Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{subst:RFARcasenav/closed}}
bypass hard coded values
Line 1: Line 1:
{{RFARcasenav|case name=Tree shaping|clerk1=Salvio giuliano|clerk2=Dougweller|draft arb=Elen of the Roads|draft arb2=}}
{{RFARcasenav|case name=Tree shaping|clerk1=Salvio giuliano|clerk2=Dougweller|draft arb=Elen of the Roads|draft arb2=|active=15|inactive=2}}


==Proposed motions==
==Proposed motions==

Revision as of 17:26, 15 July 2011

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

Case clerks: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bog standard. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view and undue weight

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

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Again, pretty standard here. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and page move discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Minor copy edits that do not change the meaning. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single-purpose accounts

5) 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. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Talk pages

6) 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. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive and tendentious editing

8) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be subjected to editing restrictions on the articles in question or be banned from the topic or the site.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Expert editors

9) Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject of articles they edit. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed where applicable, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the encyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Frankly, COI is hash. We welcome experts unless they have an actual conflict—we should not shun them if they wrote a book on the subject. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes regarding article titles

10) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shame that we have to actually state this. I support with the view that we're not making policy by fiat here, but simply repeating best practices and applied common sense. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neologisms in article titles

11) In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse general principle. In specific applications, this is an issue of editorial choice to be determined by consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per NYB. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Brad. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WP:OR certainly applies, no matter wot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) This dispute focuses on article content covering a relatively new art form in which three-dimensional works of art are created by modifying the growth of living trees. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what title to give the article on this subject.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am a bit uncomfortable calling this a "relatively new" art form; John Krubsack's chair was finished in 1914, The Tree Circus opened in 1947, and I suspect that older examples will come to light. Other than that, this sufficiently encapsulates the dispute. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Relative" is relative. In the concept of art history, we're very much new. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree on the general principle here; however, the modification of growth of living trees is a longstanding tradition in some cultures. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mormonism is a relatively new religion. That's fair to say when others are millennia old. So too with art, I suppose. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No single name for this topic

2) Practitioners have developed their own names for their particular techniques and forms of the art, some of which have commercial status as brand names. As well, there are a variety of terms from arboriculture and elsewhere that are used to describe both the techniques used and the final results. Editors of the article have not reached a consensus as to a consistent preference within reliable sources on the use of any one term, and the title of the article has continued to be disputed.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With tweak (concordance)  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Some editors have a potential conflict of interest

3) Some of those editing the article are themselves practitioners of the art, or have a professional or commercial interest in the art. These editors potentially have a conflict of interest, as it may be in their professional/commercial interests to have the title of the article reflect the description used for their their own artworks; and this may conflict with Wikipedia's policies.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. One of the key issues here. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (With minor copy-edit)  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Current name

4) The article reached its current name ("Tree shaping") following a merge in 2009 between two articles, neither of which used the current name. While the name change was not discussed beforehand, it was done in good faith. Subsequent discussions have never established a consensus for the article title.

Support:
  1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not sure this even really needs a point, but I guess it's relevant to later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (Note: added the name of the article as of the date of this signature.) Risker (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Blackash has a conflict of interest

5) User:Blackash has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic, and in the terminology used for the art [1], and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has overriden the interest of the project.

Support:
  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Some of the diffs cited are more defensible than others, and I might have phrased the COI finding a bit differently (plus I have ongoing concerns about how we handle "conflict of interest" situations more generally). Nonetheless, one can't escape the conclusion this editor's approach has been problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Like John. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I can't support the last phrase and the COI aspect is already covered by FoF 3. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Bluegum is an SPA

6) User:Sydney Bluegum is a single purpose account, whose edits to the project have been solely on this topic [2], and in support of the edits of User:Blackash [3]

Support:
  1. support sole interests as being on the topic, will review the second part. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference with 6A (I think both formulations are pretty accurate). It should be noted that "SPA" status by itself is not a user conduct issue, although it may be relevant in assessing other allegations of misconduct. For this reason, I suggest that the title be copedited. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 6A. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

6A) User:Sydney Bluegum is a single purpose account, whose edits to the project have been solely on this topic [4], and largely in opposition to User:Slowart

Support:
  1. After looking deeper, I think this is the more accurate description of his motivation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal first choice. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference with 6, per my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Slowart has a conflict of interest

7) User:Slowart has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic (File:Arborsculpture.jpg), and in the terminology used for the art, and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has compromised collaborative editing. [5] [6]

Support:
  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There are significant issues with Slowart's editing and I can agree with the crux of the finding, though I might have phrased it differently. However, I'm not at all sure that the cited diffs are strong evidence for the conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Like John. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I can't support the last phrase and the COI aspect is already covered by FoF 3. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blackash

The following are alternates - to avoid confusion in the first round, please pick only one, or only those with which you are equally happy

1A) User:Blackash is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Support:
  1. SirFozzie (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC) sorry, put this in the wrong place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for now but thinking out loud here. I think a topic-ban is warranted, to give everyone (parties and others) a break and to see whether editors without personal involvement in the issues can get involved in improving the article and settling the name controversy. However, I think the length of the topic-ban could be significantly less than a year, to be followed by some restrictions that would ease these editors back into being allowed to edit while minimizing the chance of future problems. I don't see such a proposal among the alternatives proposed, however, and I'm reluctant to post yet a fourth proposed remedy here unless it appears other arbitrators may support it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice at this time. See my comment on 1C. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excessive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 1C. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

1B) User:Blackash is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes article space only - edits on the subject to talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace are acceptable. (this is the current situation)

Support:
  1. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 1C. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Since it doesn't appear to be an effective; I would prefer not locking editors out entirely but it may be justified in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1C) User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.

