Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	9
1–2	8
3–4	7

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.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bog standard. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prohibited, but seemingly all too common at times. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't like the word 'Unseemly' in here (unseemly conduct... is prohibited?), but overall the wording is sound. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Two years later, and I've still not come up with better wording, but I'm still uncomfortable with this. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also dislike this wording. We need a better definition of what collegial editing looks like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I understand the point being made by ChaseMe, and have made a minor copy edit to include the word "extensively" before "studied the matter". Those voting before me may feel free to revert. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support the change to 'extensively' as it avoids the pitfalls of some workshop proposals (including the one below by Chase referring to 'accepted experts') --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The wording is broadly sound: I have problems however with with the phrase "among those who have studied the matter". I think this would benefit from a clarification to ensure that it's only those views from the scholarly community or accepted experts - even minority ones - that are included, rather than just anyone who has a BA in English Lit. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated.

Support:

1. Unlike many of the other principles in this proposed decision, this is not a standard wording adapted from another case, but a new formulation, and I hope an a propos one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed. Even in the article about the minority view, we must take care not to assign undue WP:WEIGHT. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Note that nothing in this statement of principles requires that the majority view be given majority time in an article specifically about a minority view. It can be counterproductive and unbalancing to smother an article on a minority view with "This is rejected by..." citations. Often, a brief mention with link to the main topic which deals with the mainstream position will be sufficient coverage of the majority view in a minority topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I support this wording - a minority view is not the same as an alternative view. If anyone would like me to clarify my thoughts here, please contact me and I will elaborate. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I'm not certain that this principle stretches quite as far as Jclemens interprets it to, and that is a good thing: one should not walk away from an article discussing a minority view on a wider subject with the impression that the view explained in it holds greater acceptance that it actually does. In practice, this mean due weight must apply even in those articles and the mainstream view must not be dismissed or marginalized. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think this wording is too slack (also the first sentence is a non-sequitur and I'm not clear how the nature of the article can be relevant to how to discuss alternative or minority views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I tend to support this principle, and I think the effects are generally good, but I would like to see a strong policy citation if and when this is reused. It's more creative than some of our principles. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6) Editors may choose to focus their contributions to Wikipedia narrowly or broadly. However, editors who focus primarily or exclusively on a narrow subject—sometimes referred to as single-purpose accounts—are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus is on advocacy rather than neutrally presenting information.

Support:

1. Somewhat reworded from the wording we've used in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is to say specifically that being a SPA in and of itself is not sanctionable, just that one REALLY has to hew tightly to Wikipedia's policies. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fozzie puts it well; SPA isn't a bad thing in itself, it's the actions of those accounts that is the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. You can't be blocked for being an SPA - but being an SPA increases the likelihood that you'll be blocked for disruption or involved in dispute resolution. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Just to note that I believe this entails community consensus at a community noticeboard, after a discussion open for several hours. I don't support talk page bans amongst a consensus of 4 editors vs 1, and I find the 'pile-on' bans that occur at ANI after ten minutes of discussion worrying. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. What Chase said Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Support:

1. This is a new principle. I believe we've addressed talkpage behavior before, but frankly I don't recall where. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have to admit, that I've never seen an article with so many archives (I'm sure there's some out there with more, but I've never worked on them.). And from the Archives I read it was the same arguments over and over and.. well you get the idea. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. Walls of text are tendentious. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Flooding pages with text and continually bringing up the same points are disruptive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. A new principle, but a solid one, based firmly on longstanding community expectations. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. This, for me, falls under 'disruption', but it's nice to clarify the principle. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Not unlike Chase Me, I think this is a specialized reminder of the general principle; but I agree it needs to be restated explicitly. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I will note that this is not the same thing as talk pages where a long series of unrelated editors may raise a similar point over time, but is focused on individual editors continuing to press the same issue repeatedly, or to continuing to insert personal opinion onto the talk page. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker makes a very good point here. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I believe it may have been the Speed of Light case that had the talkpage issues that NYB is thinking of. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment, as is repeating accusations that have been shown to be incorrect.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This has a tendency to boomerang. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is disruption. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)re[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Particularly important to catch this one, as if you repeat something often enough, people start to believe it no matter what the evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) Wikipedia editors are permitted to choose whether to edit anonymously, to edit under a username but to disclose their real identity (for example, on their userpage), or to edit under their own real name. Identifying information about an editor who chooses not to disclose his or her identity may not be revealed on-wiki by others. When an editor is unsure whether another editor wishes his or her identity to be known, the safer course is not to refer to it; for example, to refer to that editor by his or her username rather than his or her real name.

