Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Koavf

Comments
(Not sure where you want this.) I don't quite understand this particular motion without a case. I don't feel vehemently about any half-year old ban of mine, but I do disagree that it should be done this way. Mostly, an arbitration case should never take anyone by surprise. The original ban was endorsed by several admins, and no one in the community was willing to unblock after an ANI discussion. If anyone (arbitrators included) think that a revert parole is a better option, it would have been better to 1) discuss with the blocking administrator and then 2) put it to the community on some noticeboard. That's normal admin courtesy. I can't avoid the feeling that, by bypassing the usual options, arbcom has essentially (whether intentionally or not) mixed up their administrator and arbitrator hats. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree this seems like a bad idea, and is without precedent in the 9 months I have been a clerk.  Unless FIcelloguy wants to act directly as an admin and unblock Koavf, the Arbcom precedent would be to list the appeal as a routine request.  If four or more arbitrators agree to hear the case, a full case with an evidence and workshop page would be opened. Here you are going directly to the final decision without any input from the blocking admin or other editors who discussed the case when it was reported on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Full link to discussion of indefinite block is here. Thatcher131 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the reason this procedure is being used is that the editor in question is blocked indefinitely, so he has no on-wiki method of requesting a reduction in the sanction against him. Therefore, he properly wrote to the Arbitration Committee, as recommended, and arbitrators apparently concluded that they could reduce the sanction as indicated without needing evidence and a workshop.
 * I think that procedurally, what is proposed here is the equivalent of setting up an expedited procedure ("summary docket") that the arbitrators would use for matters in which they believe ArbCom action is appropriate but the full panoply of opening a case is not necessary. I suppose last month's fast-tracked confirmation of the Robdurbar desysopping would be a procedural precedent, not that the two cases are otherwise comparable in any way. On the one hand, it would make sense that such an expedited procedure be established for less controversial items (perhaps with a caveat that this procedure could not be used if any arbitrator objected, or if more than one arbitrator objected). The counter-argument is that the experience of real-world legal systems is that such special expedited procedures quickly tend to get overused, including for matters that would benefit from more plenary consideration. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer a few of the qualms: I, too, was at first a little hesitant about any such appeals method. But the email from Koavf indicated that he had tried other means of recourse, including emailing the blocking admin (Dmcdevit) previously, with no reply. He attempted an unblock request in January of this year, which was denied; people told him to take his appeals process to the Arbitration Committee because he was blocked indefinitely. Whether or not it's technically a "ban" seemed a bit irrelevant; people pointed him to us, citing the appeals process. It was clear that, with that advice having been given to him, that the Arbitration Committee would be the only ones able to listen to his case and act. With that in mind and the appeals of all bans in our "jurisdiction", I was still a little bit hesitant about how to proceed. After receiving his email, I forwarded (like I would any other email pertaining to ArbCom business) his email to the mailing list and asked for thoughts on how to proceed. It was suggested by another Arbitrator that we take the option of unblocking him, and placing him on standard revert parole - his block log and prior discussions indicated that this was one of the primary reasons that hindered him from being a productive editor. Several Arbitrators agreed with this proposal, at which point I asked for advice on how to proceed - how would we treat this? Another Arbitrator responded that it should be treated like a standard appeals and placed in the "clarification" section. With sufficient time given and no objections heard, I proceeded with placing this request on here.


 * Regarding the lack of a complete case for this matter: this was something, as I mentioned above, that I asked for feedback on from my fellow Arbitrators, and they all seemed comfortable with this method. I saw little merit in starting a new case; unlike the typical case that we accept, there would be no need for a workshop, proposed decisions, evidence, etc. - the only thing that we were considering is whether or not to unblock this particular editor, and if so, whether or not to place him on standard revert parole. Other editors are, of course, free to comment here, but as no Arbitrator had opposed placing this unblock to a vote, I didn't see a need to vote on whether or not to "accept" a case - an Arbitrator either believes that the editor should be unblocked, or he doesn't. (Of course, they are all free to propose alternate solutions and remedies.) It seemed redundant to vote on "accepting" the case and then voting again on the one proposed action, when, in essence, anyone accepting the case would be supporting the unblock, while those against opening would be against the unblock. Again, no objections were heard at all in the time this was discussed on our mailing list, and we all looked into the circumstances surrounding his unblock carefully.


