Jump to content

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

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

Case clerks: Callanecc (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk) & Roger Davies (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, 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, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision to 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), or 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. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Quality of sources

2) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Multiple accounts to evade scrutiny

3) The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. The use of sockpuppets to run for adminship deprives the community of the opportunity to properly scrutinise all a candidate's contributions and thus arrive at a genuine fully-informed consensus.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sockpuppets or several users

4) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Support:
  1. An echo of the longstanding 2005 principles. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Emphasis on the word may. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With Euryalus's caveat --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Determination of motives

5) For dispute resolution purposes, POV-pushing and paid editing have many common features. The Committee has neither the mandate nor the resources to pierce the veil of editor anonymity. Given the practical limitations of arbitration, the Committee is unable to determine what motives impel misconduct but will instead make findings of fact from what is observable (and occasionally what inferences may be drawn from these observations).

Support:
  1. Online motives are even harder to determine than person to person. Some are easier to see, but you can never be sure. Arbitration also doesn't seek damages, and therefore motive is often irrelevant to Arbitration, though it might be nice to know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.

Support:
  1. This needs to be said, not just for this case, but for Arbitration in general. We don't create policy, we only represent it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep, if the community wants to prohibit paid-editing, it is perfectly capable of developing such a policy. Courcelles 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with DQ and Courcelles. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with everyone above --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I also echo the comments of DeltaQuad and Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (minor dash copyedit) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Search engine optimisation (principle)

7) It is a serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilise editorial and structural features of the site—such as disambiguation pages, internal links, external links, and templates—in violation of policies in an attempt to artificially manipulate search engine results or engage in whitewashing. (See Policy: "POV forks" and the Manipulation of BLPS case.)

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. see my comment below --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In agreement with at least the "serious" wording. Deliberately compromising the encyclopedia in order to serve external interests is something we should take very seriously indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (minor ce) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Prefer this without "extremely serious" - there are many potential abuses of editor privileges, and no immediate hierarchy among those that do not cause RL harm. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with just removing "extremely", actually. Courcelles 06:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely removed as it was also something I wasn't too fond of and was drafted by another arb. I'm with Guerillero on this one, I could work with either. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DQ. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not thrilled with the wording, I'll see what I can come up with as an acceptable alternative. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

8) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (minor ce) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Limitations of arbitration

9) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration final decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Return of administrator tools

10) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against them will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. although I wonder if we should specify what we mean by "usual channels"? Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A quick read, it appears ok, though may use further copyediting down the road in other cases. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is an accurate representation of historical practice. LFaraone 05:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Euryalus (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Background

1) Wifione (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) first edited in April 2009, and, until about February 2013, worked primarily on articles about private Indian business schools and the people associated with them. These articles fall into two distinct groups and Wifione has:

  1. Added positive material to, and removed negative material from, the first group of articles ("IIPM") about the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its founder, (Arindam Chaudhuri);
  2. Added negative material to, and removed positive material from, the second group of articles ("Competitors") about the Amity University and the Indian School of Business and management, Ashok Chauhan.

This is not in serious dispute: see "Background", Wifione's evidence.

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Article editing

2) Although Wifione has provided rationales for individual edits, they have not satisfactorily explained the overall pattern of clear bias, prohibited by the Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons policies, spanning a four-year period. (See Vejvančický's evidence, DGG's workshop commentary and Harry Mitchell's analysis.)

Support:.
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. On balance. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 06:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Search engine optimisation (finding of fact)

3) Wifione has edited Wikipedia to the advantage of the IIPM and to the detriment of its competitors, in a manner consistent with attempts to optimise search engine results. (See Jehochman's evidence and Harry Mitchell's analysis.)

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sock puppetry

4) Following a review of Jayen466's evidence and an historic CheckUser result, the Committee considers it likely that User:Wifione is a sockpuppet of User:Empengent, formerly Mrinal Pandey. The User:Wifione account was created and operated while Empengent (talk · contribs) was blocked.

