all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators and one is recused, so seven votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Tony Sidaway banned from this arbitration

1) Due to disruptive behavior Tony Sidaway is banned from from this arbitration; the ban includes all workshop, evidence, and talk pages.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't like doing this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Morven. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. All users need to take note that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated on RFArb case pages. This is going to be enforced after reminders are given and no change in behavior occurs. Folks, think twice before you put your oar in the water. FloNight 16:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight has some good advice, but I don't think either one of these are appropriate. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Giano II banned from this arbitration

2) Due to disruptive behavior Giano II is banned from this arbitration; the ban includes all workshop, evidence, and talk pages.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Again not keen on this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Morven. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed here. Take note of my above comment. FloNight 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vandalism

2) While

blocking policy permits blocks for vandalism, vandalism is narrowly defined

as an edit made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Further, blocking policy states that "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism."

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~FloNight 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)~~ (I can see Raul's point.) FloNight 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I can think of cases where blocks can and should be used for isolated instances of vandalism. Raul654 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, I agree with Raul. Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy drafting seems to need work. 'Isolated' is hardly specific enough. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Isolated" is not helpful. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2.1 is better and acceptable. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Vandalism

2.1) While

blocking policy permits blocks for vandalism, vandalism is narrowly defined

as an edit made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Although the committee recognizes that exceptional cases may exist, the statement from the blocking policy that "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism" would apply in routine incidents.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant to limit admin discretion, indicative only. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

3) All Wikipedia users are expected to

without retaliating

. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool head is a prerequisite for an effective admin. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I agree with the idea that Admins should be defended by other Admins when attacked. (It's in the spirit of meatball:DefendEachOther.) But this principle is not worded well in my view. It will expand the dispute to more people rather than stop it with the fewest possible. As soon as an Admin gets involved doing informal mediation (something we need admins to do) or a block, page move, or protection, many upset users say that the admin is involved and that is reason for their actions. When that does not work...next comes personal attacks. I do not think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to involve a larger number of admins in these issues because the user starts making personal attacks. This causes a larger ruckus and is the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish. FloNight 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the blanket nature of this. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with comments by FloNight and Jpgordon above. I'm just not comfortable with the wording used here, or what it's trying to imply. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Responsiveness

4) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Raul654 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding takes the heat out of many fraught situations. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be emphasized too strongly. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Participation in arbitration process by uninvolved individuals

6) Participation in arbitration cases, in particular, in the evidence and workshop subpages of each case, by individuals not directly connected to the case is encouraged. However, such individuals must be careful not to disrupt the proceedings, or they will be asked to remove themselves.

Support:

Raul654 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC) If we want to address this, we need a separate case.[reply]
As UC. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? The clerks can patrol the pages. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not here. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Blocking an established user

7) In the absence of community consensus, blocking of an established user who engages in a sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior is unlikely to be effective. If consensus cannot be reached the process of dispute resolution should be utilized.

Support:

Raul654 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This has nothing to do with the case as presently conceived. InShaneee blocked (and believed he was blocking) an anonymous IP address. I'm not entirely comfortable with the tacit admission that established users can be brought to their senses only by the dispute resolution process. Furthermore, there is no finding of fact that any established user was engaged in a "sustained pattern of disruptive or inappropriate behavior." Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) While this may be germane to the matter that gave rise to the RFC, it is unrelated to the case at hand, since as Mackensen points out the identity of the IP was not known when the block was made.[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Scrambling the somewhat incoherent idea of 'porous community ban' again. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is generally true, but I don't see how this is either helpful or directly related. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses

1) Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited from 81.178.208.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.115.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.150.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 144.82.240.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

InShaneee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately

2) While in dispute with User:81.178.208.69 (Worldtraveller) over talk page content on Talk:Red rain in Kerala, and reverting rather than discussing [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], Inshaneee blocked the user, contrary to the blocking policy which forbids the use of blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Moreover InShaneee entered a block summary of "vandalism" [8]; however, Worldtraveller had not engaged in vandalism. Further, even if 81.178.208.69's edits were, hypothetically, construed as vandalism, they were not frequent or numerous enough for policy to support a block. In discussion InShaneee initially responded provocatively [9] and offered no explanation or apology.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller

3) InShaneee failed to respond adequately to Worldtraveller's repeated requests to explain or discuss the reasons for his block of Worldtraveller. In particular, he did not explain or discuss why he characterized Worldtraveller's edits as "vandalism" nor why he had felt it was appropriate for him to block Worldtraveller while he was engaged in a dispute with him.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Raul654 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC) See 3.1[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 3.1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm not happy about the wording. InShaneee did respond, eventually. The problem isn't so much his response but rather that it took seven weeks to elicit it. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InShaneee did not respond appropriately to Worldtraveller

3.1) InShaneee failed to respond adequately to Worldtraveller's repeated requests to explain and discuss the block of Worldtraveller. InShaneee did not respond meaningfully until seven weeks after the events took place, at which time the matter was being escalated.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this wording better describes the situation. FloNight 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

InShaneee has been warned previously

4) At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee, substantially similar previous behavior by InShaneee was discussed at length by the community. The consensus of this discussion was that the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the situation in the RfC was far more serious than the one presently before us. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

InShaneee's failure to communicate greatly exacerbated the situation

5) Had InShaneee taken part in a sensible way in the discussion which took place on

WP:AN

immediately following the expiry of the block, and admitted at that point that his block contravened policy, it is extremely unlikely that this case would have reached arbitration. His further failure to communicate over the following seven weeks inflamed the situation unnecessarily.

Support:

Raul654 23:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This repeats 3.1 and posits a possible future that cannot be proved or disproved. The committee is not competent to state that had InShaneee done X, Y would not have occurred. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 3.1 adequately captures this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressed in an exaggerated manner. Fred Bauder 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed, and constitutes speculation rather than fact. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block review process failed

6) User:Worldtraveller, editing anonymously, placed a block review template on his talk page half-way through his block, but this was not reviewed before the twenty-four hour block ended.

Support:

Raul654 00:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is offered to blocked users. They likely will assume that an Admin will review it before the block ends. This has long been a weakness that is accepted by experienced users, most having never been blocked and facing this frustration. FloNight 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Absent a concrete definition of an "unblock process" that includes a temporal expectation this is meaningless. There is no expectation, in policy or process, that a block review template will be examined before the expiration of a block. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While true, the question this begs is a community issue that is outside our remit. Besides, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of blocks are legitimately placed, and the overwhelming majority of block review templates are placed either in bad faith or in abject incomprehension of the purpose and structure of Wikipedia. Our block review procedures are deliberately designed to cater to the convenience of the community at the expense of responsiveness to the individual who has been blocked. It is in part for this reason that we place such great emphasis on blocking admins behaving responsibly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the scope of this case, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scope. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not related. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

'Failed' implies a view of the process which may be beyond the AC's scope. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the blocking policy

and other applicable policies, and in particular, not to block any editor with whom he is engaged, or could reasonably be perceived as being engaged, in a content dispute;

(B) To consult with other administrators, rather than act unilaterally, in instances where the propriety of a block or another administrator action could reasonably be questioned; and

(C) To respond promptly and in good faith to reasonable questions and criticisms concerning his administrator actions.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support both this and 1.1 Raul654 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Too mild given that there is history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Support passing both this and 1.1 per Paul August.[reply]

~~I agree with UC. Raul654 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Concur with UC.[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

InShaneee's admin privileges suspended

1.1) For inappropriate use of blocks and a failure to heed prior community feedback in this area, InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 16:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I don't see 1 and 1.1 as alternatives, rather I think both should pass and be part of the final decisions. Paul August ☎ 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to how Paul feels, I don't see these two as being alternatives for one another - rather, they should both pass. InShaneee would both be admonished and be desysopped for 10 days; to have the latter without the former makes no sense. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Why? If InShaneee now understand that his actions were wrong then this serves no purpose except to take away the services of an admin. If he does not understand after reading all the feedback from this case, then suspending admin privileges for just ten day will not solve the problem, and will make it worse by giving someone that now likely has a chip on their shoulder their tools back. FloNight 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe that an escalating sequence of penalties is the most effective way to deal with undesired behavior. InShaneee has, in effect, already been admonished in the context of the RFC. This is the next step. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Worldtraveller

2) Worldtraveller is thanked for an exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He is requested to recognize that to err is human, including on the part of admins, accept the apology for an unfair block and that InShaneee understands that it was inappropriate not to have engaged in a full discussion of the matter, and to put aside his grievances and drop the matter.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony Sidaway banned from Arbitration pages

3) Tony Sidaway is banned for one year from participating in arbitration cases he is not personally involved in.

Support:

Raul654 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again I believe that if we wish to act on this matter we need a separate case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give clerks discretion over such matters, I say. Charles Matthews 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how this is appropriate here. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC):

Principles 1, 2.1, 3 and 4 pass.

Findings 1, 2, 3.1 and 4 pass.

Remedies 1 (Inshanee admonished) and 1.1 (10 day admin suspension) both pass. Remedy 2 passes.

Thatcher131 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Vote

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.

Close; it looks like everything's done here. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close; no substantive change likely. Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose, briefly to see if Raul and Charles might want to have a chance to make support for remedy 1 unanimous. Paul August ☎ 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Close. Paul August ☎ 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Raul654 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]