Support:

1. I do not believe that the evidence reflects any "outing" incidents warranting a finding or sanction; nonetheless, there has been enough discussion of the issue in the case that the principle bears mention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. There was no specific outing incidents, however, the subject was brought up enough that it was necessary to have a finding on it just to restate WHAT outing is and isn't. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Restating a principle can't hurt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. As importantly, it can be intimidating to imply that one knows the "real identity" of a pseudonymous or unregistered editor if the user has not disclosed his or her identity on-wiki. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Agree with Risker here - "I know who you are" should not be appearing as a threat. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

Support:

1. Although I personally have explained the circumstances in which I will vote to overturn a community sanction in past votes, I don't believe the committee as a whole has ever explained when we are likely to do so, either in a decision or on a policy page. If this principle is accepted, it might fill that gap, which I think it might be useful to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Minor copyedits for clarity: (1) deleted "usually" before "be based on good cause"; (2) inserted "procedurally" before "unfair". Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I would say also that the Committee can review such findings as a matter of course when we accept a case to look at a broader area, but I do agree that the only time we would modify or reverse is in the sections above. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. A good frame/principle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. We've said as much in correspondence and other venues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think the first item should focus on procedure because "fairness" is the ultimate catch-all mandate, but I do not object to the item strongly enough to reject the entire principle, which is otherwise a very good standard of review. Cool Hand Luke 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I thought about "procedurally deficient," but that sounded too lawyerly. Please feel free to suggest a copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I changed it to "procedurally unfair" which might help clarify what we mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't mind me, it's just some residual Chicagoan aversion to the other four-letter f-word. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Given the committee's reticence to get involved with matters better handled by the admin corps and the community as a whole, if half of ArbCom agrees that a community process was seriously flawed enough to intervene, it almost certainly was. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Re: the below comment: actually, I'd rather we continued using language that implicitly expects that administrators cooperate as if they were co-workers. When administrators do not, bad things happen. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Can we not refer to admins as 'the admin corps'? It's not a rank or a club folks :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. With the caveat that "fair" means fair to the overall project in context, and not just to the specific appellant. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. It is natural for the Committee to review existing sanctions on a party to arbitration in the context of the decision as a whole. Reduction of sanctions may be affected by (a) additional information not available to the community at the time of its decision, (b) procedural defects or (c) new information indicating that the sanction is no longer required. I have yet to hear any concerns from the community when a community sanction is either endorsed or expanded. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I have tweaked 'usually' to 'always' as I cannot think of any reason why Arbcom would legitimately overturn a decision without good cause, and I don't think NYB intended to retain the option to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The word "usually" was meant to qualify the list of four possibilities, not the expectation that we would have good cause for acting. As it's ambiguous, I've deleted it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

12) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Unfortunately, we've had to include this principle far too many times in decisions over the past three years. For a more colloquial articulation of the principle, see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This was.. less then optimal. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. –xeno^talk 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. This was so bad I was several times tempted to suggest that the clerks ought to start removing material. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

13) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia should be directed to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Sorry do do this so late in voting. I am adding a couple of principles from RexxS/Bishonen, which I felt identified a key problem in this case. This principle is originally from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II, with one substitution: the word "may" has been replaced with "should." I think this change swallows the next logical link in the chain of principles, RexxS' proposal "Inexperience editors." Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Coren ^(talk) 17:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. There is a tie in here with WP:COMPETENCE, which doesn't just refer to 'too thick to edit', it does actually suggest that one must be capable of editing in a way that furthers the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

14) It is disruptive for established Wikipedians to countermand good advice to new editors, or otherwise encourage them to continue flouting community norms.

Support:

1. This strikes me as a repeated problem, and it was certainly an issue in this case. NinaGreen did not become disruptive on her own, but she was encouraged and misdirected by partisans on "her side." This is taken and retitled from Bishonen's proposal, which builds upon RexxS' sequence of principles. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am conflicted about this principle. On the one hand, I support it unequivocally: misleading new editors into misbehaving (in particular, in service of one's own agenda) causes exactly as much disruption and leaves the instigator unsanctioned to repeat the performance — giving them an unbounded supply of unwitting meatpuppets.

   On the other hand, this description encompasses a wide range of marginally legitimate dissent and protest (examples are not hard to find of disgruntled editors who are advocating "civil disobedience" ranging from mild stretches of policy to outright flaunting of the rules). It's not immediately clear whether CHL intended that principle to be this inclusive.

   Ultimately, I find myself falling on the side in favor of the principle: the good of the project primes over putative (and mostly imaginary) liberties of editors, and getting other editors to misbehave on one's behalf — no matter how legitimate one believes the cause to be — can never be condoned. — Coren ^(talk) 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think new users should be encouraged by others into civil disobedience either. That should be a personal act, not one cheered by others who are unwilling to take steps themselves (for their knowledge that they may be sanctioned over it). New editors should not be proxy warriors for battling factions. Cool Hand Luke 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think this could safely be written even more broadly: it is incumbent upon experienced editors to appropriately convey Wikipedia's expectations to new editors, not merely to refrain from actively corrupting such expectations. Nevertheless, this statement is appropriate enough. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens has it right. We expect more of our experienced editors. Risker (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC) First choice. Risker (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Can go with this one too. Actually both pretty much on equal footing for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. While there is no doubt that people can develop bad habits on their own, it's inappropriate for experienced Wikipedian's to encourage those habits, especially since newer users are likely to put more weight on what experienced users say is correct. Shell ^babelfish 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As written. Three reasons (1) I believe NinaGreen was perfectly capable of becoming disruptive on her own, as her continued behaviour has shown;(2) I don't like the first part of the proposal at all, as it is too dogmatic - do we mean good advice on how to do citations? (3) I have a general aversion to not saying things clearly. Would prefer something along the lines of JClemens, and have proposed same below.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The duty to guide new users is implied from the previous remedy. Astray users "should be directed to refrain from those actions." This remedy expressly says more than your proposal—that telling users to ignore warnings and so forth is also disruptive, even if not actively encouraging them to be disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   We cannot force editors to set clueless newbies straight if they don't care to do so. We can tell 'em what will happen if they try to get them to proxy their edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. I don't think I understand what you are objecting to here; there's no command that experienced users must help newbies. They simply should not try to obstruct the help of others. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My bad. You referred just above to a duty to guide new users - I interpreted that as some kind of obligation to set them straight, which you obviously didn't mean. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Jclemens says that the expectation articulated by this standard was too low, and you seemed to agree with him (although perhaps not?); I was pointing out that: (1) the principle #13 already implies a broader expectation with the word "should," and (2) this remedy is more explicitly exacting than #14.1 because disruption also encompases directing users to ignore good advice. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I disagreed with Jclemens first three words because I don't believe it is incumbent on established editors to do anything about instructing newbies, so I tried to phrase it as less of a stricture and more of an 'if you do this, do it thus not thus'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Good point. I think my statement above could be improved by prefacing it with "To the extent that established editors instruct new editors..." which reflects my original intent. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

14.1) It is expected that experienced editors will convey Wikipedia's expectations to new editors in an open and collegiate manner. Encouraging new editors to engage in disruptive behaviour is itself disruptive, and open to sanction.

