Jump to content

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

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

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) & Moneytrees (Talk) & SQL (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Bradv (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 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.

Proposed motions

[edit]

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

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

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

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

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be subject to sanctions.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As in the past, I've tweaked "may still be sanctioned" to "may still be subject to sanctions" to avoid the irony that "sanctioned" has the two opposite meanings of "punished" or "permitted" (see auto-antonym). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Decorum

[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus

[edit]

3) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions

[edit]

4) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ownership

[edit]

5) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Although there are limited exceptions in project-space (for example, this page), so we might consider changing "pages" to "articles." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

[edit]

6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not sure "good-faith" is needed though. Content disputes are always outside the scope of ArbCom, no? Regards SoWhy 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the reason for those words is that the boundary between a user-conduct issue and a content issue is not always crisply defined. User misconduct can affect article content, such as in cases of POV editing or use of unreliable sources. We would be within our rights to stop an editor from doing those things, even though the effect is to support one version of an article rather than another. In a case like this one, however, those considerations do not apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) (if an article contents dispute is not in goo dfaith, it is in essence a conduct dispute. Editing in bad faith is disruptive conduct.)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim(talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 13:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think "good-faith" is worth including—as soon as that disappears, we are in the realm of conduct issues, which are within our remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) The dispute centers around the conflict between and conduct of Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) (previously Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs), active up to 2018) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs). This conflict centers around the style and formatting of articles in the area of motorsports, including but not exclusive to rallying and Formula 1.

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflict between Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1

[edit]

2) There is ongoing conflict between Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1, which has continued for many years ([1], [2], [3]). The two parties have repeatedly been the subject of attempts at dispute resolution ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]).

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Aspersions and battleground conduct by Mclarenfan17

[edit]

3) Mclarenfan17 has cast aspersions and exhibited battleground conduct towards multiple editors, especially under his previous account Prisonermonkeys (e.g. [10], [11], [12]). More recently, his comments have reduced in severity (e.g. [13], [14]).

Support:
  1. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Previous blocks of Mclarenfan17

[edit]

4) Mclarenfan17 has been blocked several times for edit warring, under their previous account (block log).

Support:
  1. True, though less important WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For context only. Mclarenfan17 appears to have improved their behaviour since these blocks. – bradv🍁 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very weak support given the age of the diffs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. For background, I suppose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Previous blocks of Tvx1

[edit]

5) Tvx1 was previously blocked for wikilawyering and failure to abide by consensus (block log, unblock request).

Support:
  1. True though less important WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For context only. Tvx1 appears to have improved their behaviour since this block. – bradv🍁 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SoWhy 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. For background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

[edit]

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.

Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1 interaction ban

[edit]

1) Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:
  1. This should sort almost all problems presented in this case. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SoWhy 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 13:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – bradv🍁 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Full yet reluctant support. It is obvious that both of these editors are tired of each other and do not get along. The problem is that they both edit in the same narrow subject-matter and it may be inevitable that they come across each other's work frequently. This may make it more difficult for them to avoid each other than might otherwise be the case and lead to issues of line-drawing and enforcement. Still, the fact is that despite multiple earlier steps in DR, including discussion at the requests stage of this arbitration case, no one has suggested a better solution. I expect that both editors will do their best to abide by this restriction and perhaps at some future point they might agree it is no longer needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I acknowledge that there will be difficulties with this remedy, given that the topic overlap is relatively small and does not have a large population of active editors. However, I can't think of a better solution that would not be extremely cumbersome. I am hopeful that this will reduce some of the tensions in the topic area, and that Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1 are able to abide by this restriction. I agree with NYB that the ideal outcome will be some time of productive, separate editing and then a mutual agreement to lift the IBAN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mclarenfan17 warned

[edit]

2) Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.

Support:
  1. I was of two minds on this, and it's not absolutely necessary due to the fact that Mcclaren fan has clearly mellowed since he has created his new account. However, I do fall here. WormTT(talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think the IBAN is enough. Mclarenfan17 has indeed mellowed and I don't think this warning would serve a useful purpose. Maxim(talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. possibly unnecessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think we'll need this. Katietalk 13:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hopefully the principles listed in this case will serve as suitable guidance for both parties, and a warning won't be necessary. – bradv🍁 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The worst behavior is not very recent, and hence I don't think it's necessary (I also don't think I want to tacitly endorse one party as being 'worse' in creating this long-running situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per other opposes above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The findings show an improvement in this behavior, and I would not warn an editor for either of the two recent diffs presented in FoF #3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

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

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

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 Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Decorum 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Consensus 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Criticism and casting aspersions 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Ownership 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Role of the Arbitration Committee 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict between Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Aspersions and battleground conduct by Mclarenfan17 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Previous blocks of Mclarenfan17 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Previous blocks of Tvx1 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1 interaction ban 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Mclarenfan17 warned 1 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

[edit]

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
  1. Well, everything is passing but the warning, which there is no appetite for, but my own comment. I think we're ready to consider shutting this down. WormTT(talk) 14:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 14:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – bradv🍁 20:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Net 4, so start the clock. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 06:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079525870"