Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 16 active Arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority.

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

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.

Motion 1

Passed on 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This request for arbitration was filed to consider the administrator conduct of Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). A majority of the arbitrators have voted to accept the case, and ordinarily it would already have been opened.

While the request for arbitration was pending, Aitias indicated that he was invoking his "right to vanish." This suggested that Aitias intended as of then to leave Wikipedia, which would render arbitration unnecessary, and so we held off on opening the case. However, Aitias has not resigned as an administrator or stated an intent to do so. It appears that instead, he has decided to take a break from editing for some period of time, while retaining adminship.

I have no wish to add to any stresses that Aitias may find himself under, nor to induce him to leave Wikipedia if he would prefer to remain. At the same time, several experienced users and a majority of the arbitrators believe that Aitias' administrator conduct warrants review if he intends to remain as an administrator.

To address this situation in a manner that hopefully is fair to everyone, I offer a motion. (Suggestions for alternative solutions are also welcome.)

This request for arbitration is temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours. Aitias is requested to officially advise us during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias be voluntarily desysopped within the next 72 hours, this request for arbitration will be closed as moot.
It is noted that if Aitias resigns while a request for arbitration is pending, any later request for restoration of Aitias' adminship would require either a new RfA or a vote of this committee (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Return of access levels). If Aitias were to request return of adminship after a break, the committee anticipates that it would invite community comment before addressing his request.
Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened at that time, unless otherwise directed by the committee.
Aitias is requested to refrain from any use of administrator tools until this matter is resolved.
Because there are 16 arbitrators, a majority is 9.
Support:
  1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good. Wizardman 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gives Aitias time to consider his options. Would be reluctant to desysop purely based on the statements made at this RFAR, or on a refusal to take part in a case. Any desysopping case should be made in full, even if carried out in absentia, and look at all parties rather than be made on the basis of RFAR statements (warnings and admonishments by motion are a different matter). i.e. some decisions are best not made in the heat of the moment, but equally some requirement for an eventual response is needed to discourage other admins responding in this manner to a request being filed. This motion nicely balances these competing requirements. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This motion does not prejudge the outcome of a case, if one is opened. However if a case is not opened because the admin wishes to retire, we are denied the opportunity to assess evidence and come to a conclusion. As a result, the retirement should remain in effect until either the committee or community have reassessed the situation. Another approach that would be acceptable to me is a 12 month desysop, but that would depend on Aitias being agreeable to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with John in that the motion does not prejudge the outcome of a case. I also agree with Carcharoth that a look at all parties actions would be necessary if a full case is opened. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — Roger Davies talk 11:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I dislike having to judge someone in absentia, but we cannot coerce an editor to participate. — Coren (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Per Carcharoth and John. --Vassyana (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Should know where he stands. Cool Hand Luke 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Implementation notes

Motion 2

Passed on 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until User:Aitias returns to editing.

Since User:Aitias has not voluntarily requested that his administrator access be removed, after this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.

Because there are 16 arbitrators, a majority is 9.
Support:
  1. We want to encourage administrators to engage in dispute resolution but this is a volunteer job so someone can leave at any time. If they are gone they will not need their admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Coren (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I initially supported a case in absentia (and for the record, my view is that Aitias indicated that he didn't object to this), but on reflection that is not workable. These motions nicely cover concerns on both sides here, achieving progress if there is no further response from Aitias, but avoiding any judgment on the basis of RFAR statements alone. This sort of response should be standard, in my opinion, for admins that choose to retire under the pressure of a request for arbitration or an impending request (as opposed to doing so during a case, or near the end of a case), but elect (for whatever reason) not to give up their tools. One remaining concern of mine is that Aitias was not the only person involved in the various disputes, and that those he was in dispute with should have been part of any case (to see if their behaviour contributed to escalating the disputes), but without Aitias's involvement, that aspect is difficult to resolve. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:

Motion 3

Passed on 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The suspension of User:Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.