Support:
  1. As has been pointed out, Becky Northey knows an enormous amount about how to grow art from trees. If she could be persuaded to let others decide what to title the article, there is no reason why she could not continue to contribute to this and other articles on the subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think this is worth a trial, but with a low threshold of reverting to a topic ban if problems recur. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Willing to give this a try, given the quality of information this editor brings to the table, with discretionary sanctions available to administrators should problems occur otherwise. Risker (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice at this time, but with a willingness to revisit the issue if there are further problems. I've read this user's recent posts and I hope there will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Just going to be too messy in regards to "can he participate" or not. Bright lines are better in this instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Sydney Bluegum

2A) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comment on 1A. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice, prefer 2C at this time, though this is a closer call than for the other parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Based on the evidence and findings of fact, this is appropriate for this editor. Risker (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

2B) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes article space only - edits on the subject to talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace are acceptable. (this is the current situation)

Support:
  1. Probably moot, but support equally. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 2A. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

2C) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.

Support:
  1. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. feasible. second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice at this time, but with a willingness to revisit the issue if there are further problems. I hope there would not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Similar to oppose registered above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    too finicky Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Prefer 2A. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More is needed for this user. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Slowart

3A) User:Slowart is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sauce for the goose... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Sorry, did this late last night --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Subject to (1) my comment on 1A, and (2) my comment on the related finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice, see comment on 3C. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Can't support this without a more rubsut finding than merely having a COI above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Cas. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 3C. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas has it right. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

3B) User:Slowart is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes article space only - edits on the subject to talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace are acceptable. (this is the current situation)

Support:
Oppose:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. as before, can't support this without a more rubsut finding than merely having a COI above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 3C. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

3C) User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.

Support:
  1. Rationale as for Blackash Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments at 1C. Risker (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice at this time, but with a willingness to revisit the issue if there are further problems. I hope there will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. ^Same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    too finicky Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Article and subject scope

4) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.

Support:
  1. As the issue is still unresolved. Let's get this sorted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suggested copyedits: (1) change "directed" to "urged"; (2) change "debate" to "discussion"; (3) add "One or more uninvolved administrators are urged to monitor the discussion and ensure that contributions remain on-topic and focused on the issues at hand." Query: should the parties to this case, otherwise topic-banned, be allowed to at least a limited extent to participate in the RfC? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that some of my suggested copyedits have been made. Thank you. There may be apparent inconsistencies with the editor-specific remedies, but this paragraph, referring and making an exception to those remedies, would govern in such event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. As to Brad's point given that they have been unhelpful thus far I don't think permitting them to work on such a decision would be beneficial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per David Fuchs. Risker (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would eventually have got around to suggesting this myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discretionary Sanctions

5) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Support:
  1. To cover any new account that misbehaves in the area, (edit: or if we go less than a full and complete topic ban on the parties, to leave that on the table without the need for an amendment) SirFozzie (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SirFozzie and the discussion on the talk page. Risker (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per discussion overleaf. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per SirFozzie, including his addendum, and the talkpage discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think from the talkpage discussion that we need to make it clear what "discretionary sanctions" means. My preference has always been to spell that out in the decision itself to avoid any ambiguity; but failing that, I've added a link to Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions to provide guidance to the parties and other interested editors. I've also copyedited by adding "interpreted broadly" to make clear that this covers editing of articles related to the "tree shaping article," especially by the same group of editors, and not simply to that article itself. And to be clear again, this means that if necessary—I hope it will not be— expanded sanctions can be applied to parties to this case who currently are to be restricted only narrowly, as well as to other editors on these articles if they behave inappropriately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Community restrictions superseded

6) Unless otherwise noted, these restrictions supersede any existing community-placed restrictions on the above named users.

Support:
  1. After discussion with my fellow arbitrators, this is to provide the clarity requested. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) minor change to add one word. SirFozzie (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We're the final step in dispute resolution, so it makes sense that contradictory sanctions, etc, get devolved unless explicitly retained, but I guess it's worth making clear in every case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With the comment that if problems persist or resume with any of the named users, the previously existing sanctions can be reimposed or expanded through application of the discretionary sanctions remedy. I hope this will not prove necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not keen on allowing the second block to be greater than a month, but this wording doesnt require that the second block is greater than a month. More importantly, there is ambiguity as to whether the topic bans are restarted after the first block or subsequent blocks. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposals which pass
Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 7
Passing remedies: 1C, 2A, 3C, 4, 5, 6
Passing enforcement provisions: 1
Proposals which do not pass
Failing principles: None
Failing findings: 6
Failing remedies: 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B
Failing enforcement provisions: None
Last updated: Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following Kirill's votes, 1C and 3C are now passing. PhilKnight (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, thanks! Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added remededy 6, which is now passing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

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

Support
  1. I'm out, others will folow once they are done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm done, I suspect most everyone else will be sometime soon after the holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Temporary oppose to closing for now; I need to take another look at this case this evening, in light of the discussion over the past few days. I do agree that we need to finish this case, and I believe we can do so this week, but want to double-check that we have covered all the bases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Withdraw oppose at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::# Proceedural for other arbs to answer the question on the talk page, and then we're done, once we've answered that question. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Striking oppose now that we have a 8 arb majority to confirm this supersedes. SirFozzie (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Proposed_decision&oldid=439648538"