Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:59, 2 October 2016

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). 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 require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is now somewhat redundant to Principle #1. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Disruptive editing

5) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement. Editors are neither required nor expected to be perfect. However, repeated disruption to process, and failure to heed sound advice when given may become disruptive even when done in good faith.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

On DYK and ITN

1) The "Did you know" and "In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content. Determining how the content of the main page is selected is outside the mandate of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As background. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Main page

2) The main page of Wikipedia is subject to higher scrutiny than many other Wikipedia pages because it is the face of the project, and receives considerably more traffic than other pages.([1]) Discussions about changes to the main page are often more heated than those on the rest of the project due to concerns about inaccuracies on such a heavily-trafficked page, as well as time-sensitivity concerns surrounding portions of the page such as In the news and Did you know.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More background. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Rambling Man: Background I

3) In January 2016 the Arbitration Committee noted that that "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this [Future Perfect at Sunrise Arbitration Case Request] dispute". Additionally, he was "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions".

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Rambling Man: Background II

4) In the 2009 Date delinking arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee found that "The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles"[2] and admonished him for "not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.".[3]

Support:

Simply as background; not particularly relevant to the behavior in this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For context. It's pretty common to list parties' past major interactions with arbcom. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Rambling Man has been uncivil

5) Since January 2016, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has continued to engage in uncivil and inflammatory behavior and make personal attacks towards other editors (such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

George Ho and The Rambling Man

6) George Ho (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) have a hostile relationship. (December 2015, April 2016, May 2016, June 2016, June 2016, July 2016)

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

George Ho is not a new editor

7) George Ho (talk · contribs) has been an active editor since 2005, and has amassed approximately 80,000 live edits.([9])

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

George Ho has been disruptive

8) George Ho (talk · contribs) has been disruptive by repeatedly beginning discussions on trivial changes even after consensus has been decided, and escalating issues much more quickly than is appropriate.

George Ho began a discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors about his concerns that In the news items were being ordered by date, but not necessarily by time of day. After the concern was determined not to be an issue and the discussion was removed, George Ho immediately revisited it at WT:ITN, where it was again determined not to be an issue. A month later, George Ho initiated an RfC at WT:ITN (which confirmed the previous decisions).
George Ho began three separate discussions at WT:ITN over whether ITN nominations should use level 3 or 4 headers. (July 2015, December 2015, June 2016)
An ANI report filed by George Ho is closed as not needing administrative attention, with another administrator criticizing George Ho "for being so quick to bring this to the 'drama board'". [10]
Multiple participants criticize George Ho for bringing concerns about a user's removal of commas to ANI, describing George Ho as "disruptive" and misusing ANI.[11]
George Ho has said himself that he has intentionally created issues out of minor topics: "Nominations on events are treated as huge issues, but... I guess I feel indifferent to such issue. Therefore, I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead."[12]

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While he's hardly the only one doing this kind of thing, he's distinctive in doing it so often. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

mildly disruptive comparedto most of what we have to deal with. I can't support as written. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho canvassed users to this case

9) George Ho (talk · contribs) canvassed no fewer than twelve people to this case ([13] [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). When told to stop he failed to see the issue with what he was doing [25], and sought out other users who could do it on his behalf [26].

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I think we need one of these for Banedon as well. I see 15 notifications: [27] Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OR, however I'm less concerned about Banedon as their conduct (overall) does not seem to be as severe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

The Rambling Man desysopped

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Oppose:

kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of tool misuse that rises to the level of desysopping, and no evidence that the documented conduct problems would improve if he lost the bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I don't believe it rises to this level, and see it as more punitive than anything else. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man topic banned

2) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM's role in main-page-related disputes has primarily been to identify and correct possible errors in an overly aggressive and disputatious fashion. We may disagree with his methods, and we may disagree about whether the problems he finds are really all that important, but simply removing one of the few people willing to perform this function isn't going to solve the underlying problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kelapstick. If there are any further issues regarding TRM and the main page this would seem the next step to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I do not understand the rationale for the opposes DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this case should be to prevention of disruption. Excluding the interaction ban, the only TRM-related remedy that I see as being effective to prevent disruption is #3, and possibly #2. However if #3 is effective than #2 is unnecessary. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man prohibited

3) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The provenance of this wording is fairly obvious, and it's reasonable without the problematic "escalating blocks" aspect the original had. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@GorillaWarfare, Kirill Lokshin, Kelapstick, DGG, and Opabinia regalis: Can we please remove the sentence about length of blocks as it is covered by the standard provision on enforcement; if not we need to specific a maximum duration for the blocks. Also I've removed the sentence about it coming into effect when the motion passes (as opposed to the normal situation when remedies come into force when the case is closed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 14:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Having been a mere editor who requested an IBAN with TRM, this seems quite reasonable. The IBAN between us was eventually removed at TRM's request, but that seems to have had something to do with another arbcom or request for desysopping case. I am so very tired of this that I have no intention of looking for the diffs, as I am sure they have been posted to and deleted from TRM's talk page.

George Ho blocked

5) George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing. This block may be appealed by any of the standard means available to request unblocking (user talk page request or UTRS). This unblock request does not have to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

The areas in which disruption has occurred are too varied for a simple topic ban to work. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Totally opposed. That is not what this case is about, and his conduct does not reach that level. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disproportionate. George has, as far as I can tell, made perfectly fine contributions to mainspace, and gotten into no more than an average number of disputes there. He needs to disengage from some of his problem behavior, but I don't think a block is necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a block here as the conduct does not rise to that level, especially one where he could be immediately unblocked as soon as he's blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Still unsure on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho topic banned

6) George Ho (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is proportionate, not the block. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George is obviously having difficulty disengaging from these areas, despite stated intentions to do so. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm not convinced that this is proportionate the sanction being imposed on TRM, however I won't stand in the way of it being passed. I also do not support it being a topic ban since the various locations noted in the remedy are very broad. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Community encouraged

7) The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though it's been discussed to death for pretty much as long as these sections have existed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is an area the community could delegate the authority to impose bans to individual admins or to a smaller discussion on WT:ITN or WT:DYK. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC) by Medeis.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority): Principles: All; Findings: All; Remedies: All; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

Oppose

Comments

@@ Line 451: / Line 451: @@
 :Comments:
+:::Having been a mere editor who requested an IBAN with TRM, this seems quite reasonable.  The IBAN between us was eventually removed at TRM's request, but that seems to have had something to do with another arbcom or request for desysopping case.  I am so very tired of this that I have no intention of looking for the diffs, as I am  sure they have been posted to and deleted from TRM's talk page.
-:::
 ===George Ho blocked===