From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Ks0stm ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Kelapstick ( Talk) & Drmies ( Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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.

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 Information

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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. With advance apologies for having only had cellular internet for a while and not abusing my data cap TOO harshly -- I got the "you have 5% of your data this month left" text. Basically, apologies for being a little behind the actual clicking of buttons. Courcelles ( talk) 04:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Although this is now somewhat redundant to Principle #1. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:08, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:09, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. As background. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. While I don't speak to the specific issues, as i'm not completely aware of the inner issues, there has not been evidence to the contrary. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:10, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. More background. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:11, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:12, 5 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:
  1. Simply as background; not particularly relevant to the behavior in this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. For context. It's pretty common to list parties' past major interactions with arbcom. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. Background only as this is not an issue in this case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Courcelles ( talk) 04:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 5 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Despite my general dislike of number counting FoF's, this one is quite relevant. Courcelles ( talk) 04:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. To the fact that I don't see the relevance, especially after not including one for TRM. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
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.

  1. 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).
  2. 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)
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. 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
  5. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Even if individually they are minor, when compounded they are not. Drmies ( talk) 17:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. With Opabinia, and noting there is a lot of WP:HORSE going on in this behavior. Courcelles ( talk) 04:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Per OR. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. mildly disruptive compared to most of what we have to deal with. I can't support as written. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply


Comments:

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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Drmies ( talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Again, agreeing with Opabinia that we need one more FoF. Courcelles ( talk) 04:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  13. Also with OR. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Responding here and also responding to The Rambling Man's question on the PD talk page. While Banedon did engage in canvassing, I did not include it as a FoF because I did not intend to add any remedies regarding their canvassing. I'm not opposed to adding it as a FoF just so it's on the record, but it seemed somewhat unnecessary if it was not being used to support a remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I think I haven't been very consistent about this, but I've come to like "just for background" FoFs, so collectively they add up to a fairly complete picture of the dispute rather than just a list of "this is why you're getting sanctioned". Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The Rambling Man resigned adminship

10) After remedy 1 in this case (reading "For conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is desysopped.") was passing, but before this case closed, The Rambling Man resigned the administrator tools.( [28])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Sure. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 08:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Drmies ( talk) 04:27, 13 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:
GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Unnecessary now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. First choice. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. I am mostly on the fence with this, on one hand I'm not 100% convinced that this rises to the level which is incompatible with adminship; but on the other hand needing a sanction like remedy 3 seems to demonstrate that there is an incompatibility with adminship. While I note OR's point I feel that a desysop in this instance isn't about an abuse of admin tools but rather about the general expectations of adminship. Specifically, that "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" and that "sustained" or consistent "poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status". I don't believe that TRM has strived "to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors" so I've eventually decided to go here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. As long as #3 is passing I don't even see a choice here. That kind of sanction should be automatically disqualification for adminship. The long history sais this all needs to stop, and this is the very picture of a "conduct unbecoming" desysop. Courcelles ( talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. I've read the arguments by GW and OR but I agree with Callanecc. Courcelles says it in a nutshell. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. After pondering this, and I have to land here. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. 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
  3. On second thought, I want to give #3 a try before this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Going to expand on my rationale, given some of the commentary on this talk page and also just for general accountability's sake—I'd rather not switch votes (or even make a vote to begin with) without a fairly good rationale to back it up. During the time period on which this case was focused, The Rambling Man made a bit over 15,000 edits. In this proposed decision, the other drafters and I included five diffs in which The Rambling Man was uncivil during this same period. There were more presented on the evidence page, and I would agree that some of those were uncivil also (though perhaps less so, or under more complicated circumstances). These five edits were picked because they were particularly uncivil, but we did not really trim for brevity's sake, or just choose to pick five out of a sea of similar edits. I do not expect the editors who participate in the evidence stage of a case to comb through each of these 15,000 edits, but I would expect an extremely severe civility issue from a prolific editor to be represented quite a bit more robustly in the evidence stage. I firmly believe that administrators are no more exempt from the civility policy than non-administrators. I also firmly believe that administrators are allowed to make mistakes periodically (see the above principle), as are non-administrators. Although some of the comments cited above are unequivocally uncivil, I do not believe that this is evidence of "sustained or serious disruption" or "consistently or egregiously poor judgment". Is it cause for concern? Certainly. I would not have voted for the restriction below if I didn't think it was—some of these edits are quite beyond what should be allowed in this environment, regardless of provocation, and probably should have triggered an incivility block at the time. I am optimistic that the prohibition will help The Rambling Man avoid this in the future, but also allow him to continue to edit and administrate productively as he has also been doing. I am also confident that if it does not achieve this goal, we can review and impose stricter sanctions going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Even when I clearly understand that conduct issues may result in a desysop regardless of use of the administrative tools. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
I am conflicted here-- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. I cannot vote against, since there so many good reasons to say this is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. I cannot vote to support, since The Rambling Man is not a bad administrator--just one with a terrible, terrible temper who lashes out terribly, sometimes provoked, sometimes unprovoked, in an editing atmosphere that is overcharged. There is no good answer here, and I fully support #3, fully believing that many of the comments he has made are eminently blockable, and hoping that the admin corps, including us Arbs, will hold him accountable. Drmies ( talk) 16:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
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
Their earlier behavior continues at a low level. We have this dilemma where we haven't; been willing to consider older material because its too old, and haven't been willing to take action on continuing behavior because there's no history of it. It's time we escaped this trap we've let ourselves fall into. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm still uncertain here and am again looking at all the evidence. Drmies ( talk) 22:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The Rambling Man's resignation is under controversial circumstances

2) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Cue chorus that "under a cloud" is bad terminology and ought to be replaced with "controversial circumstances". But let's just wrap this up. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 08:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Agree that we need to change the terminology, as it stands it is cloudist. I like "controversial circumstances". Doug Weller talk 15:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Drmies ( talk) 04:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:


Abstain:
Comments:

The Rambling Man topic banned

3) 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. changed to abstain- in view of the arguments from my colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. While I see Opabinia regalis's point, it is clear to me that the cut and thrust of debate in those areas are in part what has brought us here. Drmies ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
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

4) 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. 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
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. Second choice. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. I'd prefer that the remedy specify that blocks must comply with the standard provisions rather than the (very general) blocking policy. However I'm happy enough that compliance with the standard provisions is implied. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. I am not a fan of a lot of words and provisions, but I subscribe to the spirit of this. Drmies ( talk) 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. Per Callanecc and there is obviously an issue enough that something needs to be done, I think this walks towards it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:34, 5 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
Why do we need to set a maximum duration? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
If we remove the ambiguity by getting ride of the the sentence about being consistent with the blocking policy or, probably better, noting that blocks must comply with the standard provision then we don't. If we leave it as it, then you could argue that we're allowing any of the blocks to be an AE protected indef block (which is made impossible in the standard provision). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah yes, fair. I'd rather not impose the minimum one-month part of the standard enforcement, since civility blocks are often considerably shorter, but I do think you're right that we should cap it. Perhaps we just explicitly add the one-year limit to blocks imposed under this sanction? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
@ GorillaWarfare: The standard provision is a maximum of one month not a minimum so removing the sentence about the blocking policy isn't going to change the minimum length. And really there's need to say it has to comply with the blocking policy as all blocks do. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
On second thought, given there aren't any other enforcement provisions the standard provision applies anyway. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh wow, that's easy to misread at a glance... Anyway, happy to leave it or remove it, but I think you're right that it applies either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned

5) 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 02:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Courcelles ( talk) 04:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

George Ho blocked

6) 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:
  1. 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
  2. Per Kirill. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. Seeing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#In ictu oculi I now support an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. I find this outdated -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Doug Weller talk 18:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. Both in the specific and the general. Remedies just shouldn't do this, place a block and send it to UTRS. If some admin thinks this is a good idea, they know where the block button is. ArbCom's role is to settle disputes, not punt them off to a process that is "below" ArbCom in the order of appeals. Courcelles ( talk) 05:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. [29] with all respect to the drafters. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
Still unsure on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

George Ho topic banned

7) 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. 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. the ranscluding problem needs to be dealt with ,as it is below. 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) (switch to 6.3) reply
  3. Drmies ( talk) 17:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Whatever you want to call this -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. In favour of the option below. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Ditto. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. In favour of OR's suggestion. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 00:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. To push this towards failure so 6.2 will pass and we can close this. Courcelles ( talk) 16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Prefer wording below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. because of "trascluding" if interpreted literally. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
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
  1. Solely on wording. This will roll right into ARCA in T-2 seconds. We need to think the wording on this out. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments:
@ Callanecc: can you explain what you mean by "I also do not support it being a topic ban since the various locations noted in the remedy are very broad."? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
@ GorillaWarfare: Sure, if he's topic banned from, for example, "templates transcluding to the main page" then it means he wouldn't be able to (1) interact with (edit, move, etc), (2) mention in discussion or (3) use any template which is transcluded to the main page. A topic ban "the main page" means he can't refer to or edit the current featured article (and mentioning other FAs is danger territory). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
We don't really have a term of art for a "process ban", but that seems to be the point. Mentioning the existence of FAs seems well outside the intended scope, which is (I think) participating in or discussing processes involving the selection of main page content. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Just don't use the term "topic ban", replace it with "is prohibited from..." then define what he's not allowed to do (yes it will be longer but it'll be much clearer). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, here's a bit of a shaky attempt. Thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
George Ho ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from performing actions on:
  1. the main page, its talk page, and their subpages
  2. templates currently transcluding to the main page, and their talk pages and subpages
  3. proposals for pages, templates, or other content to be included in the main page, and their talk pages and subpages
  4. discussions regarding the content of the main page, and discussions of 2 and 3, regardless of venue
and all their talk pages, subpages, and discussions of them regardless of venue.
For the purposes of this motion, "actions" refers to anyall logged actions including edits, page moves, and use of the thanks tool. He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Live edit suggestions not to make 10 versions of this. I specifically omitted the content part of the last bit when combining it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
@ GorillaWarfare and DeltaQuad: Thank you both! I've proposed it below with only a few changes - I've specified examples of the process for clarity (FA, DYK & ITN) and included logged actions and edits so that we can avoid any argument about an edit not being a "logged action" as it isn't at Special:Logs. Hope it's okay that I proposed it, looks like there's a move to close the case, so I wanted to get this here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

George Ho editing restriction

7.1) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefnitely prohibited from performing actions on:

  1. the main page
  2. templates currently transcluding to the main page
  3. proposals for pages, templates, or other content to be included in the main page, including processes such as TFA, DYK and ITN (involvement in the general FA process is permissible).

and all their talk pages, subpages, and discussions of them regardless of venue.

For the purposes of this restriction, "actions" refers to all logged actions and edits. He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Second preference to 6.1. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Remove him from the selection of the TFA, sure, but removing him from the ENTIRE FA process -- including nominating and reviewing FACs seems too far. Also, what's the point of clauses 1 and 2? Those are admin only actions by technical means. (Let me clarify, DYK and ITN are processes entirely focused on the main page, it is their entire raison d'être. For FA the main page is a byproduct.) Courcelles ( talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. I'm with Courcelles here. (On an unrelated note, I enjoy that my "on the road" account gets pinged as well as my real account) -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. Agree with Courcelles, TFA yes, entire FA process no. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. Also agree with Courcelles. I don't think George is particularly involved with FA reviews, but he shouldn't be prevented from getting involved if he wants to be, since that's not an area where he's been disruptive AFAICT. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Prefer below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Same problem with "transcluding," if interpreted literally. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
@ Kirill Lokshin, Kelapstick, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, In actu, Guerillero, Keilana, Courcelles, Doug Weller, and Salvio giuliano: New proposal for voting. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Callanecc, there was an FA problem? Drmies ( talk) 15:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Courcelles, Guerillero, Kelapstick, and Opabinia regalis: I've added an exemption for the FA process, it is included in the topic ban (which demonstrates the problem with the topic ban). Are there any others areas we want to exclude? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Callanecc I am still preferring OR's below. It's my fault when I origianally drafted it (it was much broader than I had originally thought), but "templates transcluding onto the main page" could theoretically be taken to mean {{ convert}} if it was included in the TFA blurb, for example. And Courcelles' point about the main page and the actual T:ITN being only editable by administrators is valid (making them redundant). -- kelapstick( bainuu) 03:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't even see OR's. I've made it my first preference. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

George Ho restricted (option 3)

7.2) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:

  1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
  2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
  3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.

He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. kelapstick( bainuu) 00:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. Drmies ( talk) 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. First preference. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Courcelles ( talk) 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. Keilana ( talk) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)' reply
  7. this will work -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Now we have it right. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
We're slowly closing in on the right scope here, I think... (In other news, there's too much stuff on the main page.) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Community encouraged

8) 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:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  8. Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  9. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  10. Keilana ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  11. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:52, 5 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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

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

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot. reply

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Editor conduct 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator conduct 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Good faith and disruption 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Disruptive editing 13 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 On DYK and ITN 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Main page 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 The Rambling Man: Background I 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 The Rambling Man: Background II 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 The Rambling Man has been uncivil 13 0 0 PASSING ·
6 George Ho and The Rambling Man 13 0 0 PASSING ·
7 George Ho is not a new editor 12 1 0 PASSING ·
8 George Ho has been disruptive 11 0 1 PASSING ·
9 George Ho canvassed users to this case 13 0 0 PASSING ·
10 The Rambling Man resigned adminship 7 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 The Rambling Man desysopped 7 4 1 NOT PASSING · Superseded, R#2
2 The Rambling Man's resignation is under controversial circumstances 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3 The Rambling Man topic banned 0 9 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 The Rambling Man prohibited 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 George Ho blocked 3 10 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7 George Ho topic banned 5 6 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7.1 George Ho editing restriction 2 6 0 NOT PASSING 5
7.2 George Ho restricted (option 3) 10 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Community encouraged 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
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
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. kelapstick( bainuu) 02:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  3. Courcelles ( talk) 03:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Doug Weller talk 07:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  4. With Guerillero's recent votes I think we're done here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  5. Okay now let's wrap it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  6. pile on -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  7. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. Still things that need settling. Rushing this will only make it worse. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Still things to work out on remedies 3, 6 and (now) 6.1. No need to rush here, it'll just meet re-litigation at ARCA in a month or two. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. Switching to oppose as there is now 6.1. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    Evidently not done because of the desysop request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079525404"