Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/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=

Casting aspersions
1) It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.


 * Support:
 * This applies whether the aspersions are directed at specific users or at users unnamed; painting other editors with a wide brush does not make personal attacks any more acceptable. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC) No objection to the rewording.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bringing up supposed infractions repeatedly, in irrelevant discussions, without attempting to resolve those concerns in any productive manner is little more than a personal attack. Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyedited first sentence (original: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation."). The drafter or any other arbitrator can revert if desired; my support will stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Vested contributors
2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly prefer to change the section title, which I find grating, for reasons we discussed in another case. I also would delete the reference to IAR from the first sentence: "mistakes" and "occasional lapses of judgment," while forgivable, are ideally to be avoided, while the whole point of IAR is that occasionally, "ignoring all rules" is the right thing to do. Perhaps what is meant here is misguided or ill-judged ignoring of a rule, but the whole concept seems remote from the issues in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Fair criticism
3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.


 * Support:
 * Criticism is welcome, but needs to be constrained in its manner by basic civility and dignity. One's voice of protest is no more valid by being shrill, and any genuine concern is made less credible by being couched in vicious terms.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, use proper channels and remain civil. Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Purpose of Wikipedia
4) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * In particular, disputes about any putative bias displayed in articles needs to be resolved through the editorial process and not through personification of the disputes and "battling opponents". &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personalizing disputes and subsequently smearing those editors involved in unrelated discussions is not a productive way to resolve editing differences. Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a style point, I usually make this #1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you think that an article is biased, work with the other editors into removing it. Turning it into a battleground will just make ill-will on all-sides. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

User conduct
5) Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-evident. Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though there is some duplication of other paragraphs here, and the sentence about administrators, while I would support it, opens up a philosophical can of worms that is largely irrelevant to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What we should all strive for. It's a bit omnibus and I'm not sure it all applies to this case, but definitely support the principle, SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground
6) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

ChildofMidnight
1) has been a member of the project since November 2008. In his time here, he has made over 40,000 edits. He has created a substantial of number of new articles, many of which have appeared on the "Did you know?" section of the main page.


 * Support:
 * I suppose I was the one who started including these types of findings; I did so in a protracted and miserable case (not that we have many non-miserable ones), in which some very dedicated editors had been subjected to a wide variety of charges, some of which we found to be true and some of which we found to be false, or at least exaggerated. In that context, I thought it important to acknowledge the very positive along with the negative aspects of the parties' contributions, and I think that it is advantageous to do so when we reasonably can, as a matter of morale and a matter of fairness. ¶ But there is also another purpose to this type of finding, which is to make our decisions understandable to those who may read a decision without background on the editor in question. "You found that User:Foo had been uncivil 800 times; why didn't you ban him? Well, because he's also done such-and-such number of good things." Not that the good things are an excuse or a justification for the bad things, not at all; but they can be very relevant in selecting a sanction. ¶ All that being said, if these types of findings in decisions are going to be controversial, we will have to omit them. No one wants to hear "we acknowledge and appreciate your dozen featured articles, by a vote of seven to four." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who has read a large number of past arbitration cases, I have always found these strictly factual paragraphs describing involved editors to be very helpful in understanding who the editor was, and how the editor made an impact on the encyclopedia; they provide some context to those who read the case months or years later. Having said that, I agree with Newyorkbrad, especially his last paragraph. Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. KnightLago (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Proposed as typical, but I remain unconvinced of the propriety of leading findings with what amounts to a panegyric of the parties. The duration, quantity or quality of an editor's contribution in no way mitigates what misbehavior may have taken place, and is only rarely relevant to Arbitration proceedings.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that creating good content means that you can get away with poor behavior needs to stop; these findings, which are rarely material to the case, give the wrong impression. All editors are respected as people and their contributions are greatly appreciated, which is why we bend over backwards to find the least restrictive solution to problems. Shell   babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have used similar findings to help explain leniency; they serve little purpose where none is contemplated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and Shell emphatically. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that we are trying to avoid a Damnatio memoriae situation, but I don't think this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and Shell.  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Past sanctions
2) ChildofMidnight has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in Obama Articles for having deleted and/or refactored comments of others on article talk pages and engaged in edit warring.


 * Support:
 * Both of which are examples of poor collaborative behavior. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence of past issues that have gone uncorrected; establishes a rather lengthy pattern. Shell  babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "A long and checkered history" is the phrase I think I would have used. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Request for Comment
3) In December 2009, ChildofMidnight was subject to a user-conduct request for comment that focused on his alleged incivility and unsupported accusations against other editors.  closed the discussion in January 2010, stating that consensus was that ChildofMidnight should "tone things down a lot", should consider taking a "self-imposed vacation of a few months from posting to any policy talk page or any administrative noticeboards," and that it was "strongly suggested that [he] carefully review these conclusions and use the information here to modify [his] actions onwiki in such a way as to make [his] interactions with other editors more harmonious and productive."


 * Support:
 * As background. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the pattern, especially as the results appear to have been ignored. Shell  babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely part of the pattern, that his editing was found problematic previously, along with the previous ArbCom findings. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

ChildofMidnight's reaction to the Request for Comment
4) ChildofMidnight was combative and rude during the Request for comment, and refused to acknowledge its conclusion, opting instead to attack the process and the administrator who closed it.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This unfortunately appears to be default behavior at this time. Shell  babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Showing that he was offered the chance to improve his behavior, and instead used it as a platform to launch new attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

ChildofMidnight's history
5) ChildofMidnight has a long history of uncivil language, personal attacks and widely cast aspersions that continued after his RfC/U and the strong recommendations that he be more collegial.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although as a matter of principle I would prefer not to rely on any comments critical of this Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I felt that not mentioning any of the comments that are critical of the Committee might appear to attempt to downplay their existence; that they are openly acknowledged as existing insures we cannot be perceived as trying to hide any possible bias they might have caused in our decision. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

ChildofMidnight's dealings with criticism
6) Despite numerous attempts by dozens of editors over several months to counsel ChildofMidnight away from combative behavior, he remains unwilling or unable to correct his behavior or even acknowledge that it may be at fault. He generally dismisses criticism of his editing as censorship or harassment, even when it comes from editors with no prior involvement or dispute with him.


 * Support:
 * Indeed, editors that have in the past attempted to help ChildofMidnight have usually been rewarded with attacks. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many attempts have been made by the community to resolve this and mentor (informally) ChildofMidnight with little result. Shell  babelfish 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren and Shell. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

ChildofMidnight banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.


 * Support:
 * Second choice. The behavior of ChildofMidnight can only be qualified as atrocious and destructive to the collaborative process; and unless it is tightly managed there is little choice but to exclude him from participation.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First choice at this time. While I tend to err on the side of leniency toward editors with rough edges, and am saddened whenever anyone must be sent away from our project, eventually there is a limit to how much personal abuse toward colleagues we can stand for in a collaborative enterprise. I would be willing to rethink this vote and seek to craft a lesser sanction if ChildofMidnight now recognizes that there are aspects of his on-wiki behavior that need to change; unfortunately, it is more likely that he will claim that our decision is based on political or other bias, which is not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consecutive with remedy 2. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect that you mean, by this, that remedy 2 should be consecutive to this one? &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Combined with the below remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that remedy 2 should follow any return. Shell  babelfish 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

ChildofMidnight restricted
2) is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only.  In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page.  ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis.  This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.


 * Support:
 * First choice. This restriction is unusually draconian, but I do not believe that anything more flexible will suffice in this case given ChildofMidnight's reluctance to control his temper or heed community feedback.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (Edited 15:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC) to add T:TDYK to the list of permitted pages)
 * Second choice, but subject to my comments on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with #1, should he return. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as worded, consecutive to #1 if it passes, meaning this in in effect when #1 ends, if it passes. Concur with Coren. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill and Rlevse. Risker (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consecutive with remedy 1. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with the above remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Rlevse. KnightLago (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Rlevse. Shell  babelfish 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill and Rlevse.  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight.


 * Support:
 * As usual. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the relevant remedy passes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual. SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KnightLago (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 02:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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
 * Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 * Findings of fact: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 * Remedies: 1, 2
 * Enforcement: 1
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Findings of fact: 1

00:09, 8 March 2010 (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.''

''The motion passes. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)''


 * Support
 * Little else to do here. Close, with a note that my reading of the remedies means a one year ban followed by the restriction as outlined in remedy 2.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. KnightLago (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren, the restriction starts after the ban ends.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As said above, the one year ban followed by the restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Coren.  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With great sadness that the issues could not be resolved in another fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comment