Support

1. As proposer Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference to 14. Added the heading (Elen, please feel free to substitute a different one). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice, because this formulation does not expressly categorize counseling a newbie to ignore another's good advice as disruption. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Definitely support this version; still thinking about preceding one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal preference with the original. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I think this wording is a little too broad; in particular, the term "disruptive behaviour" is highly situation-dependent and often subjectively interpreted. Risker (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Risker. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Risker. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I much prefer prohibitions to injunctions as a matter of principle. In a volunteer endeavor nobody is obligated, on a fundamental level, do to anything (even when it's desirable that someone does it eventually). It would be regrettable, of course, if a new editor went without any guidance whatsoever — but there is nobody to chide (or sanction!) for not having provided that guidance. — Coren ^(talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Coren. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) This case addresses allegations of disruptive editing on the Shakespeare authorship question and related articles that discuss whether William Shakespeare or someone else, such as Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, authored the plays and other writings attributed to Shakespeare.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Shakespeare authorship question has 21 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dysfunctional would be putting it lightly. SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Do we need the word 'miserable' in here? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Well to be fair 21 archives doesn't necessarily mean dysfunction, just a lot of sausage-grinding, but that doesn't change the facts in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Also noting that 21 archives is a symptom, and not a problem per se. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) NinaGreen (talk · contribs), who has focused virtually all of her editing on the Oxfordian hypothesis (evidence), has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself. (Sample evidence here, here, here.)

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Smatprt (talk · contribs), who has focused much although not all of his editing on the Oxfordian hypothesis, was the subject of a community sanctions discussion based on a long history of disruptive editing relating to the authorship issue. On November 3, 2010, a community sanction was adopted, under which Smatprt was "topic-banned from editing pages relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed" for a period of one year. Smatprt has appealed to this committee from the topic-ban. However, there is ample support for the community's conclusion that his editing concerning authorship of Shakespeare's work was severely disruptive and warranted a topic-ban from that subject. A somewhat closer question is whether Smatprt could, as he has proposed, edit usefully on aspects of Shakespeare-related articles unrelated to the authorship issue.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Reviewing the ban as part of this case is not a good idea. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorsing ban specifically rather than simply dismissing the appeal. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. This does not preclude Smatprt asking the community to narrow his ban to allow him to edit Shakespeare-related articles unrelated to the authorship issue. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. per Coren. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This goes on beyond a finding of fact, and pre-empts the discussion on sanctions against Smartprt. The finding of fact should stop at "and has appealed to this committee concerning (not from) the topic ban". The last sentence has no place in a finding of fact, besides being a non-sequitur. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The second-last sentence represents our resolution of the appeal through a factual finding that there were grounds to support the community's decision. Unless we are to disregard the appeal and not decide it that sentence is necessary. The final sentence is clearly correct in my opinion, but is not essential to the decision if, as it appears, we are going to adopt remedy proposal 3 rather than 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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.

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question. The sanctions should be administered in such a fashion as to treat all contributors fairly while ensuring that future editing of these pages adheres to high standards of both Wikipedia behavior and Shakespearean scholarship.

Support:

1. Readers of this decision should carefully review the linked page, which discusses the nature of discretionary sanctions. As the bottom line, what this remedy means is that uninvolved administrators are authorized to crack down on editors who engage in any further disruption on Shakespeare authorship question or related articles after this case ends. This includes parties to this case (some more of whom could have been sanctioned now but are getting a final chance), as well as other editors who may be placed on notice of the sanctions in the future. (The arbitrators have disagreed in the past about whether we should impose discretionary sanctions by linking to the policy page, as above, or by copying the sanctions into the decision for greater visibility. I am agnostic on that question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed. We are attempting to resolve issues here, but we wish to give administrators the ability to be proactive in preventing further issues from popping up. SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed.

