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.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Collegiality

1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

From the MickMacNee case

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an article should not be unduly pro-topic, it should not be unduly anti-topic either SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something I feel very strongly about. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Bias and prejudice

3) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a true principle, for reasons that were discussed at length in the Noleander case. Work done by the words "gratuitously" and "invidious" should not be underestimated; legitimate criticism of any group or individual, consistent with applicable policies, is not proscribed. The application of the principle to this case is not as clear, in my view, as it was in Noleander case for which I wrote it, but I can see enough of a connection to the substance of the case that I can support its inclusion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

NPOV contributions that use RS'es to demonstrate that certain "specific racial, religious, or ethnic groups" have particular traits is not prohibited. If one is to observe that in America, Asians tend to be better educated than whites, is that promoting a stereotype against white people? I disagree in general with the principle of labeling edits improper based on their outcome rather than their methodology, and don't see any quick way to repair this. We can all agree that most POV editing with respect to these categories of persons is improper, but I don't think this specific principle is the reason I'd choose to label those edits as improper. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute in this case concerns certain so-called "new religious movements"; applying a principle regarding "religious groups" to the matter seems to beg the underlying question. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 3.1 as trying to de-obfuscate (i.e. clarify the bad bits.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Oh lord, it's going to be one of those principles. Don't let's fight. Not essential, move on. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree with idea, but might warrant rewording. Will muse on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

Bias and prejudice

3.1) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as insinuating, endorsing or promoting bias and prejudice either against or for the members, beliefs or tenets of the group.

Support:

Try to pull it together this way Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While I appreciate the effort, it's the "can reasonably be perceived as" bit that I find troublesome. Fact is, there are plenty of hypersensitive people on Wikipedia floating around any topic of high emotional content. What such editors sincerely to believe to be reasonably so perceived may be dispassionate, NPOV editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Biographies of living people

4) It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related ground is covered in the principles in the Manipulation of BLPs proposed decision that I posted yesterday. This formulation is fully consistent with mine, and also enjoys the virtue of being significantly shorter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the reference to "aggrandising or diminishing" should not be taken to preclude accurately reflecting the content of the sources. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks

5) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse - in particular, personal attacks - are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could well have been included in the Manipulation of BLPs decision as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good combination of two previously separated but very related principles, kudos to Roger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Cirt's editing

1) According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While not exactly the wording I might have used, this is the nub of the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the hubs of the issue here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing based on his own admission and proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jayen466's conduct

2) Jayen466 has sometimes engaged in inappropriate conduct in respect of Cirt, primarily by being over-focused on Cirt's editing and by being indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt. (cf Tryptofish's evidence and Cbrick77's evidence)

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep in mind our encyclopedic purpose when judging the gravity of findings 1 and 2. Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just the sheer volume of discussion surrounding issues with these two. Ongoing disputes such as these are highly problematic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There is a fine line between dedicated pursuit of a solution to a significant wikiproblem, on the one hand, and disproportionate emphasis on a particular issue or editor culminating in "wikistalking" or "wikihounding" on the other. Reasonable people may disagree on when the line has been crossed, and in some cases this may be an "I know it when I see it" type of thing (for an example of a case in which I saw it and knew it, see here). Despite a few missteps by Jayen466 as identified in the evidence, that fact is that he did identify and help to resolve what Cirt has now conceded and the Committee concludes was a significant pattern of BLP issues. Thus, while I don't endorse every word that Jayen466 ever wrote about Cirt, I'm not convinced that Jayen466 seriously crossed the line, and even less so that he crossed so far or so over over it as to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the gravity of the problem and the response, I am now convinced that this does not rise to the level of ArbCom finding. Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that he came very close to the line (here and possibly elsewhere), but I am not wholly convinced that he crossed the line. Thus, the oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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.

Cirt topic-banned from new religious movement ("NRM") articles

1) Cirt is prohibited from making any edit of whatever nature to articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, broadly construed, or to any associated biographies of living people.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing based on his own admission and proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cirt restricted for all BLPs

2) Cirt is prohibited from directly making any edit within the scope of the biography of living persons policy without first discussing the proposed edit and obtaining explicit consensus for making it on either the relevant talk page or at the relevant noticeboard.

Support:

Please see the evidence of misrepresented sources, including those for non-NRM articles. This is one of the most severe problems we can have in a widely-available reference work with a real-world impact on living people. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer 1 over this one, but still find the balance that this could/would be an appropriate remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was given the benefit of the doubt both at their RFA and during the Scientology case on the basis of assurances that they'd seen the errors of their earlier ways. Yes, this restriction is broad but it is probably the only way of preventing, at least in the short term, similar serious problems popping up - probably unwittingly - in other BLP areas. Roger Davies ^talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think we should try topic banning Cirt from new religious movement related biographies of living persons. Obviously, if there are further problems, measures such as this could then be imposed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cool Hand Luke regarding the seriousness of the issue and the need for a proportionate remedy. However, this proposal is too broad and would effectively ban Cirt from editing any article except perhaps for ones concerning purely abstract concepts. For example, Cirt sometimes writes articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases. If he writes "in 2010, Jones sued Smith, and the case reached the Supreme Court, where the opinion was written by Justice Scalia," he has mentioned three living people, and all three mentions are "within the scope of the BLP policy" although all three are incidental and harmless. In addition, his routinely having to ask for permission to make routine, passing references to living people on the BLP noticeboard (individual article talkpages don't generally have enough readers at a given time to reach "consensus" on non-controversial matters) risks distracting attention from more serious BLP issues. I am open to an alternative, intermediate remedy proposal and will propose one if other arbitrators express interest in considering it as opposed to adopting PhilKnight's approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, Supreme Court justices would also be caught by the topic ban this editor themself proposed, ie a topic ban from political BLPs. Roger Davies ^talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is overly broad, but necessary as a practical alternative. I'm more inclined to see if restricting the areas where problematic behavior was observed will solve the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
too broad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Jayen466 reminded