 * Those are the reasons why I felt comfortable proceeding with this request, having discussed this and being advised to proceed in this manner by other Arbitrators. It should also be noted that I contacted Dmcdevit as well after I placed this appeal from Koavf on here, notifying him of the appeal. Perhaps I should have contacted all the other editors who discussed the indefinite block in the first place; if so, I apologize. I - and the rest of the committee - of course respect and understand your qualms about this, but I hope I've made clear why I felt comfortable proceeding in the manner I did. (If I didn't address any of your concerns inadvertantly, please let me know and I'll do so.) Additional feedback and comments about the process or case are, as always, welcome. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so concerned about the lack of a case, or "jurisdiction" issues&mdash;I've always felt that simple cases should be resolved with open motions, not full cases, but the previous ArbCom never warmed to my idea&mdash;but that this block was uncontested, and ArbCom's action came out of the blue. If any of the arbitrators, upon receiving Koavf's email, felt that lifting the ban was a good idea, simply saying so as a respected administrator on ANI would have been enough. The problem here is that by using arbitration to make a simple admin decision–especially when, if you had contacted any of us who had discussed it previously, it would be clear that limiting the ban to some kind of probation is not that controversial–ArbCom seems to be limiting admin discretion in favor of sending more cases to arbitraton instead. (I have a laundry list of users community banned by adminstrators and upheld by the community who still want to be unblocked, probably several a week, if ArbCom would like to have at them all. )Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this appeal should have been exposed to public. No one from the list of people who participated at the AN/I discussion have been informed of this process. I think people should be informed at least.

Anyway, as i had stated in the AN/I back on November 2006, i have no objection to see Koavf contributing again but it remains conditional (partial ban - see AN/I). I still think the same. In parallel, i don't understand that if they revert more than once a day they'd only be blocked for 24h. Why not longer? Why not putting them on a probation period with stricter conditions instead? Anyway, i assume good faith and would not object if Justin is willing to do as they say. I'd have no problems in seeing them contributing again but totally POV-free the same way they have done at Citizendium. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FayassalF. I'm surprised that the arbcom is willing to unblock someone banned with a clear community consensus per discussion on the incident noticeboard and without a strong reason to involve itself. (This does not look like a case that would be accepted if it had been brought back in November.) I therefore think this looks like bypassing the community, which should only be done when it is clear the arbcom can do a better job of resolving the dispute than the community can. That said, I would welcome Koavf back if he promises not to edit war anymore, but has he done so? If so, where? Picaroon (Talk) 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the Arbitration Committee taking cases like this, so long as the community is given the opportunity of final appeal (i.e. if ArbCom reverses a ban, the community can restore the ban after another discussion). Ral315 » 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things here. If the community would have the final word than why do we have to go through here? Also, who would define the conditions? --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To the first point, it wouldn't be a requirement to go through here, merely another way of reversal. Very rarely would there be a case where a ban reversed by ArbCom would be questionable (I'd argue almost never would this happen).  Second, the conditions would be defined by the cases where ArbCom chooses to step in, and afterward, in the cases where someone appeals the ban on WP:AN or elsewhere, and the community agrees that the case is worth looking at.  Ral315 » 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and partially agree. Because i heard about a 24h sanction in case of a 3RR infraction. Isn't this applied to all users? If the unblock would be executed under such conditions than the community would surely disagree. But where, how and when? --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would assume that this wouldn't apply to any short-term blocks - any ArbCom action taken on a community decision would take at least a week, presumably - I'm talking about this covering blocks of, say, 1 month or more. But since this is a rare case currently, I don't think any real rules on it need to be defined.  Ral315 » 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is any kind of official motion really required? This is basically a community ban. By my understand, any admin can undo a community ban, since the definition of a community ban is simply a ban that no admin is willing to undo. I would suggest that someone unblock him unilaterally and then if anyone wants him reblocked they can start a full arbcom case. --Tango 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in addition to being Arbcom members, they are still members of the Wikipedia administration community. And as such, any one of them can decide a community ban was inappropriate and overturn it unilaterally. It's patently ludicrous to argue that the Arbcom may not do something in summary motion that they can do as ordinary administrators. It does not really need majority vote either, simply one of the admins saying "I'm dubious over this ban, if people want a ban they should take it to full Arbitration." --Barberio 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but we try to make decisions as a group. Wheelwarring by arbitrators is grossly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We really need to decide on a definition of wheelwarring. Undoing a community ban isn't wheelwarring by my definition - it's just how community bans work. Community bans are an example of "bold-revert-discuss", one admin boldly blocks, another unblocks, and then there is a discussion, potentially ending in an arbcom case. That's how things are meant to work, it's not a war. --Tango 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Thanks to all involved, not only for essentially agreeing to the kind of conclusion I desired, but also for finally putting an end to this limbo. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Koavf
Initiated by  —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
 * Suggestion: Repeal all.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Other user templates:


 * I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

Amendment 1

 * Initial RfA: Requests for arbitration/Koavf; details of community sanction: User:Koavf/Community sanction

Statement by Koavf
I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:
 * 1) Limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:
 * 1) I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
 * 2) I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
 * 3) This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein
This seems to be an appeal of User:Koavf/Community sanction and not of any arbitral sanctions; the sanction imposed at Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf has expired. I believe that community sanctions should be appealed, at least in the first instance, in a community forum and not to the Arbitration Committee: WP:GS provides that community sanctions "may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary." Consequently, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee do not act on this request.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Per (the historical) Community_sanction:
 * "Community sanctions may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee may accept or decline the request. If they accept, they may reduce or change the sanctions, or may even enlarge upon them."
 * I will go to AN if you still think that is the best venue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman
As stated by Sandstein, the community restrictions are for the community to handle. As for the 2007 case, whether to consider the issue expired due to the later community sanctions or whether to lift it now is up to them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Slrubenstein
Why are there no links to th discussion leading to the community ban?

I think the community should handle this. I think ArbCom should agree to har this ONLY if the person can demonstrate a clear abuse of WP procedures (e.g. wheel warring bullying and COI in the community ban case). Unless the person can demonstrate the the original ban was an abuse of power, I do not think ArbCom shouuld override thre community decision. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure by Koavf
Thank you I have moved this to WP:AN per the above input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting community input. — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the community can adequately handle the appeal in this case; I don't see any reason why we need to be involved at this time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Koavf has indicated that his request to lift the sanctions is now pending on the administrators' noticeboard, so I believe this request here can be closed. I agree that an appeal from a community sanction can be taken to this Committee in appropriate circumstances, though as I have noted in the past, we would only be likely to intervene in specific circumstances (e.g., there was serious procedural unfairness in the discussion, the sanction imposed as a result of the discussion appeared grossly disproportionate, the outcome should be affected by material non-public information that we are privy to but the community cannot be, or the like). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Koavf has taken the appeal to the community, so this can likely be closed now. Shell  babelfish 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: User:Koavf
Permanent link

Initiated by  —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ (per User:Shell Kinney) at 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected : User:Koavf/Community sanction


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

None outstanding, but all users who commented at AN have been notified.
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Note: these will be added after I have submitted this proposal, so that I can post a static diff of this page to the users' talks.


 * diff at User talk:Fetchcomms
 * diff at User talk:Swatjester
 * diff at User talk:Jayron32
 * diff at User talk:Ncmvocalist
 * diff at User talk:EdJohnston
 * diff at User talk:FayssalF
 * diff at User talk:Explicit
 * diff at User talk:Good Olfactory

Statement by Koavf
This has a long history and you can go down the rabbit hole following this from ArbCom to AN to user talk pages and back to ArbCom (e.g.), but basically put: I have three editing restrictions noted above and I would like them lifted. My lengthier proposal and rationale from before are copied and pasted:

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:
 * 1) Limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:
 * 1) I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
 * 2) I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
 * 3) This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Statement by Fetchcomms
As I stated at the AN thread, I don't see any major issue with lifting the restrictions. Not sure what else I have to say; I was never involved in the original sanctions. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @NW, I'm not a clerk but I think I updated the template. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Shell, I don't think it was consensus not to remove the sanctions as much as lack of participation either way. It might just because not many people are familiar with this case and Koavf's current activity. I interpret lack of input as "I don't care" over "status quo, leave them in place". / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32
Again, my opinion has not changed just like Fetchcoms. At the same AN thread above, I noted that I saw no problem with lifting restrictions 1 & 2. Restriction 3 needs to remain in place for some time while he his allowed to edit in the problematic area. While Koavf has remained in good standing when editing outside of the Western Sahara/Morocco area, we have no evidence one way or another how things will go once he starts to edit in that area. I think that keeping restriction 3 in place, for say at least another 6 months or so, will allow us to see if things go well. If they do, then we can recind that restriction as well. So my opinion is that ArbCom should look at recinding restrictions 1 & 2, and leave 3 in place for six months as a sort of "trial period" for editing the Western Sahara related articles. -- Jayron  32  03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion
I've notified Sandstein of the discussion, as he closed the ANI thread. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think I have much useful input to offer. I only closed the stale ANI discussion after there was no positive consensus to lift the restrictions (which meant that they remained in force by default) but not much community interest in maintaining them either. I suppose that gives ArbCom wide latitude to determine whether maintaining the sanctions is in the interests of the project. About that I have no opinion.  Sandstein   23:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes
I...tried to updated Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but I couldn't figure out how to do so. Could another clerk take a gander at it?  NW  ( Talk ) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * In the absence of any commentary to the contrary, a week after this has been filed, I am hard pressed to think of a reason to deny this request, and would likely support lifting it. Risker (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely clear where ArbCom were involved in the past here. If this is indeed within our remit to modify, I would have no problems with something like Jayron suggested above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom competence For what it's worth, I posted here because I was told to post here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since appeal to the community resulted in a consensus not to remove the sanctions just a few months ago, there's no obvious reason for us to disagree with that decision. If you'd like the sanctions lifted, you need to convince the community that you've resolved the issues. Shell   babelfish 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly There wasn't a "consensus not to remove the sanctions", there was simply no consensus to remove the sanctions. In point of fact, everyone who participated was willing to remove them (or stagger their removal), so the !votes were in favor of lifting it; there just weren't enough. And then I was told to come here--if you have a better place for me to take this, I'd happily do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that NYBrad has pointed out where the sanctions initially came from, I also find I like Jayron32's suggestion for removing most of the sanctions and giving this a trial. Shell  babelfish 20:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No issues with removing these sanctions; in fact, the complete lack of support in continuing the sanctions at the last community discussion makes me wonder why this was not addressed at that time. Sanctions that no longer enjoy the support of the community should be lifted, and there is no expectation of a supermajority of support for lifting two year old sanctions. Risker (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read the history here, this was initially an indefinite block (not necessarily a ban), which was lifted subject to restrictions imposed by this Committee in 2007 (see Requests for arbitration/Koavf). Thus, I don't see any issue with our authority to lift or modify the restrictions if we think such action is warranted. With regard to whether we should do so, my current inclination is to propose a motion either lifting the restrictions, or alternatively, suspending them a period of three or six months, with the intention of then lifting them altogether at that time if there are no significant problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll offer a motion on this shortly after January 1st, when the new arbitrators are installed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Following Sandstein's and NYB's comments, it seems ArbCom can undo the restrictions, and if this is the case, I agree with Jayron's suggestion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion
The restrictions placed upon in Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.


 * Support:


 * 1) There seems to be a consensus that these restrictions have served their purpose. I do see some division of opinion as to whether we should lift the sanctions outright at this time, or suspend them for a few months to make sure no problems develop before lifting them permanently. On consideration, my own view is that ample time has passed for an outright lifting to be reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Risker (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Personally would have preferred to have a probationary period, but my fellow arbs are right, Koavf should know that further issues will mean that sanctions are re-applied fairly quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Would have preferred to retain the 3rd restriction, however I agree with SirFozzie - if there are problems, the sanctions can be re-applied. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Mailer Diablo 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) No opposition to lifting restrictions. Koavf shoud be aware that sanctions will be reapplied tout suite if he fouls up.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) The restrictions have served their purpose.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per SirFozzie. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * 1) –xeno talk 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'm glad this is finally behind me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? User:Koavf/Community sanction, what Koavf wished to be lifted, didn't seem to be addressed at all.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeepers. We (meaning mostly I) seem to have overlooked that there were both an ArbCom sanction and a subsequent community sanction in effect here. My intent was to lift all sanctions (we have authority to modify community sanctions, especially when community discussion is inconclusive), effective immediately, and I'd be glad to do this as a copyedit to the motion, but I will need to see if any other arbitrators object. This thread has been noted on the Arbcom-l list, so other arbs should be commenting. My apologies to Koavf for the delay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my vote, when I mentioned the 3rd restriction, that was in reference to the community sanctions. Or in other words, I obviously didn't read the motion very carefully. Anyway, I agree with making an adjustment so it covers the community sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy edit is fine by me. Risker (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of other arbitrators have also opined that a copyedit is fine, on the mailing list. Accordingly, I've made the change in the motion above. Let's consider the motion adopted as edited unless an arbitrator objects before the end of the day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Enacting.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)