Because there are 16 arbitrators, a majority is 9.
Support:
  1. He can still request the return of his tools at a later time through the usual means (a RFA). FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. with Flo's RFA proviso — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per FloNight Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This makes sense because while we want to allow Aitias additional time, we also don't want to hear the case a year or two from now. Added second sentence to the motion per FloNight's comment above, with which everyone who has voted seems to be in agreement (any arbitrator revert if undesired, my support will still stand). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's not reasonable to expect that a case could be heard fairly so long after the fact, after most of the recent incidents have faded from the participants' memories. — Coren (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:

Motion 4

Passed on 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.

Because there are 16 arbitrators, a majority is 9.
Support:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, although I might prefer if ", unless he notifies the Arbitration Committee in advance" were added. The main concern about Aitias' hypothetically coming back under a new account would be if he were to seek adminship again, and letting us know of the new account (with the understanding that we would disclose it if he submitted an RfA or sought to reopen the RfAr) would be sufficient to address that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about adding that clause but since this was a public case that was initiated by the Community, I'm not thrilled about having any back channel arrangement made outside of the view of the Community until this dispute is resolved. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Brad. --Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per FloNight's comments above. Risker (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I tend to agree with FloNight that a backchannel with ArbCom to circumvent a community-initiated case would be improper. — Coren (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Motion 5

Passed on 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On March 15, 2009, a request for arbitration was initiated addressing concerns about Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s actions as an administrator. Because Aitias commented that he would not participate in the arbitration case, on March 22, 2009 the Arbitration Committee passed the following motions:

Motion 2

In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until User:Aitias returns to editing.
Since User:Aitias has not voluntarily requested that his administrator aaccess be removed, after this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.

Motion 3

The suspension of User:Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.

Motion 4

User:Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.

On Apr 7, 2009, Aitias contacted the Arbitration Committee and indicated that he was now able and willing to resolve the disputes and to participate in the case. To address the situation the Arbitration Committee will vote by motion to open the case now.

Motion 5 The Aitias case will open with Aitias remaining desysopped during the resolution of the arbitration case.

Support:
  1. Proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With a note that the presumption is that, at the end of the case, Aitias will regain his sysop bit unless a remedy specifically states that he does not. — Coren (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Without prejudice, as Coren says, but the case must proceed now. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Coren. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill [pf] 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Vassyana (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions, and should address, rather than dismiss, reasonable concerns raised by other users.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. High standards, within limits, are expected. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Applies to both editors and admins. Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Granting of rollback rights

3) Administrators are expected to apply good judgment in addressing requests for userrights that they are empowered to grant, such as rollback. When administrators disagree as to whether rollback should be granted to a particular editor, they should discuss the matter collegially with the goal of reaching a consensus decision. To the extent possible, rollback requests should be handled efficiently and in a non-bureaucratic manner.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changed the section heading to be more specific; drafter or any other arb please change if undesired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting though that there seems to be a standard that consensus is not required concerning rollback requests, so this may be slightly misrepresenting that. The collegial discussion clause applies to all admins discussing a particular case, not just the admins who initially disagree. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Right to vanish

4) Vanishing is the act of disassociating the identity of a user account from the identity, and is intended for those who wish to leave the project permanently. It is not meant to be used as a wikibreak, or to be used as a fresh start for a user not in good standing.

Support:
  1. This may be iffy, but based on the happening while the case was being accepted, I feel it is relevant to at least point out; reword as you will. Wizardman 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Misunderstood. It is not remaning and starting over. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While Aitias did not vanish and I can see Brad's point, I think it's important to establish what vanishing is and isn't here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Good as far as it goes, particularly the bit about users in good standing. More relevantly, the principle of unvanishing should be addressed here as well, and maybe at the policy or guideline page a discussion on standards for granting and declining (or postponing) 'vanish' requests would be useful. See my comments on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While the case may not hinge on this point, Aitias deleted their user talk page declaring a right to vanish[1], which is an exception to the principle that "user talk pages are generally not deleted". Either Aitias misunderstood the concept, or it was an improper use of the tools during a dispute. A {{wikibreak}} notice would have been more appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As mentioned on the workshop, I don't see this as relevant to the case. Aitias announced the he was vanishing, but apparently, shortly thereafter, changed his mind and said he was taking a wikibreak instead. Nothing in either the history or the result of the case turns on whether Aitias was "vanishing" or taking a break, as is evidenced by the fact that there is no finding (nor in my view could there be one) that Aitias was in bad faith when he said he was vanishing. The selection of jargon ("vanishing", "retiring", "taking a break") is not dispositive of anything. In addition, although I agree that the steps associated with vanishing for privacy or other reasons should not be taken as a matter of routine when someone is merely taking a short break, at the same time I don't believe we should adopt an inflexible interpretation that could be misused to suggest that anyone who has chosen to vanish may not later change his or her mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But "Vanishing" is a misunderstood concept that when invoked does increase the tension in a situation. There is often speculation that the person is socking to avoid scrutiny. Pointing out the proper use seems like goodness. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. Aitias indicated at one stage that he intended to use the 'right to vanish' but did not actually do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think I considered this a vanishing to begin with—not an executed one, anyway. NYB is therefore right: it's not relevant, although I do agree with the substance of the finding. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Aitias changed hismind after two weeks and that's fine. I don't believe he misunderstood what 'Right to Vanish' means. That said and I am leaning toward supporting this principle per Carcharoth. Abstaining for now... I'll revisit this later on. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with the principle, but I don't think it has any particular bearing on how the case should proceed, especially given it is not addressed below in any findings of fact. --bainer (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feuds and quarrels

5) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although the decision as currently written does not actually work the principle (which I had suggested might belong in the decision) into the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Can see the relevance here, but hasn't been followed up (yet) with any findings of fact or remedies. Possibly (though hopefully not) this could lay the groundwork for a future motion if that ever becomes necessary. More specifically, this may apply to those on both sides of any future disputes involving Aitias (though as I said, hopefully that won't happen). Effectively, this is the softest of warnings that continued disputes involving the same people as involved here will be looked on poorly. Though in that case, this is really more like a remedy than a principle (or rather, the potential remedy is to carry out such a "direction" to keep people apart). Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This also applies to users who frequently find themselves in conflict with other editors, not just a few individuals. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Blocking

6) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. And increasing block lengths when an alternative is reasonable will often cause the situation to escalate out of control. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Though see comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. reasonable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I agree with the sentiment, but this is rather broad. There can be other means likely to be effective that are not practical or involve a disproportionate amount of effort for little benefit. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is common sense, but I don't see this wording coming directly from any policy, so I had a quick look and came up with the following:
    • WP:BLOCK#Explanation on blocking covers the seriousness aspect: "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."
    • WP:ADMIN#Be careful, please! seems to cover the being careful bit: "Administrator tools are also used with judgment; it can take some time for a new administrator to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set [...] New administrators are strongly encouraged to start slowly and build up experience on areas they are used to, and by asking others if unsure."
    • WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings covers alternatives to immediate action: '"Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking [...] but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
  • So I can support this, but in relation to any finding about blocks, it will depend on whether blocks caused a situation to escalate unnecessarily, or whether the blocks were made because other alternatives were not likely to be effective. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

7) Policies need to be approached with common sense. Administrators enforcing policies should adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, or when two or more policies conflict.

Support:
  1. From Wikipedia:Policies, slightly modified. Risker (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We should not be a slave to policy. Particularly problematic when the penalty for violating the policy is applied in a harsh manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not precisely how I would put it, but reasonable enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. pragmatic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Leaning towards oppose. I'm very keen on emphasizing the spirit of the rules, but not so amenable to the closing portion (which I believe to propagate a harmful misunderstanding). I especially disagree with a mindset that views rules as being in contradiction/conflict. I believe do not believe such conflicts exist in the principles themselves, but rather arise from the enforcement process and/or an unnecessarily adversarial interpretation of the rules (depending on the particular circumstances). --Vassyana (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting a candidacy for speedy deletion

8) Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Any editor except a page's creator, acting in good faith and pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of policy, may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions.

Support:
  1. From the deletion policy. Risker (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True. The evidenced diffs shows a surprising lack of understanding about the deletion process by admins. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Added "acting in good faith and acting pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of policy". We don't want any situations where an editor goes through CSD and pulls off every single tag based on "I don't philosophically agree that anything should be deleted", etc. Non-admins declining speedies, in other words, should be able to justify their view that the article isn't clearly speedy-worthy. (But if any arbitrator thinks I'm quibbling unnecessarily, revert my change, and my support will still stand.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this modification. Risker (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

History of the case

1) In March 2009, a request for arbitration was filed against Aitias. This Committee voted to accept the case, but at about the same time, Aitias announced that he was leaving the project. Accordingly, Aitias's administrator privileges were suspended temporarily, without prejudice, and the arbitration case was held in abeyance, with the understanding that the case would be reopened upon his return to editing. Approximately one month later, Aitias returned to editing, and we opened the case, directing that Aitias's adminship remain suspended, without prejudice to our ultimate decision, until the case was resolved.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed section heading from "Aitias' suspension" to something more neutral, since the suspension was without prejudice. Any arb please revert if you disagree with the change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. OK, but omits the history of the RfC, which I think is relevant background. Carcharoth (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Risker (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Aitias' conduct

2) Aitias has repeatedly made uncivil or unnecessarily sarcastic comments on-wiki ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) including in connection with discussion of his administrator actions, and despite having himself acknowledged that a polite and civil tone is necessary for administrators ([7]).

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As broadly defined yes, though I have seen worse elsewhere and many did appear to be in ongoing dialogue where the tone was not good on the other side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although, in the absence of any other concerns, these comments would likely not warrant our attention in and of themselves. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is an overall pattern of sharp remarks that is unhelpful, but they were all before Aitias's break, and hopefully any stresses that might have led to this point have now been dissipated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Per Casliber and Kirill, have seen worse and both sides often engaged in equally abrasive language. The comment made concerning what is expected of administrators is unfortunate, but a mistake made by many (saying one thing and then doing another). Unless there is a consistent pattern of failing to meet one's own standards, a single comment shouldn't have too much read into it. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill and Casliber. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I would not call this civility. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Using the concept of "incivility" here with these diffs waters it down, leaving us with the need to create new terms for more shocking cases. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moving to oppose in favour of 13.1. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Jayvdb. Risker (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. The first example diff has been amply explained for my needs. The fifth example diff is an in-context comment about a statement he supported at the end of a long (and often acrimonious) discussion about a civility block. --Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe 'uncivil' is very accurate. I'd rather support something like 'inappropriate'. And yes, sarcasm is duly noted. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Aitias' conduct

2.1) Aitias has repeatedly made inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments on-wiki ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) including in connection with discussion of his administrator actions, and despite having himself acknowledged that a polite and civil tone is necessary for administrators ([13]).

Support:
  1. Replaced "incivil or" with "inappropriate and". I see both types of unhelpful discourse, and that pattern is important. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fine. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference to 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal pref to 2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Risker (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Issues with first and fifth example diff, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias and rollback

3) During the period from when administrators could begin granting rollback to April 10, 2009, Aitias was among the most active administrators on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback ([14]). During this period, he repeatedly conflicted with other administrators who disagreed with his decisions to deny rollback to several users requesting it, and often failed to address such disagreements in an appropriately collegial manner ([15], [16], [17]) evident by Aitias’ apparent high standards in handing out the tool ([18]).

Support:
  1. Wizardman 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (There appears to be a sentence fragment at the end which needs to be copyedited.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Noting here that other admins (including those presenting evidence) appear to have been far more active than Aitias, but have presumably not been in similar conflicts due to keeping more closely to community standards. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is more serious than it might at first appear; when discussing an issue which is inevitably going to be perceived as making a judgment on the character and abilities of editors, it is particularly important to discuss the issue calmly and fairly. A lengthy and acrimonious discussion conducted between administrators about a user in itself affects their reputation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The second instance is Aitias conflicting unnecessarily with another administrator who granted rollback, which isn't explained in the prose of this Finding, but I can support this wording all the same. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Sam Blacketer. Risker (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
The three example diffs provided are problematic. The second is not a comment by Aitias. The other are are exceedingly mild in context. Additionally, the closing phrase does not follow in a smooth or clear fashion. --Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be meant as links to sections on old versions of the page, not diffs, so I've converted them into permalinks. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and correction. --Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm not sure how the closing phrase and the accompanying diff are intended to relate to the finding. I have noted the background/context of the diff and surrounding disagreement at the evidence page: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence#Request for permissions header. --Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case evidence

4) Although our review of the evidence reflected some problematic comments or conduct by Aitias as observed above, there were also instances of petty matters that did not rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding, and emphasize that only significant instances of misconduct or disruption should be brought to us.

Support:
  1. Noted, since some of the evidence felt of the "throw it up and see what sticks" mentality. Wizardman 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Worth noting, I feel. When the case request was being heard, I was of the opinion that the RfC should have been reopened, and the criticisms about how the RfC had been presented should have been dealt with. In future cases, I wouldn't want to discourage presentation of evidence, but would want to reserve the right to give a more explicit verdict on the quality or relevance of the evidence. If this does not pass, then a different approach is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Unless we are going to sanction users or at least mention specific editors by name in this Fof, I don't that it will be of use to us. The people that need to hear it will miss the point. And it might intimidate other editors from adding evidence. We need evidence. What we don't need is disgruntled people using our case pages as a battleground. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. --Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this is true of the RfC (as recognised by the commenters there), but less so of this case's evidence page, which seems, on the whole, fairly well focused. Moreover, I see no problem with bringing minor instances of misconduct into evidence so long as they are used to demonstrate a pattern of poor behaviour, which is what the people submitting evidence in this case were attempting to do. I agree with Brad below that this should have been resolved short of arbitration, but given the failure of that to occur, the evidence has to be brought here. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Precisely per FloNight. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Ironically enough, I'm not convinced this warrants a finding; this happens on every case, and the lack of any real guidance on presenting evidence correctly is as much the problem here as anything else. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is a true statement as an observation; it's a closer call whether it should be a formal finding. There is also a fine line between bringing petty matters to arbitration, which is an unfair burden on everyone, and using diffs that might not be unduly problematic in and of themselves for the purpose of showing a chronic problem or a pattern. What is clear is that in retrospect, the parties to this dispute should have been able to resolve it well short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill and Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias and RMHED

5) In December 2008, Aitias blocked RMHED for violation of the three-revert rule in response to an edit war over a CSD tag on Manning Marable.[19][20] The other editor involved in the edit war was not blocked by Aitias or any other administrator. The block was overturned on review, during which there was discussion of what steps might be most appropriate when a CSD tag was repeatedly reapplied. Following the unblock, Aitias did not withdraw, but continued to discuss the block on RMHED's user talk page.[21][22]

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference with 5A. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I've read the thread in question, and I disagree with the last sentence of this finding of fact. There is no requirement for an admin to withdraw after one of their blocks has been overturned (sometimes talking it out will result in lessons learned). In this case, RMHED was willing to continue the conversation, as seen here. The problems seem to have arisen when Aitias got involved in side-discussions with other editors (such as Smashville and Toddst1), instead of concentrating on his dialogue with RMHED. But at no point was Aitias asked to back off (though the archiving done here was probably for the best). Contrast this with the situation in February 2009, when Aitais was explicitly asked to withdraw (several times) and didn't. If the last sentence of this finding of fact were removed, or rewritten to make clear that Aitias had no obligation to withdraw and hadn't been asked to, then I could support this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention of this finding of fact is to establish the prior history between these two editors. Findings of fact don't necessarily have to demonstrate egregious behaviour. Risker (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be communicated without saying "did not withdraw, but continued" - that implies he should have withdrawn. All you need to do is drop the word "withdraw" and make clear that RMHED also continued the discussion. RMHED had been unblocked at that point, and while Aitias may have been over-insistent in asking for an answer, RMHED at the time was perfectly willing to give an answer, and that point is lost here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per Carcharoth. I appreciate Risker's point, but the closing statment implies wrongdoing. --Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias and RMHED

5A) In December 2008, Aitias blocked RMHED for violation of the three-revert rule in response to an edit war over a CSD tag on Manning Marable. The other editor involved in the edit war was not blocked by Aitias or any other administrator. The block was overturned on review, during which there was discussion of what steps might be most appropriate when a CSD tag was repeatedly reapplied. Following the unblock, Aitias continued to discuss the block on RMHED's user talk page. An initial attempt to use archive tags to end the discussion was reverted by Aitias, and he, RMHED and others continued the discussion. The discussion ended when archive tags were applied for the second time.

Support:
  1. Proposing alternate presentation of this incident. Needed for background, but I feel this is a more accurate description of what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I see no substantive difference between this and #5, and am wary of the greater length. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias and RMHED (II)

6) In February 2009, RMHED was again blocked for edit-warring. Aitias participated in the ANI discussion of RMHED's actions, as well as removing derogatory comments from RMHED's talk page and commenting on RMHED's talk page, despite repeated requests to disengage.[23]

Support:
  1. Speaks to the "Feuds and quarrels" principle above. Risker (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Commentary by admins on a blocked user's talk page is rarely helpful. Aitias's repeated posted to RMHED's talk page inflamed the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments still stand, but moving to oppose as I intend to propose alternate wording here. 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) This is much worse than the previous incident, and there are tones of bad blood on both sides here. Aitias clearly inflamed the situation, but so did RMHED. Both sides were at fault here. It needs to be made crystal-clear that the derogatory comments from RMHED that Aitias removed were directed at him (Aitias). While reverting those comments may have been acceptable, Aitias should then have handed off to the administrators' noticeboard to deal with it (as he did), and done so calmly, not repeatedly calling for further action. The aborted attempt at an RFC/U and ignoring the requests to disengage are not acceptable. It is noted that Aitias has commented in evidence in this case that RMHED sent him an e-mail apologising for his comments towards Aitias and saying that he (RMHED) bears Aitias no ill-feelings. However, this does little to mitigate what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Equal preference to 6A; I am not sure whether the longer or shorter version is better here. The bottom line is Aitias used very poor judgment in repeatedly continuing to press the buttons of a stressed-out user when many around him were appropriately imploring him to leave the matter to others. Good judgment in these types of situation is a key aspect of being a collegial editor and an effective administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. My comments above still stand, but will be supporting alternate wording instead. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Aitias and RMHED (II)

6A) On 26 February 2009, RMHED was reported to ANI (01:32), warned (01:40), and blocked (01:42) by User:Caknuck for 72 hours for edit-warring on templates. RMHED requested unblock (01:46), which was declined (01:57). Aitias arrived at the ANI discussion at 02:03, to say that he thought there had been disruptive editing by RMHED and asking whether a longer block was needed. RMHED responded on his talk page at 02:14, mentioning Aitias by name and stating that "This block has at least had the effect of spurring me to make a decision regarding my Wikipedia participation." Eight minutes later (02:22), RMHED made this edit that included a derogatory comment about Aitias. The situation then spiralled out of control, as Aitias made repeated calls at ANI for further action, engaged in an edit war over the comment, left other comments on RMHED's talk page while RMHED was blocked and unable to respond, and attempted to file a user conduct RFC, despite repeated requests to disengage.[24].

Support:
  1. Alternate presentation of what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference to 6, and see comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. --Vassyana (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first preference; expanding this finding is worthwhile. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We don't need a play-by-play here. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It provides context to what happened. The initial version doesn't make clear that the ANI thread started before the block, and doesn't make clear that RMHED's reaction was in part due to the block (nothing to do with Aitias) and in part a rant against Aitias. I also think the longer narrative version makes clear that there was bad blood on both sides. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill. Wizardman 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. My personal preference is to have a well-written chronology prepared by an uninvolved editor and posted to the evidence page; in its absence, I prefer a more general finding with room for individual arbitrators to add their comments with their votes. Risker (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Aitias desysopped

1) Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. Aitias may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Weakly support this. I am aware that the tools in and of itself have not been abused, but administrators need to especially show civility. Those who appear to be frequently incivil shouldn't be admins. However, pending other arbitrators opinions or suggestions, I'm open to opposing if a better idea is thought. Wizardman 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support after reading through the RMHED diffs. Wizardman 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm more concerned with the conflicts over rollback than with the incivility; a persistent unwillingness to work collegially with other administrators is a significant problem. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice and per Kirill. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. I think that the a reconfirmation RFA is in the best interest of Aitias and the Community. Since all the information about the situation is public and on wiki, RFA is the most appropriate way to regain the tools. If this remedy passes, I will consider a request for appeal to the Committee only after a Community comment period is allowed as an alternative to a RFA. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having read some exchanges, I feel this may be harsh at this time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too harsh at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sticking with oppose, but nothing like the fiasco with RHMED should ever happen again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Casliber and Brad. Other remedies are sufficient for now, in my view. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cautiously opposed at this stage. I think if Aitias takes on board the lessons of this case, he has the potential to be perfectly acceptable administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Excessive at this time. Per Sam, what happens next depends on whether Aitias can improve his working relationships with other administrators. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Due to my inability to support any currently proposed findings. --Vassyana (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I still find myself unable to support sufficient findings. --Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias's suspension confirmed

1.1) Aitias's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of "time served," i.e. from the date he returned to editing until the close of this case. Aitias's adminship shall be restored with the closing of this case, subject to the other remedies contained in this decision.

Support:
  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fine with this if the above fails. Wizardman 04:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to oppose. 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Dependent on whether remedy 1 passes, obviously. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Distant second choice. As I stated above with my R1 vote, I think that a RFA is for the best. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. Risker (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Time served? That sounds more punitive than preventative, and it seems like a legal fiction besides. Are we trying to say that Wikipedia needed to be saved from his mop until the moment this case closes? I would more readily conclude that the desysop was an unneeded precaution than support a supposedly preventative remedy for "time served." Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Cool Hand Luke. On reflection, time served is not appropriate here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Alternative proposed for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to my inability to support any currently proposed findings. --Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I still find myself unable to support sufficient findings. --Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias admonished

2) Aitias is admonished for his conduct, and is warned to be more civil when dealing with other users.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The incivility was clearly inappropriate, especially from an administrator. It is borderline for a formal ArbCom adminition, but in general I would like to see an improved level of civility all over the wiki, and this is certainly more reasonable than a desysopping. (As a matter of copyediting, I might change "warned" to "instructed" or "urged"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Note this is not in conflict with a desyssop. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Noting that admonishment is the severest level on the scale of warnings. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Second choice. First choice due to new evidence.[reply]
  7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. The goading and baiting behaviour seen in the evidence relating to RMHED is unacceptable under our civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not convinced a formal admonition on this count is necessary. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to my inability to support any currently proposed findings. --Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I still find myself unable to support sufficient findings. --Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Less sarcastic possibly. There's not much incivility. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias admonished

2.1) Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments, and is warned to avoid such comments in the future.

Support:
  1. Offered as an alternative, as a number of us are of the view that civility doesn't seem to be the best descriptor here. The important thing is that Aitias learn to raise points of disagreement with other administrators without resorting to these forms of language. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal pref to 2. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice. Risker (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As in 2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vassyana (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias admonished

2.2) Aitias is admonished for repeatedly posting to the administrators' incidents noticeboard to call for increased sanctions against a user he was in conflict with, for taking the dispute to the talk page of the blocked user, and for his repeated failure to disengage from said dispute when asked, to allow others to handle it. In addition, Aitias is warned to avoid inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments, and to be more civil when dealing with other users.

Support:
  1. Trying to cover all bases here. This remedy should follow from principle 5 (Feuds and quarrels), though specific principles about noticeboard conduct and conduct on the pages of blocked users might not go amiss. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. somewhat specific, but in theory yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 18:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal first choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal first choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal first choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per my other remedy votes, though I note that barring the final sentance I would otherwise support, as I have supported relevant findings. --Vassyana (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias restricted

3) Aitias is not to participate at Requests for rollback, including its talk page, for six months.

Support:
  1. Since rollback has been an issue. Wizardman 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think a rest from this area is good given divergence of opinion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is probably in everyone's best interests, though in and of itself it might not have warranted taking the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Note I added the talk page, feel free to remove if anyone objects. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Technically, that link (WP:RFR) is a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Other requests are processed there, and in the interests of avoiding any wikilawyering, I think it would be simplest to extend the Wikipedia-page topic ban to the whole of that page. Agree with extending topic ban to Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Disagree if Rlevse meant Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature. It is my view that if Aitias wishes to discuss the view that higher standards should be used when granting rollback, he should be free to raise that, but should do so in general and discussing past requests, and should not be discussing specific and active requests. I believe there is also a loophole here: Aitias (and any admin) can, I believe, grant and remove rollback outside of the requests process ('"You may approach any administrator and request this permission; however, administrators found in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests have specifically indicated their willingness to consider such requests when approached on their talk pages (or via e-mail)."). So Aitias could grant rollback outside the requests noticeboard. Similarly (from the requests page): "If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard" - we really need to make clear whether Aitias can raise concerns at ANI about rollback or not. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Risker (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Due to my inability to support any currently proposed findings. --Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I still find myself unable to support sufficient findings. --Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement

1) Should Aitias continue to engage in incivility or violate the topic ban, then a motion to desysop may be considered.

Support:
  1. Presuming the desysop doesn't pass. Wizardman 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. important if desysop doesn't pass, as it highlights it was a near thing and considered seriously by the committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Casliber, although really this should be a remedy rather than an enforcement provision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Naturally, this is always an option. Also noting it does not apply here if the desyssop does not pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Moot; we retain jurisdiction and may consider further motions as necessary in any case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. Semantics, really. Aitais should realise he is on notice over this, and this being proposed does make it clear. But we shouldn't need to say this in every case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill and Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill and Carcharoth. I'd probably see it as if he's under ArbCom probation. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I appreciate the opposes, but I fail to see the harm in stating it. --Vassyana (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs to be moved to a remedy. Not needed since we always retain the ability to modify our rulings. But no harm in stating it here. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Passing at this time:

  • Proposed principles: 1-8 (4 due to abstention)
  • Proposed findings of fact: 1, 2.1, 3, 5, 6
  • Proposed remedies: 1.1, 2.1, 3
  • Proposed enforcement:

Not passing at this time:

  • Proposed principles: none
  • Proposed findings of fact: 2 (2.1 has more support), 4
  • Proposed remedies: 1, 2 (2.1 has more support)
  • Proposed enforcement: 1

Vote

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. Placemaker really, others will follow when ready. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close; everything that's going to pass has passed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close, the new additions have been decided on. Wizardman 21:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose until Risker's new proposals are voted on by a majority. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. I think everything is present. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close, the alternatives have now been voted on by a majority. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Close in 24 hours from this vote. Risker (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose for at least 24 hours to allow arbitrators to consider the new proposals which don't differ significantly from those they have already agreed upon, and so should be able to "overtake" the prior proposals relatively easily if they more closely match what the arbitrators feel is appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Opposing because the desysop remedy can still technically pass with the three remaining votes. Closing a case shouldn't be done when full voting can still alter the outcome. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose temporarily to allow a bit more time for review of the new proposals. But we are getting close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose close for a little while longer. Another arbitrator has requested some time to review the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Carcharoth. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for 24 hours while arbitrators have the opportunity to review and vote on new additions. Risker (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to support closing in 24 hours. Risker (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Move to oppose until Risker's new proposa are voted on by a majority. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Proposed_decision&oldid=1226821860"