3) Jayen466 is reminded to adhere strictly to dispute resolution processes in any future dispute with any other editor.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution is the work of individuals; I don't think process was the major reason that this turned so rancorous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the main issue here, from a Wikipedian point of view, is that if a problem is egregious enough others will pick up the baton. While I note what the opposers say, I do not think the end justifies the means. I am also troubled by the this. Roger Davies ^talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not convinced there was a problem here—or rather, I'm not convinced that this was the problem. DR channels were used. It would have been better if others stepped up to the plate every once in a while, but how long would this have continued but for Jayen466? I support a topic ban as the drama-minimizing course going forward, but if there was a problem, it was in dispute resolution, not Jayen466. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on proposed finding 2 and per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I find that his behavior was close to the line, but it was still in a grey area, and it probably doesn't need a formal finding. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Cirt and Jayen: interaction restriction

4) Cirt and Jayen466 shall neither communicate with each other nor comment upon each other's actions or edits either directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia. Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. Neither party may respond directly to perceived violations of this interaction restriction nor seek arbitration enforcement but shall instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this ongoing dispute has to end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that this dispute has gone on far too long and needs to come to an end. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

With the underlying issues that led Cirt and Jayen466 to quarrel largely being resolved by this decision, I'm not convinced this is necessary. Of course the parties should avoid unnecessary interaction with each other, and am confident that they will use best efforts to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the ban or topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~IFF remedy 2 does not pass~~. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conditional support because I believe a desysop is more appropriate for an administrator sanctioned and essentially placed on probation than a series of increasing blocks. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale for proposed remedy 2, but I don't see why you wouldn't support this as well even if 2 passes. Although I am hoping that it doesn't arise, a serious infringement of the topic-ban could warrant a block as well as potential suspension or revocation of adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as Xeno pointed out to me in private email, the interaction ban needs teeth, too. Striking my condition. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Administrator privileges if problems recur

2) Should any administrator subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be desysopped by simple motion of the arbitration committee.

Support:

Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "may" makes this a reasonable proposal. Of course, depending on the nature of the restrictions that ultimately pass, one can imagine minor or technical infringements of the restriction that might not warrant action and more substantial infringements that might. I will add that I do not wish to see wikilawyering, from any side or in either direction, about the interpretation of whatever topic-bans or restrictions are imposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is appropriately worded (this remedy seems aimed specifically but generally worded), but support the idea that it would be an appropriate sanction if issues continued. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While there's room for leeway, I'm still not convinced removing administrator bits without evidence of misuse of said bits makes sense as a sanction. Blocks, bans, etc. are more to-the-point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the absence of tool misuse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

We do need to explain why Cirt isn't being desysop'ed here, and without speaking for all the other arbs, it is my impression that Cirt has done good administrator work and hasn't misused any tools in the furtherance of his admitted misdeeds. At the same time, I think it proper to inform Cirt and the community that desysoping was discussed as part of the remedy to this case, and it will be a hard sell for us to not desysop Cirt should he prove unable to comply with restrictions commensurate with his admitted behavior. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC) by AlexandrDmitri.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Collegiality	11	0	0		·
2	Neutral point of view and undue weight	11	0	0		·
3	Bias and prejudice	5	3	1		1	^[1]
3.1	Bias and prejudice	2	1	0		5	^[1]
4	Biographies of living people	10	0	0		·
5	Fair criticism and personal attacks	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Cirt's editing	10	0	0		·
2	Jayen466's conduct	6	4	0		1
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Cirt topic-banned from new religious movement ("NRM") articles	10	0	0		·
2	Cirt restricted for all non-NRM BLPs	4	5	0		3
3	Jayen466 reminded	6	4	0		1
4	Cirt and Jayen: interaction restriction	9	1	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement by block	9	0	0		·
2	Removal of Administrator privileges if problems recur	6	2	0		1

Notes

^ ^a ^b These proposals are alternatives, and may not pass together.

Roll Call

The following arbitrators have not yet voted or have not cast votes for all proposals:

Cool Hand Luke: P3.1, E1, E2
David Fuchs: P3.1
Elen of the Roads
Jclemens: R2
John Vandenburg
Kirill Lokshin: P3.1
Mailer Diablo: P3
Newyorkbrad: P3.1
Philknight: P3.1
Roger Davies: P3.1
SirFozzie: P3.1

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comments

[Alternate-1] These proposals are alternatives, and may not pass together.

[1]