Support:

1. I note that within the past few days, NinaGreen has requested to "close her Wikipedia account." Although this is not the wording that we use, if NinaGreen is prepared to disengage from Wikipedia permanently, I would support facilitating her departure through deletion of her userpage, renaming of her account, and other appropriate means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I note that NinaGreen has declined this suggestion. [1] So be it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

Support:

1. I am proposing this and 3.1 as alternatives. Since Smatprt just presented his appeal evidence today and other editors have not had a chance to weigh in on it, I will hold off for a day or two before deciding my first and second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. My first choice. I am not willing to go against the community consensus to place this topic ban.. something like six months down the line, if issues have not reoccured, I would be willing to see Smatprt bring a request to the community or the Committee to have the sanctions modified/lifted. SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. I am not sure if/why the committee needs an active placeholder in review of a community ban really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I interpret this as simply saying "We reviewed the community's action, since it tied closely to this case, and we see nothing wrong with what's already been done." Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Over 3.1; I'd rather not interfere at all in a community sanction absent exigent circumstances. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice over 3.1. I perceive the review of a closely-related community sanction as natural during an arbitration proceeding, but much like Jclemens, I see nothing wrong with the current scope or duration of the existing community sanction. Risker (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. First choice. This does not preclude Smatprt asking the community to narrow his ban to allow him to edit Shakespeare-related articles unrelated to the authorship issue. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010. However, after 90 days from the closing of this case, Smatprt may request that the sanction be reviewed for the purpose of narrowing its scope (but not overturning it entirely). In any such request for amendment, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Smatprt has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Support:

1. See comment under 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak second choice, although I would also allow him to go to the community and ask to edit non-"Authorship Question" articles at any point.. Probably be best to ease him in gradually. SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice to 3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to 3. Risker (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. I think the community should have the right of first refusal. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Weak oppose. I think this can be fleshed out by a community review of topic ban in the first instance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Soft oppose. I would generally prefer to handle this via request for amendment in the future, once Smatprt has demonstrated constructive contributions on an even less related topic area. Like all other Wikipedia sanctions, they are subject to review and modification once the sanctioned editor has demonstrated successful encyclopedia-building contributions elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Jclemens; I see no need to have a special appeal procedure for this. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not at this time. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. A given. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. A given. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd like to caution against over-the-top blocks, but I agree with the principle. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Emphasising that one year is the maximum, not the minimum!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	14	0	0		·
2	Conduct and decorum	12	0	2		·
3	Editorial process	14	0	0		·
4	Neutral point of view	13	0	1		·
5	Discussion of minority views	12	1	0		·
6	Single-purpose accounts	14	0	0		·
7	Tendentious editing	14	0	0		·
8	Talk pages	14	0	0		·
9	Casting aspersions	13	0	0		·
10	Revealing personal information	13	0	0		·
11	Review of community sanctions	13	0	0		·
12	Conduct on arbitration pages	13	0	0		·
13	Problematic editing	11	0	0		·
14	Disruptive influence	10	1	0		·
14.1	Disruptive influences	5	3	2		3
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	12	0	0		·
2	Persistent disruption	12	0	0		·
3	NinaGreen	12	0	0		·
4	Smartprt	12	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	12	0	0		·
2	NinaGreen banned	12	0	0		·
3	Smatprt's community sanction endorsed	11	0	1		·
3.1	Smatprt's community sanction endorsed, with qualification	5	5	1		3
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement of discretionary sanctions	12	0	0		·
2	Enforcement of decision sanctions	12	0	0		·

Notes

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

1. Following completion of the implementation notes. Risker (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. The thrust of the decision has been agreed upon for several days, and 24-48 hours from now should be ample time to finalize the remaining wording issues on the added principles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. –xeno^talk 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. We're all done. — Coren ^(talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Happy to close here. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Now that 14 passes. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Finished here Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment