Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Proposed decision

Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: Amortias (talk) & Miniapolis (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (talk) & DeltaQuad (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

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

Majority reference

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss

1) Because Andrevan (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Passed 12 to 0 on 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support:

1. Now that Andrevan has resigned both tools, there is really no reason to continue the case. If there are any other conduct issues they can be handled by the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Given his resignation, this seems appropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. The piece the community couldn't solve was an examination of admin/bureaucrat. That is now moot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 06:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. This settles everything that actually needed a case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Katie^talk 13:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Arbitrator Mkdw (talk · contribs) by email – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Arbitrator Euryalus (talk · contribs) by email – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments from arbitrators:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 14:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC) by Miniapolis.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

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

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments