should not be sanctioned" within two hours of his next edit. Ludwigs2 requested that Sandstein clarify his warning at both his own talk page and the noticeboard thread. Sandstein did not respond further to Ludwigs2, but proceeded to block him less than two hours after his initial warning.


 * Support:
 * Important background. Sets out the ambiguity,  Roger Davies  talk 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can support this although a copyedit per SirFozzie would be welcome. I note that "show cause" as Sandstein used the term in his notification is a "legalism" (see order to show cause). Although not as opaque to laypersons as some legalisms, the terminology might not have been fully understood. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (adding for clarity) ... although, per PhilKnight below, the import of the message as a whole should have been. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This may or may not have been the best way for Sandstein to explain the matter, but as a finding of fact this is accurate. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accurate finding of fact. I concur with PhilKnight that Sandstein's post on WP:AN was more explanatory than the one on Ludwigs2's talk page; however, both posts invited discussion rather than action, and it was a reasonable interpretation that Sandstein was initiating a (two-way) discussion rather than planning to block if he did not find Ludwigs2's first comment to meet his expectations to "show cause". Risker (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have here is... Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * The show cause was to remove it or explain why he should not be sanctioned. This is an abstain rather than oppose because I understand that I was familiar with the term used, but others may not be. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but "explain it or remove it" is so much less ambiguous ;)  Roger Davies  talk 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Show cause" barely has that meaning even among lawyers; a reasonable (perhaps even more reasonable) interpretation is "explain why you should not be sanctioned for the remarks you have already made." Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein said "But I am concerned about the following statement by Ludwigs2 above: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." That sounds like a threat to me. Threats are not an acceptable mode of dispute resolution. Ludwigs2 has previously been warned that they may be subject to discretionary sanctions if they violate community norms in the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore invite Ludwigs2 to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making threats against others." In this context, for Ludwigs2 to say 'what are you talking about' is inadequate. Ok, he may not have understood the phrase 'show cause', but he must have understood the rest of the comment. Consequently, he should have retracted his threats. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Block by Sandstein
7) On 8 March 2011, blocked  for three days in response to comments he believed to be threats of disruption, clearly marking the block as an enforcement action of the Pseudoscience decision.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added "for three days in response to" as the duration of the block is an element in the rationale of the both the blocking and unblocking sysop. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree also with John Vandenberg's copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Unblock by Dreadstar
8) A little over three hours later, unblocked the editor while clearly aware that the block was done pursuant to an arbitration remedy .  While the applicability and propriety of the block was disputed and under discussion, there was no consensus to overturn the enforcement action at that time (nor, indeed, did Dreadstar claim there was or that he was acting accordingly).


 * Support:
 * Dreadstar clearly believed that the block was erroneous (or at least erroneously claimed to be arbitration enforcement); but "I'm right and you're wrong" is not sufficient rationale to ignore process &mdash; if only because everyone acts under a presumption that they are correct, including the blocking admin. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Echoing Coren's note re: Dreadstar's motivation. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will support, but I'm not sure we've captured all aspects of Dreadstar's thinking here. Although Dreadstar did not claim there was a "consensus to overturn the administrator action," he did reference several editors' support for an unblock at the time he unblocked. Most important, I find Dreadstar's evidence that he did not understand at the time the procedures required to overturn an AE block, and his assurance that he will not do so without consensus in the future (or at all with regard to this particular editors), to be credible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 03:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ludwigs2's redaction of remarks
9) After unblocking Ludwigs2, Dreadstar instructed Ludwigs2 to strike the phrases interpreted by Sandstein to be threats. Whether by accident or design, this action appears to fall within the instructions to administrators with respect to arbitration enforcement of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions ("counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines").


 * Support:
 * Background, and per NYB's comments in the FoF above,  Roger Davies  talk 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * As I said in the Workshop, this does not excuse the action he took beforehand. SirFozzie (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, this doesn't exonerate him but it does seem like reasonable mitigation to me,  Roger Davies  talk 02:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're opposing a finding of fact. Since the first sentence appears pretty straightforward, would you care to propose alternative wording that ameliorates your problems with the second? Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The unblock without discussion or consensus of an AE block (and despite claims otherwise, there has been no evidence that would lead me to believe it wasn't one) taints this action. SirFozzie (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 9.1. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to support this finding, or its alternatives, because &mdash; while strictly accurate &mdash; they create an impression that is contrary to plainly observable facts: Dreadstar did not try to apply arbitration enforcement differently, he believed arbitration enforcement did not apply at all in the first place. If he had clearly believed this was an arbitration enforcement matter at the time of the unblock, this would be an aggravating finding and certainly not a mitigating one.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that this was not an intentional invocation of the AE procedures. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer later version. Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 9.2. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

9.1) On the Administrator's noticeboard, Ludwigs2 said "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up." and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly". Sandstein said these comments can be construed as threats to cause disruption. After unblocking Ludwigs2, Dreadstar instructed Ludwigs2 to strike these comments.


 * Support:
 * I agree with the facts stated in 9.0, but don't especially agree with the interpretation of them. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can go with this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal preference with 9; my first preference would be a combined version per Jclemens below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 9.2. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my reasoning on 9. Above. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about Dreadstar and Ludwigs2, Sandstein's finding that the statements were threats of disruption was already addressed. Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker, if you check the time stamps you'll notice this was written before Finding 3. PhilKnight (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm explaining why, at the time I am voting, I oppose this finding. I've no objection to the idea that this finding of fact was proposed. Risker (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 9.2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer later versions. Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * This covers additional ground that 9 does not address, so it's hard to pick a "first choice" among them. Might a third version be appropriate?  Alternatively, a separate FoF on Ludwigs2's statements might work. Regardless, I don't oppose this, I'm just not sure it's scoped right. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

9.2) Sandstein interpreted remarks in the last paragraph of Ludwigs2's initial AN post as threats to disrupt. After unblocking Ludwigs2, Dreadstar instructed Ludwigs2 to strike the contentious remarks. Ludwigs2 duly redacted them.


 * Support:
 * Composite of 9 & 9.1, per various suggestions.  Roger Davies  talk 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't get the problem with sticking to the facts here, contra SirFozzie below.  We're taking each of the two administrators at their word here, largely because their conduct was internally consistent and each has acknowledged deficiencies.  I don't see this wording rewarding anyone. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice for me (I hope this doesn't become a mess for the Clerks in trying to figure out which alternative passes). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although this is of limited relevance. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice, just as a statement of fact. Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my reasoning on 9. Above. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Ugh. Half support, half oppose (again, it doesn't excuse what he did before hand, and it seems like we're praising him for it, which rubs me the wrong way). Going to think about it, but Abstain for now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody's excusing anyone, these are statements of fact, not praise or condemnation. Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Applicability of the block
10) While it was generally agreed during the ensuing discussion that an arbitration enforcement block was probably not the best solution in this case, there was no clear consensus that the block should have been overturned.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well phrased. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Switching to abstain, at least for now, per John Vandenberg. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But see my comment on 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * This is irrelevant unless/until we have a finding of fact which accepts the validity of the block as an AE block. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I view the ideas of "was an appropriate AE block" and "should have been overturned as it transpired" as separate issues. I think it's clear that the manner in which the unblock was done was itself suboptimal and drama-producing, even if the block was not a valid AE block. Jclemens (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This FoF isnt wrong per se, however it will result in the wrong decision if this passes in absence of a determination on whether the block was a valid AE block. "suboptimal" and "drama-producing" are par for the Wikipedia course, especially for contentious blocks & unblocks are discussed at the administrative noticeboards. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see what you mean, John. It was clearly stated to be an AE block, and it invoked a specific discretionary sanction.  Whether or not it was a good AE block is not material to whether it was one &mdash; though I think that the lack of consensus to overturn it shows that it was, at least, a defensible interpretation of the remedy.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My oppose is not regarding whether or not it was a good or bad AE block; there are many AE blocks which are undeniably AE blocks and whether they are "good" or "bad" is often very subjective and depending on the POV&alliances of the person making that assessment. OTOH, this block made it to ArbCom because saying it is an AE block doesnt make it one.  This is 2011, and both the community and arbcom have expectations about what can be appropriately called an AE block.  They haven't been codified until now, and that is an important component of this case. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Vandenberg has a point on this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Broadly, per John Vandenberg,  Roger Davies  talk 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per John Vandenberg. Risker (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I agree with John that this is a critical omission, and not free from controversy. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with John here. Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Switched from support; may revise again in the future. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar's apology
11) In Dreadstar's evidence, Dreadstar acknowledges that he made an error of judgment, has apologised for unblocking Ludwigs2, and has promised that he will not act similarly in respect of discretionary sanction in the future.


 * Support:
 * Per Workshop. This clarifies why a desysop is unnecessary, on this occasion,  Roger Davies  talk 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Roger. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason a desysop is unnecessary has nothing to do with Dreadstar's apology. While an appropriate gesture, the problems with the block itself place the desysoping of Dreadstar out of consideration. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrition helps. Alot. I note both admins have acknowledged this could have been handled better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The key for me is the promise that Dreadstar will not act unilaterally in undoing AE sanctions in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Explains why we haven't desyopped. PhilKnight (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this for exactly the opposite reasons Jclemens does: whether the block had problems or not, it's the assurance that such an unilateral unblock with not happen again that makes it unnecessary to desysop. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sandstein's communications
12) In Sandstein's evidence, Sandstein has expressed regret for shortcomings in communications with Ludwigs2 and has promised to take more care to avoid miscommunication in the future.


 * Support:
 * Per Workshop. Confirms the importance of good unambiguous clarification,  Roger Davies  talk 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as above in 10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * convinced by actions related to but not part of this case to switch to support. SirFozzie (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor communication in the initial warning was certainly a significant factor in the escalation of the situation. Risker (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * As previously stated, does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of needing a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) convinced by actions related to but not part of this case to switch to support. SirFozzie (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure that an arbitration finding is needed here; perhaps this could be briefly folded into the Sandstein-related paragraph above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The intent is certainly commendable and appreciated, but I see no need to make a finding of this. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Dreadstar admonished
1) Dreadstar is admonished for having substantially reversed an arbitration enforcement block without the requisite consensus or permission.


 * Support:
 * I don't think there is any doubt that this unilateral unblock was the wrong thing to do, but given Dreadstar's apparent motivation and their clear statement that they will not repeat the mistake, there is no reason to sanction them further. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Per Coren, for the record. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (first Choice). Per Coren. I put strongly admonished in my workshop but that's because if there was a similar incident down the road, we all know what the likely result will be. SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain this is essential, as it appears more than clear that Dreadstar has gotten the message by now, but I will support it to bring the issue to a result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I would support "reminded", but I think "admonished" is too strong a remedy unless there's a finding that Dreadstar's action was premeditated and/or partisan. While this has been alleged in evidence, no proposed finding has yet been put forth on this. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per Jclemens. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This case involves an intricate choreography of missteps by three individuals. I am reluctant to point accusing fingers in any one direction. Per Jclemens, I'd support reminded,  Roger Davies  talk 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support reminded on all three. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer "reminded" under the circumstances. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Holding off on voting until I see the balance of the remedies to put this in context, as well as whether any additional findings are proposed per Jclemens' comment. My initial inclination at this time is to oppose per Jclemens and my comments on finding 3 6 above. (Weirdly, this section heading is showing up in the page history and I noticed it on my watchlist as "Dreadstar severely admonished", although the actual title doesn't include "severely". Can anyone kindly tell me why this is happening?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Moved to support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. What else is there, Coren? I would not support this by itself. I would not even support taking the case if I believed this was the only problem. Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar reminded
1.1) Dreadstar is reminded to adhere to procedure, in light of his having substantially reversed an arbitration enforcement block without the requisite consensus or permission.


 * Support:
 * Hopefully, there's consensus for this,  Roger Davies  talk 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal preference. I've made a minor copyedit for clarity which I hope is acceptable but revert if not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * second choice. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only choice. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal pref. with 1 above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I find this remedy disproportionate, but will not obstruct the compromise. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein advised
2) Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.


 * Support:
 * Roger Davies talk 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support a "reminded" for Sandstein, just like I would for Dreadstar. More importantly, this advice does not take into account the deficiencies of fact with the block, which are separate from the deficiencies in communication. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We discussed it at the time and Sandstein acknowledged it so process really to illustrate good practice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * convinced by actions related to but not part of this case to switch to support. SirFozzie (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal preference. Cool Hand Luke 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Procedurally. At this time, the decision would end up with this minor sanction towards Sandstein passing while the more important admonishment of Dreadstar fails &mdash; a result I see as entirely nonsensical and undesirable.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer "reminded". Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Wavering between supporting per Casliber and abstaining per Coren (assuming that Coren's comment is missing a "not"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Sticking with abstain, given Sandstein's statement that he does not anticipate participating in AE again for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does not, in my opinion, meet the level to require a finding/remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) convinced by actions related to but not part of this case to switch to support. SirFozzie (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good advice, certainly, but I can't find facts that support an arbitration remedy for this. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein reminded
2.1) Sandstein is reminded to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.


 * Support:
 * Hopefully, there's consensus for this,  Roger Davies  talk 04:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only choice. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Equal preference (which is kind of a moot point when I'm abstaining). The abstention rather than support is based on Sandstein's comment that he does not anticipate participating in any AE actions for the foreseeable future in any event. I do not, incidentally, agree that our decision not to desysop Dreadstar in this case is a sensible basis for concluding that Sandstein's work at AE is not appreciated; I do, though, think it makes sense, in light of his expressed feelings, to take a break from this activity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The currently passing wording suffices. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 cautioned
3) Ludwigs2 is cautioned to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the caution is warranted. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comment on the relating finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "reminded" for symmetry, but this'll do.  Roger Davies  talk 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No issue with 'reminded' symmetry proposed by Roger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * strongly prefer 'reminded' as we are not reviewing the issues prior to Ludwigs2's ANI post. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 reminded
3.1) Ludwigs2 is reminded to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric.


 * Support:
 * Hopefully, there's consensus for this,  Roger Davies  talk 04:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Equal preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Ludwigs2, you were blocked because of your rhetoric and hyperbole, which distracted from the issue you wished to have addressed. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Administrators advised
4) Administrators are advised to abide by the principles above, which set out expectations for arbitration enforcement actions.


 * Support:
 * Roger Davies talk 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But would be fine with morphing principles into remedies per PhilKnight, also. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but specifically not as remedies. The principles expound on caution and due diligence, but do not give procedure (nor, indeed, should they).  I would support a restatement of Trusilver as an independent remedy, however.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re principles vs. findings vs. remedies, see my comment on principle 9. Perhaps it would be helpful to reword by changing "reflect on" to "abide by", which effectively would incorporate all the AE-related principles into the remedies? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, done. If anyone vehemenently objects, it can be reposted as an alternative. Incidentally, as discussed elsewhere, the principles probably now need rearranging into a more logical order.  Roger Davies  talk 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * The problem is that principles 4 & 8 should be remedies. It would be easier just to move them, as opposed to referring to them. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That puts way too much weight on 4 & 8, which need the context of the other stuff (like the restatement of Trusilver) for context. I would support however a bullet point remedy, referring back to specified principles, along the lines of that suggested in the /Workshop.  Roger Davies  talk 03:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the restatement of Trusilver should be emphasised. That could be done by moving 4, 8 & 10 into remedies. PhilKnight (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrators reminded
5) Administrators are reminded that:
 * i) Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia (cf. P2.1, P2.2.1);
 * ii) Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning (cf. P3.2, P3.1.2);
 * iii) Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case (cf. P3.1.2);
 * iv) Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways (cf. P3.2);
 * v) Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process (cf. P3.2);
 * vi) Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to (cf. P4.1, P4.2, P2.3);
 * vii) Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle (cf. P4.1, P4.2);
 * viii) Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes (cf. P3.1.2).


 * Support:
 * This was floated in the workshop and copy-edited to accommodate comments there. It probably needs cross-referencing to principles, once they're stabilised. Roger Davies  talk 04:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned elsewhere, this can link to the applicable principles once voting has concluded.  Roger Davies  talk 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarify old (iii), with new (iii) and (iv), and renumber. Please revert if in sharp disagreement,  Roger Davies  talk 04:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ok, however item (iii) should mention that warnings must contain a link to the original decision. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Good catch.  Roger Davies  talk 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is okay, as set out, though I think (v) might well deserve a more detailed remedy on its own. I'll see if I can craft something up without unduly delaying the decision.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but I would propose two copyedits: (1) change "instructed" to "reminded" or "advised" (I prefer to use "instructed" when we are speaking to someone who has done something wrong, not to hundreds or thousands of users); and (2) although we might refer to the "Trusilver principle" in internal shorthand, I don't think it's either dignified or fair to him to call it by that name in a formal decision. (Or maybe I'm just unduly sensitive because I dissented from the desysopping in that case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * CE: Changed the header to "reminded"; added a missing word ("enforcement") in (vii); and changed "Trusilver" to "longstanding".  Roger Davies  talk 03:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is okay. Risker (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.''


 * Proposals which pass
 * Passing principles: 1, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.3, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2
 * Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.2, 11, 12
 * Passing remedies: 1.1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4, 5
 * Passing enforcement provisions: None


 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Failing principles: 2.1, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.4,
 * Failing findings: 9, 9.1, 10
 * Failing remedies: 1, 2.1
 * Failing enforcement provisions: None


 * Implementation notes calculated by NW ( Talk ) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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
 * I'm done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a little more tweaking to be done but the substance is now established. I observe the comments on the talkpage that there are issues we have not addressed, but this case will not be our last opportunity to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The tweakings are all done. I've put up symmetry "reminder" findings for the three named individuals above: if they fly, they fly; if they don't, they don't. My view is close this now in 48 hours, come what may.  Roger Davies  talk 06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the fundamental disagreement within the committee about the core substantive matter, this current decision is the best possible result. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * # Procedural oppose, there's still things above that need one or two more votes to pass. SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) striking now that most everything has enough votes to go one way or the other. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment