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.

Temporary suspension of the case

1) This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Doug Weller (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
once and only one --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the understanding that it will not be suspended further. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Roger Davies per email. Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

I'm concerned about several aspects of this coming about. But I also understand that it is holiday time. With no valid evidence to back any oppose, only theory, I land myself here. I also put my vote here as the final modification of the timeline, and I wish this to be the final change, whether or not parties participate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My initial request to shorten the timeframe of the case was premised on the idea that I would have to return to civilization early in order to safely complete my immunoglobulin injections, and would thus have access to the internet for a majority of the time. Having been told by my immunologist that I can in fact safely give myself immunoglobulin injections in the middle of a desert with no significant risk of infection thanks to how hard it is to get a subcutaneous infection when using medical grade equipment (as opposed to, like, black tar heroin) I now have no intention of returning during the middle of that period. Given that this period of time is referred to the holidays for a reason, and that its typically considered appropriate to hold a case when a member is actually present, this suspension seems utterly reasonable. Ten days is hardly a long amount of time to suspend an arbcom case for, given how many of them run months over length.. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this motion more or less needs to be voted on today, pinging active arbs - @Courcelles, DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, and Guerillero:@LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, and Thryduulf: User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh NYB, without posting specific details here I am relatively certain that many arbs would've just asked "Why is this a different request than yuo initialy made?" User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 19:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this motion makes sense. I counsel Kevin Gorman that there is no need for him to be posting this much personal medical information on a widely accessible website. As a minor procedural note to the arbitrators (which should not be given undue importance), arb voting on motions usually takes place on /Proposed decision, not here on /workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On arbitrator-initiated motions certainly, but even for party-initiated ones (this is the only one that has been worthy of a vote in my year as an arbitrator)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think so... I'll put my vote here, but I think it should be moved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Amortias (T)(C) 14:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 15:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC) by Doug Weller.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

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

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5