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

Case clerks: Lord Roem (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Carcharoth (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (Talk)

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 comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), 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.

Case suspended[edit]

This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.

Since then, the following has occurred:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.

2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.

3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for a period of 60 days or until further vote of the Committee.

Support:

Second choice, per my comments in support of the second version below. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) With thanks to a number of other arbs for assistance with drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few short weeks ago, there was a perception among many editors that the Wikimedia movement (including both the English Wikipedia and other projects) was at a crisis point: the WMF Office (senior leadership and developer staff) were taking or stating their intent to take actions that were actively opposed by segments of the community, and some community members were saying they would resist those actions, all in a way that could create short-term chaos and long-term demoralization of many volunteers. The justification for taking this case, which some of us favored more strongly than others, was for this Committee to do what it could to help pulling everyone back from the brink of precipitate actions, overreactions, and long-term damage. The desired outcome, in my mind at least, was development of a protocol by which the Office and the community(ies) would work in a more collaborative fashion with respect to software and feature upgrades—covering every facet of the process from brainstorming what sorts of upgrades are desirable, to designing in broad strokes the features of the upgrades selected, to testing them, to trial implementation, to ultimately deciding when and how they should be implemented. Due perhaps in small measure to what has been said on the arbitration pages, and certainly larger measure to statements and actions by others, I believe tensions have now decreased to the point where developing such a protocol, and minimizing or avoiding outright confrontations a la Visual Editor and Media Viewer, will take place. Does this mean that we should reconvene Wikimania for a universal joining of hands and singing of kumbayah?—no, but it does mean that we are in a better place than we were, and despite some false steps, there is hope that we are on the road to where we need to be. For this reason, the Committee's potential role in defusing the crisis has receded, and we don't need to keep this case open for that purpose. (As for the other points, the issue of unattributed staff edits is also being addressed, and the issue of Eloquence's individual account's adminship I consider secondary.) I favor suspending, rather than outright dismissing, the case for the simple reason that while progress is likely, it is not guaranteed, and I can't exclude the possibility that when current discussions have advanced a bit, there will be something this Committee wants to do and could have a role in doing. The optimal outcome 60 days from now would be a motion of "problems fixed; hearty cheers; case dismissed, and raise some beers." To be sure, optimal outcomes happen only in cloudwikiland, but let's try to approach one here as closely as we can, because the sight of the Foundation leadership and large segments of the project communities at each other's throats was a deeply unhappy one for everybody, and I hope never to see that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no official "leadership", we work as a community and make decisions on the direction the encyclopedia is going to progress as a community. Unfortunately, when it comes to large IT projects, leadership is needed - decisions have to be made on where developer's time is spent. Priorities have to be decided upon. The WMF hold the keys to the IT department and at the moment, they're the ones driving the development. That's backwards though - the IT department shouldn't be driving the IT development, it should be the users of the IT systems.
Watching how things have played out over the last month, I really see the influence of the new executive director at the Foundation. I'm hoping that in 2 months, we'll see the initiatives playing out and we'll be able to close this case. If not, we can carry on with the case. I implore the Foundation to remember who they are working for - For example, the should WMF focus on an obtaining and publishing evidence that new features will have a positive effect. Rather than polls, which show personal bias, the WMF should focus on techniques such as A/B testing based on key metrics to ensure that the right features are enabled.
For now, I'm happy for the committee to watch and wait. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below, this is my second choice. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably more sceptical than my colleagues, but I'm willing to wait and see. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the change made to the other motion, this is now my second choice. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. While I see Roger's reasoning, I don't think we can call what happens with enough certainty to put that here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. L Faraone 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice.Hopefully this pans out, but I'd like to keep options as open as possible.~~ Equal preference. Somewhat concerned that in the alternate inaction is an action in itself, but both seem reasonable. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be funny here, NF, but are these votes the right way round? I say this because #2 gives us all the options of #1, plus the option of doing nothing. Roger Davies ^talk 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

My opposition is based entirely on the proposal to suspend the case. What happens after sixty days? I've proposed an alternative below, Roger Davies ^talk 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 00:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Case suspended (II)[edit]

This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.

Since then, the following has occurred:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.

2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.

3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

In the light of the foregoing, proceedings in this case are suspended for sixty days and then closed; in the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either by volition of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA.

Support:

First choice: Second choice: This addresses what happens after sixty days and outlines the mechanism for re-activation, Roger Davies ^talk 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. See comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice~~ First choice, ~~I'd rather actively make a decision at the end of the period.~~ Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally persuaded by arguments that there should be a sunset clause on this - if in 2 months, things are still improving the case should default to close. However, I am not happy with only re-activating if "fresh issues" arise - I'd consider making this my first choice if we had some sort of clause saying that we could re-open "at Arbcom's discretion". In that case the motions are substantially the same - only worrying about the default option. Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "either by volition of the committee or" which I think addresses your concerns (and also I think these implicit in GorillaWarfare's comment in Motion #3. Revert if you disagree, Roger Davies ^talk 09:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that addresses my concerns. I've also removed the italics on the "fresh issues", again revert if you disagree. This is now my first choice. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second~~ choice to M1. AGK [•] 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. AGK [•] 00:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice per above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First choice.
When I voted to accept this case, I did it because I thought that there needed to be a clarification of what the powers of the community were in relation to the roll-out of unwanted new pieces of software. The problem, of course, was that the Foundation had on more than one occasion unprofessionally shoved untested and/or buggy software down the community's throat, only to then ignore the complaints of those who had to actually work with their flawed "features" (even with the Visual Editor, which was actually breaking the wiki, it took exceptional measures to get the Foundation to listen to the community). Needless to say, this was problematic.
Now, if we are to take the Foundation at their word, it appears that their approach shall in future be more professional; as I said earlier, I am still sceptical, but the fact that we may reopen nostra sponte the case allays most of my worries. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Barring any new developments, I'm hard-pressed to see that a full decision is needed here. I also do not believe that an explicit "nothing to decide here, still, lets drop it" declaration in 60 days time would be a productive use of our time. L Faraone 17:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice, per a weaker version of Carcharoth's concerns. I find it unlikely, but I'd rather avoid the possibility altogether.~~ Equal preference. Either will hopefully work out, my concerns apply to both. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from oppose to support as first choice. Changing my vote here after having taken more time to consider the state of the draft on the workshop and how best to approach some of the unresolved matters there. I still have reservations that much of the work done at the workshop page in this case is being unnecessarily discarded, but in the grand scheme of things it is not ultimately that important. An ongoing summary of what has been done over the 60 days will help make clear whether the sunset clause in this motion should just be left to activate or not. Hopefully the WMF are providing regular updates somewhere, and hopefully those who were most vocal about this are participating in the ongoing global discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few words of thanks, Carcharoth, for the mountain of effort you've put both into the draft PD and into these motions, coming as they did when you could ill afford the time. Even if we don't always see entirely eye to eye, It's greatly appreciated and much respected, Roger Davies ^talk 22:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Equal preference. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Indenting my oppose here and switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I've been considering this matter over the past few days, and while I was initially persuaded by the arguments that a sunset clause to close after 60 days might be useful here, I've since reconsidered. My concern is that despite the claims that ArbCom will remain able to re-open or reactivate the case at any time (nostra sponte as Salvio says), I suspect that individual arbitrators have different views on what would require re-opening or reactivating the case. And the mechanics of a re-opening vote are not clear - would it be a mailing list discussion, or a new on-wiki vote to re-open the case? If even one arbitrator feels re-opening the case is needed, they will start a vote anyway (though where they would initiate that vote is not clear), and we will end up with an on-wiki vote after the 60 days, sunset clause or no sunset clause. Better to just have a straight-up suspension that expires in 60 days (from the point the passing motion is enacted). And then take a fresh look and see what should be done at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. The WMF has already done the heavy lifting required to start mending fences, with the three dramatic events alluded to in the motion. I cannot imagine what more is going to change in the relatively short term to make formal closure by a separate motion in sixty days either useful or desirable. There is no doubt that the events that triggered this case were unfortunate and avoidable; the WMF has explicitly acknowledged that and promised a different path for the future. So, pragmatically, what would such a motion say that has not already been said and would there be arbitrator consensus for it? Roger Davies ^talk 02:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, if you read through the evidence presented and the draft of the proposed decision on the workshop, you will see that there is more to this case than just the events described in this motion. Waiting to see if those additional issues get addressed is one reason for waiting for 60 days. Unless I've missed some announcement somewhere, there needs to be clarity from the WMF on the superprotection global right assigned to the staff group, and how and when that is intended to be used (as Risker notes on the talk page, such matters are a global issue and are being discussed at meta, but it has import for the English Wikipedia). The other issue is the granularity of the staff user rights group over and above merely having the accounts labelled. If you read what I said here on 2 August, you will see that as well as "clean[ing] up the inconsistent labelling of such accounts" (which was already apparently on the cards), I also suggested that the staff permissions be split up into a bundle assigned to Engineering (i.e. developers) and a bundle assigned to LCA (Legal and Community Advocacy). It was only a suggestion, but if something similar to that got implemented, it would help a lot. The other (key) point that hasn't been cleared up is which WMF staff have the authority to issue desysop threats on the English Wikpedia, over-riding local processes. I've yet to see a clear statement from the WMF on that. There are other issues as well, but that will do for now. The fact that some of the issues have been addressed is an argument for suspending the case and waiting to see what happens. But as there are unresolved issues, a sunset clause to automatically close the case isn't appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. Thanks for the expanded rationale. I'm not at all clear that we have either the jurisdiction in policy or a community mandate regarding Superprotection (which wasn't in existence at the time this case was accepted, and isn't mentioned in the case request) or the labelling/bundling of staff accounts. You're right that these are on-going issues but an arbitration case is probably not the way to tackle them. If you think that a case is the best way forward, why not propose a separate motion now drawing the attention of the WMF to your concerns and see where it goes? Or alternatively, start an RFC or two? Roger Davies ^talk 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Perhaps a clerk could close this now? Roger Davies ^talk 22:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed[edit]

This case was accepted to consider longstanding issues affecting the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which came to a head during the implementation of the Media Viewer extension.

Since then, the following has occurred:

1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.

2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.

3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

In the light of the foregoing, this case is closed as moot.

Support:

Second choice: First choice: there really is no need to suspend this as what issues there were are moot. Roger Davies ^talk 13:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. See comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to this course of action, but I certainly don't prefer it. Third choice. Worm^TT(talk) 09:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice to M1 & M2. AGK [•] 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be able to unsuspend this case easily if necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily unclose it, especially if the WMF initiatives don't pan out as anticipated. ARBPOL says: "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it ... and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time." Roger Davies ^talk 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded by Roger's argument that we can easily re-open the case if needed, as what might persuade one arbitrator to vote for re-opening the case might not persuade another. Best to wait and see. If things are fine, a vote to close will pass easily. If things are not fine, then a vote to re-open might be difficult, whereas proceeding with the case after 60 days if things are not OK will be relatively easy. As the arbitrator who drafted much of what was proposed on the workshop and commented there, I'm familiar with the case and I would be able to carry things forward from that point if needed (or indeed earlier if that is more convenient). Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this needs to be revisited down this vein would like to be able to re-open it. Hopefully there is a satisfactory conclusion reached in the meantime, but I see no real advantage to immediately closing out. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unclosing is a higher bar than unsuspending. What Carcharoth said. L Faraone 03:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Permissions review[edit]

While considering the issues involved in this case it came to the attention of the committee that there are at least a few other WMF employees who have advanced permissions on non-staff accounts yet do no community-related administrative work, although some do use their local permissions for purposes clearly related to their jobs at the foundation.

In lieu of a full case on the matter the committee will undertake a review of all such accounts and will revoke local privileges from staff who do not use them in their role as members of the community. This is not indicative of any judgement of wrongdoing on the part of these individuals, it is simply an enforcement of our already existing policies regarding admin activity. Any such users may resign at any time before the review is complete and any who do resign or have their permissions revoked may apply for them again at WP:RFA and/or WP:RFB at any time after the review is concluded.

Support:

As the person who noticed this I feel it is important that we deal with this, lest this same situation crop up again. There is an apparent loophole in the policy in that any logged action allows an admin or 'crat to retain their permissions even if said action is clearly done in their capacity as staff. This isn't anyone's fault, just an unforeseen circumstance. This single review should be sufficient to deal with the issue, but the community may want to consider a slight reword of the relevant policy to close this loophole. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see this action as necessary at this time, and it risks being taken as confrontational or accusatory even though clearly labeled as not being so. I'll add that while unused permissions as described in the motion are not the crux of the issues giving rise to this case, it may well be desirable to regularize any unusual legacy rights-grants that still exist. But I believe that this is inherent in some of what the WMF has already indicated it plans to do, and hence am content to allow the 60-day window period to be used for that purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in policy justifying the removal of permissions in such cases: before we can do this, there needs to be a policy change. Also, it risks being taken as confrontational, here's to unintentional irony. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of staff are fine with the user-rights they have and should be subject to the normal community methods for removing them. If they are using them within policy and enough to stop the inactivity levels kicking in, then I don't see that we need to do anything. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Salvio. Also, anything like this should be done at a community level, certainly not by motion without proper presentation of evidence within a full case that anything like this is needed (it almost certainly isn't needed). Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Singling out WMF staffers here is inappropriate; any such actions should be taken after careful community consultation and should not deal with users who are affiliated with a particular organisation. L Faraone 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

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

Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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

Proposals which pass: {Passing principles}; {Passing findings}; {Passing remedies}; {Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which do not pass: {Failing principles}; {Failing findings}; {Failing remedies}; {Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote[edit]

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

Four net "support" votes 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

Oppose

Comments