Support:
  1. Given a summary of evidence provided, this would be enough for an SPI block. While it's not definitive, if we used definitivity (is that a word?) as our determination line, there would be a lot more disruption and sockpuppetry throughout Wikipedia today. This is also necessary in the case to show a pattern of what looks to be evasion of scrutiny (in regards to editing and socking) and double standards in multiple applications over multiple years. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The only purpose of the 2009 CU report is to establish that a possible contemporary connection between the accounts existed. I am more than persuaded by the wealth of behavioural evidence, going back six years.  Roger Davies talk 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per DQ and HJ Mitchell's comment on the talk page, the combination of the old CU result and the behavioural evidence are more than sufficient for me to be happy that the two accounts are operated by the same person. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On the evidence, it seems likely. Agree that is a step short of "proven." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 04:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Based on both the behavioral and technical evidence, while this isn't absolutely certain, I consider it likely enough to support. There's more than a slight weight to the coin here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. More or less per DQ. Although I see the point that this connection is not a certainty, principle 4 highlights that we do not need to prove definitively that accounts are operated by the same user, but rather agree that they're indistinguishable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Scottish Verdict. I consider it somewhat likely, but am not willing to support an FoF off of a six-year old CU result. This isn't proven to a high enough standard for me. Courcelles 06:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Courcelles. I am not OK with basing a decision on CU data that is older than my account. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • @Courcelles: I'm no expert on Scottish law, but how does the Scottish Verdict vary from the "likely" written in the FoF? It's not asking for an absolute support. Also I echo HJ's comments on the talkpage.
  • I really dont believe in passing findings of fact based on what is, at best, a slightly weighted coin flip. Courcelles 02:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guerillero: We are not basing the FoF off of that CU result, actually the opposite. The CU result is only meant to be supplementary to the behavioral evidence provided which I think provides a major chunk of where the FoF comes from. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endless disputes

5) Commentary – varying from constructive criticism to ad hominem remarks – about Wifione has been posted in many forums on many occasions over five years without resolution. Forums include: Wikiquette assistance ([1], [2], [3]); the Administrators' noticeboard, ([4]); the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([5], [6]); Jimmy Wales' talk page ([7], [8], [9], [10]) and Editor review/Wifione [11]).

Support:
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 06:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wifione's resignation of adminship

6) On 10 February 2015, Wifione resigned their adminship in controversial circumstances.

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 14:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CE: Replaced "This removal of adminship meets the criteria for being considered" with "in". Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 01:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 05:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • We might want to change this to read "under controversial circumstances" as suggested by Timotheus Canens on the talk page, who also pointed to [12] Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyedited. I hate saying this was voluntary. Asking for it or waiting for the absolutely inevitable is not "voluntary" in any meaningful sense of the word. Courcelles 19:12, 12 February 2015 (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.

Wifione restricted (I)

1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

  1. any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
  2. any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
  3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)

and is restricted to one account.

Support:
  1. Unless a different better scope can be provided. Wifione has removed himself from the editing area for a long time now, but given the double standards and evasion of scrutiny with their edits, I'd prefer we put this on paper and be in effect regardless. Also for if the ban is appealed successfully in the future. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changed "last 100 years" to "after 1915" so this is unambiguous as we go forward in time and "last 100 years" changes its meaning. Courcelles 06:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Distant second choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first, because an indefinite siteban doesn't mean forever,  Roger Davies talk 12:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. not my favorite, but it works --Guerillero | My Talk 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed, noting that he no longer edits in this area but he could return. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice of 1.x. LFaraone 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. To be effective upon any return to editing, if the site ban passes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support. This comes closest to what I'd prefer (see amendment in the comment section below). But the site ban is passing - topic ban specifics can be re-debated if ever a siteban appeal succeeds. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do think that a topic ban is needed, but I'm still not certain why the arbitrary time limit and I foresee arguments about what constitutes "Indian", especially as the 1915 cutoff predates the modern concept of India. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. Restrictions on Wifione's return to editing can be placed if and when a siteban is lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Links added to be clear on the topic area. If anyone has a better C/E, please do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I changed the times, I'd rather just eliminate them and make it an absolute topic ban of groups described in i and ii. Courcelles 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best I've come up with for i and ii is "Any x headquartered in the Republic of India, and any activities within India of any foreign xs." Courcelles 07:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is much better as it avoids any arguments about what is "Indian" and what is not. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sort of topic ban is needed, for when they return after a site ban, but I'm not a fan of the current wording. I'm not keen on the arbitrary time limit and I'm wondering about the geographical scope. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. We should cut out the timespan and the geographical limits altogether. The en-wiki currently has 6830611 articles so there's no shortage of other topics,  Roger Davies talk 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drafters: Nitpicking: suggest point (iii) be amended to include "..substantially associated with..." - this is not intended to cover anyone who was ever a student in India, for example. Only people for whom the connection with an educational or commercial institution is a key part of their notability. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could be too vague. What about "biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated (beyond mere attendance at an educational institution) with (i) or (ii)"? Courcelles 21:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles:, maybe, though it doesnt cover the commercial organisation aspect. A very narrow suggestion in the context - how about "employed by or involved on the management of." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But people in employment or particularly management of corporations is exactly what we want iii to cover. Courcelles 22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I am proposing: a topic ban on the biographies of people employed by or involved in the management of Indian commercial or educational institutions. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione restricted (II)

1.1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

  1. any commercial organisation;
  2. any educational institution;
  3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person

and is restricted to one account.

Support:
  1. Proposed, first choice of this and 1. When we remove the time and geography restrictions, we are left with a situation where a large majority of BLPs have relation or employment to commercial organisations. If the site ban doesn't pass, I think a more ironclad topic-ban such as this is necessary. So, throwing this up to see if it goes anywhere. Courcelles 07:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice of the 1.xs. LFaraone 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I appreciate this would be easier to administer, but it's out of sync from the Findings it draws upon. General misconduct is covered by the siteban remedy. If that was ever lifted it would necessarily be because we had decided the editor would no longer generally misconduct themselves. For a concurrent topic ban to be required, we would need to believe that even though the editor would no longer behave inappropriately in general, they would still be incapable of behaving appropriately on certain specific topics. There is no evidence that Wifione, post-siteban, would be unable to appropriately edit on, say, Korean pop stars, or schools in Iceland, or boatbuilding firms in Spain. TLDR - this remedy is too broad. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm with Euryalus on this. Wifione's editing with regard to BLPs has been biased, but not the extent of gross BLP violations, and I don't recall evidence presented of biased editing outside the core topic so I think a ban on all BLPs is excessive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though severe, the problems were in relation to a specific set of articles about a specific sort of establishment in a specific country. I'm not convinced the problems would extend this far outside of those slightly frustrating to enforce but relevant restrictions put forth in 1. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per above. I don't see a problem with Wifione working on biographies of nuns in Zambia or something else that is removed from the topic of Indian schools. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm in the unusual position of feeling this is simultaneously insufficient and overbroad. I feel a siteban is necessary here, but if they are topic banned, this scope is unusually broad for the issues involved. Also see my comment on 1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is overstating the topic area being affected by far. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Wifione restricted (III)

1.3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is restricted to one account and indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

  1. The Indian Institute of Planning and Management or its competitors;
  2. Any other organisation using or referred to by the IIPM acronym;
  3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with the management of (i)
Support:
  1. Proposed as a manageable but not overbroad topic restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
Oppose:
  1. Way, way, way too loose. Courcelles 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on 1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's too specific. If Wifione edits other areas of business in India, I fear we would see the same result. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. not a fan --Guerillero | My Talk 01:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per DQ -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Wifione desysopped

2) Wifione (talk · contribs) is desysopped. They may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
For sockpuppetry, NPOV/BLP violations, double standards, and evasion of scrutiny (in regards to edits and socking). These are all things I trust administrators to be free from, especially since they are very basic and fundamental policies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per below. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I don't think the socking is sufficiently proven, there's enough other misconduct here to justify the desysop. Courcelles 06:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Striking for procedural reasons. Courcelles 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First choice (in addition and not in alternative to the site ban). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal first choice,  Roger Davies talk 12:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice (in addition to, and not in alternative to, the site ban). Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Now redundant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    obvious --Guerillero | My Talk 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Now redundant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Seraphimblade. I would still be supporting if Wifione hadn't resigned the tools voluntarily. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Redundancy is sometimes good, but there is a a time where redundancy is redundant ;) -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moving to oppose instead of skipping it to try to help avoid passing a nonsensical remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. redundant --Guerillero | My Talk 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Wifione: return of administrative tools

2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not fond of this last minute change of heart by Wifione, I feel it's just an additional measure to evade scruitiny, but none-the-less, this is the equivalent of the above. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 23:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Tweakage, to remove duplication with FOF6, per mailing list. Revert if you can't live with it.  Roger Davies talk 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • May I suggest that this is cut to read:

    <header> Wifione: return of sysop tools

    <text>Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

    Unless anyone objects, I'll copyedit this tomorrow as all the other text is covered elsewhere,  Roger Davies talk 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione site-banned

3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. If the sockpuppetry wasn't involved, then I could see opposing this, but that and the 68 other accounts created with this is too concerning to dismiss on what already exists without sockpuppetry. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've spoken before of what I call the "Super Mario Problem", where things that would get a non-sysop editor banned have a tendency to cause a sysop to only lose their adminship. Desysopping someone who abuses their tools makes sense. But the problems here are editorial, and that won't be fixed by revoking adminship (though it is justified). A desysop is not a substitute for a site ban, and the conduct that is proven is bad enough that I think this is needed. Courcelles 07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice (in addition and not in alternative to the desysop). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first choice. A desysop should be automatic for this level of miscoinduct, irrespective of other remedies,  Roger Davies talk 12:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice (in addition to, and not in alternative to, the site ban). Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If Wifione was an ordinary editor I'd be happy with just the topic ban. But Administrators have to be held to higher standards. It's for that reason that I support a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Based upon duration, severity, etc. Level of deception and manipulation of POV rises to a very high level over a long period of time, and as such, support. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. After much reflection I end up here. While the issues happened several years ago (up until 2013), Wifione has never attempted to correct the imbalance the created in this topic area and further does not seem to to see the issues with their actions. In addition, the place where the POV pushing happened swayed me; Wikipedia shouldn't be the place where unaccredited institutions can make it look like they are legitimate. (I like Doug's idea of holding admins to a higher standard as well) --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is a "Super Mario" issue, where removal of adminship does not address all the issues. The issue here was serious problems in editing over a long period of time, not just use of the tools. We can't allow the manipulation of article content for any purpose aside from achieving a neutral educational article, and I agree that an admin especially is expected to know better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The Super Mario comparison is apt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Even keeping the "Super Mario Problem" in mind, I do not feel that this reaches the level of a site ban, compared to other cases. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:

  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

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 Lixxx235 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
None, all passing
None, all passing
1.1, 1.3, 2
Proposals which have passed
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
1,[1] 2.1, 3,
Proposals which cannot pass
None, all passing
None, currently
None, currently

References

  1. ^ Courcelles and LFaraone have voted second choice for R1, in favour or R1.1. However R1.1 is currently failing so their votes for R1 have been counted as with them it passes.

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. Euryalus (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Effectively done. Courcelles 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wrap this up. NativeForeigner Talk 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LFaraone 22:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Any future restrictions can be reviewed if and when a future committee receives a future request to unban. If something can be arrived at easily and routinely in the course of ordinary voting, it's worth retaining but it's probably not worth keeping the case open specially for it, especially when opinion is divided.  Roger Davies talk 12:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm done here --Guerillero | My Talk 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This can be wrapped up now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No further objection. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I'm still not happy with the topic bans, there is no point dragging this out further. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I still think there are too many problems with the topic ban restriction that should be sorted out before we close this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally due to new developments. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Seraphimblade, new developments. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision&oldid=1137490065"