This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexandria (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 19 October 2007 (→Questions to the parties: proposed one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question from Kwsn

Here's one that has bugging me now that I think about it. I'll admit both KC and Ferrylodge have been very uncivil towards each other, but the thing is, who was uncivil first? I'm not saying incivility towards one justifies it back, just more of curiosity. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Polls are Evil

1) Voting on something should be avoided and instead be discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See m:Polls are evil. The fact that Ferrylodge's ban was essentially voted is why I'm proposing this. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The sarcastic side of me feels the need to point out that the arbiters will vote during the decision process. ;) Voting on some things is ok. Voting whether to expel a user is bad, particularly when there is no way to measure whether the voting population is representative of the total population. Community bans either need to be approved by a representative unbiased body (something like arbcom) or by unanimous consent (aka no admin is willing to unblock). --B 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually they discuss behind the scenes if you look at the arbcom page. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And there was a quite a bit of discussion on Ferrylodge too. In fact, there were multiple discussions about him, over a long period of time. It's not like someone one day just said "Oh hai, Ferry can has banz? Vote plzkthxbai." There was discussion. Seems like a finding of fact where one needs not be made. ⇒ SWATJester 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A case of Considered harmful? My comments regarding FerryLodge at WP:CSN were made under the impression that community discussion is neither a poll nor a vote, but an opportunity for opinions to be heard and consensus possibly reached. Odd nature 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. ArbCom should definitely not determine that polls are evil, since this is a contentious issue (some, particularly wikidemocrats, believe that voting is a tool) and not policy. Perhaps a principle like Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy/Past decisions#Consensus can be adopted, though. Melsaran (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

What I saw in the Ferrylodge case was a plausible attempt at consensus. What would have been better? An indefinite block made by a single admin? A block issued from a secret committee meeting of anonymous people?

There was discussion of the issues and no plausible defense of Ferrylodge was made. Suggest a better process. --Pleasantville 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think an important distinction needs to be made: it's not polls that are inappropriate, but, rather, polls in isolation. If polls have no place at all on Misplaced Pages — especially polls involving a user — then, obviously, something needs to be done about the current Request for Adminship system. The point is that Requests for Adminship are not solely determined by the number of "support" and "oppose" votes. They are decided upon evidence: the strength of the nominator's statement, the candidate's reply to default and user-submitted questions, and comments which voters may leave. If the RfA process were nothing more than an out-of-context vote, then, yes, there would be an issue with it. However, because RfAs are centred on discussion and the presentation of evidence, they give users a solid basis for considering the candidate and then making a reasoned vote.

In the case of the CSN request, I think it was the discussion, not the vote, which was the basis of FM's decision to go forward with the block. The vote was just a quick show of hands to reaffirm what had already been confirmed by the earlier discussion. It was a tool for getting a sense of the overall directionality of the opinions that had been expressed without having to retread a lengthly discussion.

I do think we are losing sight of the real issue that is at hand, getting sidetracked by considerations of process, and not focusing on the evidence. This is not "Requests for arbitration/Community sanction noticeboard." It isn't the right venue for trying to reform the use of polls on Misplaced Pages either. The question is whether Ferrylodge has a long history of incivility and disruptive editing, and, if so, what response this warrants. This is what the question was at the time the CSN request was filed and I believe it is what the question being asked now needs to remain. -Severa (!!!) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this process should be about Ferrylodge, not a poll on the evils of polls. --Pleasantville 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too broad. There is consensus that the polls on CSN were inappropriate - that's why it was closed - but this case should not be passing judgement on polls in general, it's not within the scope of the case. --Tango 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... not really needed here.--B 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bans are a last resort

2) Bans are a last resort and should be used sparingly.

2.1 Site bans re a last resort and should be used sparingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What kind of bans? ⇒ SWATJester 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Any kind of bans. Within the category of "bans" there are varying degrees of severity, but you shouldn't use any kind of ban until you've exhausted the alternatives. --Tango 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Heartily disagree then. A topic ban is not a last resort (instead of a site ban, which one can argue is.)⇒ SWATJester 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, there are degrees of severity within bans. A site ban would come after a topic ban, sure, but a topic ban would come after any non-ban resort. --Tango 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 2.1, more clear, and should be something everyone can agree on. Kwsn(Ni!)

Community ban defined

3) A community ban occurs when a user has exhausted community patience, is indefinitely blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock them. The community may discuss a ban at a suitable forum, but if an administrator in good faith is willing to unblock, the user is not considered banned and the issue should be remanded to the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is our ban policy and has always been our ban policy. --B 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's how I've always understood the policy. The way CSN worked, however, would suggest a rather different interpretation (based on community consensus, rather than opinions of individual admins) - perhaps that's why CSN didn't work... --Tango 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support, though should it be remanded to additional dispute resolution? as not all cases are going to be ready for arbcomm. --Rocksanddirt 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, CSN acts as a form of RFC on the issue. Mediation likely won't work out or has already been tried. I personally see nothing wrong with going from CSN to Arbcom directly; in fact we should consider updating the DR process as such. ⇒ SWATJester 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed from time to time, there has always been some uncertainty concerning the parameters of community banning. One line of thought (supported by at least one ArbCom decision) is that a community ban is in effect only where no administrator is willing to unblock the user, or put differently, all admins (who have actually looked at the matter) support the ban. Another line of thought (supported by at least one other ArbCom decision) is that a community ban is in effect where the overwhelming majority of admins who look at the situation support the ban, even though there might theoretically be some admin willing to unblock.

This is more than a purely technical distinction. If the first definition is used, then any administrator is at liberty to unblock a putatively "banned" user, even if the admin knows that he or she is acting against consensus—which can lead to disputes among admins, and the need to pursue arbitration against users whose disruptive editing could otherwise be addressed "by the community." If the second definition is used, then administrators would be expected to abide by consensus, where there is one, when considering unblocking, as is usually expected in contentious block situations not involving bans. (An exception might be a limited unblock for the purpose of allowing the user to file an arbitration case.)

The distinction also goes to how a ban is enacted in the first place. Under the former definition, a block can ripen into a ban if an admin blocks, someone suggests a ban, and no one then unblocks for the purpose of testing the ban. A "community decision" (in whatever forum such discussions take place in at the time) would not be required. Under the latter definition, a community ban is in place only if there is some form of community consensus in some recognized forum to enact it.

In my mind, I have reconciled these two conflicting lines of thought by assuming that a community ban agreed upon at WP:CSN (or wherever) was of deeper standing, i.e. could not be overturned by a single administrator, than one enacted merely informally. However, I do not believe that this is actually written in policy anywhere.

In any event, the proposed principle is probably a bit of a stretch on current practice. If there is an ANI discussion concerning a user, 99 out of 100 commenting editors support the ban, but one who is an administrator dissents and is willing to unblock, does that mean an arbitration case is needed to address the matter? Newyorkbrad 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If 99 editors commenting support the ban and only one does not, I seriously doubt there would be an administrator willing to unblock and if there were, he/she would not be an administrator for very long. But even in that case, the whole problem here is that there is the potential for only one side to be heard from. It would be hard to get 99, but think about the first Daniel Brandt DRV after Yanksox's deletion. It looked like the community overwhelmingly endorsed that action, but really all it meant was that IRC was sending people over here by the truckload to endorse it. If I ask the question, "should user X be banned" and ten people who don't like user X show up and answer yes, that doesn't mean that the community has reached a consensus - it only means that the people who don't like user X did a good job of showing up quickly. That's not enough to infer anything. That's why our court system has a jury make decisions rather than trying cases at a town hall meeting. A community-discussed ban shouldn't be overturned without good reason, but that safeguard needs to be in there, otherwise we are merely AFDing people and bans are determined by the tyranny of the heckler. --B 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who does not share Wikipedian-norm beliefs on the appropriateness of concealing identity, I have a hard time understanding how Misplaced Pages can allow binding and significant decisions to be made by anonymous and/or pseudonymous people individually or collectively. Conflicts of interest and things like outside affiliations among groups can be judged within the context of WIkipedia based only on fragmentary and inadequate information. Similarly, conflicts of interest and affiliations of those subject to such actions, Ferrylodge for example, cannot be openly discussed because as he has stated in the Washington Post, he chooses to remain anonymous. This policy toward anonymity forces subjects that are properly part of any kind of informed community decision making into a sort of Wikipedian collective unconscious.

While the Ferrylodge ban is not the place to define what might be healthier policies on pseudonymity, I think the problematic nature of having processes like these in which a significant portion of the participants conceal their affiliations should be noted at least in passing. Perhaps it should be noted that in the Ferrylodge process a higher proportion than usual of the participants had checkable identities. (SwatJester, Tvoz, and myself, at minimum.) --Pleasantville 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really an alternative. We could require people to give real names and disclose any affiliations, but actually checking them would be very difficult (people can check for themselves if they care enough, but a central check would be pretty impossible), and it would quite likely reduce the number of contributors enormously. (Personally, I don't hide my identity and see no reason to, but I think we are in a minority there.) --Tango 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues concerning anonymous/pseudonymous editing strike me as having nothing to do with the questions presented in this case. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-react to Ferrylodge's remark about lack of affiliation with any organization (or some such). --Pleasantville 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

4) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Supported, and it's not just one sided for this case either. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you added # 4.2.8 KillerChihuahua has been uncivil but didn't add # 4.2.9 Ferrylodge has been uncivil, then. KillerChihuahua 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

No consensus on CSN

1) There was significant, but not overwhelming, support for a ban on CSN. The case was closed too soon for a true consensus to be gauged. Following the closure, many people expressed concern that the closure was premature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: I have no opinion on the speed of closure, but there was little indication that substantial support for Ferrylodge's behavior was emerging. While some expressed concern that closure was premature, this seemed to be a procedural quibble presented in lieu of substantive arguments in defense of Ferrylodge; substantive arguments which had also been lacking in the initial process. Arbcom has already agreed to hear the case, so speed of CSN process is now irrelevant, since the RfA is about whether to un-ban Ferrylodge, not whether to keep the CSN process. --Pleasantville 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There were multiple people expressing opposition to a ban - according to Odd Nature's evidence, the raw numbers were 14:4 (I haven't counted it myself), that's less than 78%, far from overwhelming. "Consensus" does not mean "majority". Closing a discussion that soon should require overwhelming support, not just large support. This is not about CSN in general, it's about this particular CSN, which is very much what this RfAr is about. The block was made on the grounds that CSN supported it, if that isn't true, then the ban was incorrect and should be overruled. --Tango 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

True decision-making by consensus, as I was trained in it as a board member of an organization that operated by consensus, is a system whereby a single participant in a discussion can block consensus by refusing to agree with the majority; true consensus can only be reached if those who do not agree with the majority agree to abstain in order to avoid blocking consensus. Misplaced Pages's version of "consensus" does not adhere to that strict standard; what is referred to on WIkipedia as consensus is in fact somewhere between consensus and democracy. I think that given the way the word consensus is used on Misplaced Pages, a consensus was reached. --Pleasantville 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Agree 100% with Pleasantville and that's the whole problem here. The most important thing is that there was no agreement among uninvolved users. Prior to the block, I don't know that anyone who doesn't edit articles from that topic area had even commented on it. There was plenty of support after the fact, but I don't know how much you can read into that other than that people like to pile on. Including uninvolved users is essential - otherwise there is no precaution against an unpopular (as opposed to a disruptive) user being banned or a ban being used as a tool in a content dispute. This is the same reason that criminal trials have a selected jury instead of a jury of whoever happens to show up at the trial. A community ban is either unanimous (or, at least, no admin is willing to unblock) or it needs to come to arbcom. I honestly don't think that this particular finding needs to be included because no community ban actually occurred. Arbcom should instead focus on what, if any, sanctions they would like to impose. --B 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Strongest possible disagree, There was a clear, even overwhelming consensus that Ferrylodge was to be banned. ⇒ SWATJester 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you call 78% after a very short period overwhelming? It's not even enough to get through an RFA without raised eyebrows. --Tango 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And that number that Odd nature proferred is high since there were many editors (as I've outlined on the evidence page) that were also in favor of a topical ban/revert limit. Taking those editors into account, the consensus to ban is not "overwhelming", nor truly "significant". --Ali'i 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When the Daniel Brandt DRV was snowed, the count was 17-6, or, not similar to this one, and the closing admin was banned for ten days as a result. --B 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the closing admin edit warred over the closure - without that, I doubt there would have been a ban. --Tango 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This proposal is flat wrong, ignores easily verifiable facts: At the time FeloniousMonk instituted the ban, the community was 14:4 in favor of a ban: After ~35 hours of discussion showed support for a community ban ran at 15:1: At 48 hours when the discussion was closed total support for a community ban of FerryLodge was 22 in favor and 7 opposed: Odd nature 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How many of those were users who had little/no contact with Ferrylodge prior to the ban discussion? (And no, unlike the other recent unpleasantness, I would not count myself among that number.) --B 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote numbers at me. I know the numbers - I referenced them already. I maintain that 14:4 is not overwhelming. I am not ignoring facts, I am interpreting them. --Tango 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So you would argue that 140 users in favor of something to 40 users against something is not overwhelming support for the "in favor" side? ⇒ SWATJester 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The changing of the numbers is absurd. It wasn't 140 versus 40. Yes the percentages are the same, but the numbers are waaaaaay different. (We don't have 100 more people in support of something, we have 10) But, the 14:4 number is disputed anyway. As I've evidenced on the evidence page, there were 10-12 people in support of a lesser topical ban/revert limit (depending on if you count KillerChihuahua and the anon IP opinion). --Ali'i 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When the criterion is meant to be "consensus", no. If we go by the RFA definition of consensus (as good a definition as any, if you don't like the real one), the minimum required is 75%, so 78% is not overwhelming, it barely enough. 78% after a long and full discussion might be enough to call it a "consensus", but to cut a discussion sort after just 18 people have commented, it would need to be overwhelming, not just barely enough. --Tango 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No support for CSN

2) The closure of the noticeboard shows that the community does not support it as a method of determining consensus on bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This makes a certain sense, but under the MfD closing and as I understand the thrust of the discussion, matters that were formerly addressed on CSN will now be discussed on ANI. Other than perhaps greater editor traffic on ANI than CSN attracted, I am not sure how the process of discussion on ANI will differ from that which took place on CSN. Newyorkbrad 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In theory, it should be the same. In practice, CSN worked very differently to AN/I, and AN/I should continue to work as it always has - discussion, not voting. --Tango 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

disagree. the function of the CSN was remanded to the WP:AN/I simply to avoid the pretense/appearance of the "ban people I don't like" board. The same discussions with same level of consensus are going on now. --Rocksanddirt 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. AN/I is now the location of the same process of determining consensus for a community ban. What particular page it was on is irrelevant. ⇒ SWATJester 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This proposal is over-reaching and irrelevant. At the time the ban was made WP:CSN had been in operation and accepted for many months and bans resulting from discussion there still stand to this day. Any subsequent MFD of CSN is not relevant to outcomes made there prior. The net functions of CSN, community bans, were simply shifted to where they were made beforehand, WP:AN/I. The venue is irrelevant to the outcome, only the level of community participation and consensus is relevant. Odd nature 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk was uninvolved

3) FeloniousMonk was an uninvolved admin when he blocked Ferrylodge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FeloniousMonk was not uninvolved. Even if we overlook FeloniousMonk's participation at the CSN prior to blocking Ferrylodge, FeloniousMonk also told Ferrylodge in June: “I suggest that you avoid throwing around inflammatory accusations like ‘KC's edit summary is blatantly false.’ They constitute personal attacks.” Regarding that accusation by FeloniousMonk, please note that KillerChihuahua started using that phrase “blatantly false summary,” and please note that KC’s incorrect summary was ultimately corrected by another editor. In any event, FeloniousMonk was making very serious accusations a very serious and false accusation against Ferrylodge in June, and thus was not uninvolved when he banned Ferrylodge in September.Ferrylodge 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(moved)I don't know if I am a "party" or an "other", but I will just say I feel FeloniousMonk was involved. And that he was aware that involved admins should recuse themselves from blocking. Is this the right place to discuss this? E kala mai if it is not. --Ali'i 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali'i: You're not listed as a party on the main case page, so I think you're an "other". He was involved in the CSN, he wasn't involved in any of the events leading up to the block - expressing an opinion during a discussion does not make one involved in the subject being discussed. --Tango 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does. If an admin were to delete an article in an AFD he participated in, it'd be sent to DRV almost immediately if someone said keep it. By participating in the discussion, FeloniousMonk can not be considered a neutral admin when he blocked Ferrylodge. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Community bans are very different to AfDs. CSN is an advisory process - the decision to ban is with the admin (see the principle about the definition of a community ban if you disagree). In AfD, an admin just determines the result of the AfD, their personal opinion is irrelevant. Look at how similar discussions work on AN/I - an admin comes along and says "I'm thinking of indef blocking User:X, what do people think?", a few people comment, and then the original admin makes the block. CSN being considered as if it were AFD is why it got closed.--Tango 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge: An admin giving someone advise about not making personal attacks does not make them involved. Am I not allowed to block vandals after I've put warning tags on their user talk pages? (Yes, simple vandalism is different to an established editor doing something wrong, but the basic principle is the same.) --Tango 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. He had nothing to do with the dispute between Ferrylodge and Killer Chihuahua, nor Ferry's tendentious editing. Tango summarizes it VERY well above. ⇒ SWATJester 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. FerryLodge holds out FeloniousMonk's prior warning to him as proof he was too involved to make the block: Yet that is exactly the sort of warning an admin is expected to make and FerryLodge uses a common tactic some editors try to avoid being blocked by spinning any prior comment into grounds for recusal (The admin blocked me and I don't think I should have been blocked because he warned me once before... he's an involved party!) . This tactic occurs all the time. There's no evidence that FeloniousMonk blocked on anything other than the basis of his reading of the discussion at CSN. That he once warned FerryLodge does not make him an involved party. Odd nature 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If FeloniousMonk's support of the ban is taken into account in the "consensus", I can't possibly see how he is uninvolved. --Ali'i 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One opinion doesn't make much difference. If 14:4 counts as consensus, then it's reasonable to say 13:4 does too. --Tango 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What if two of the people supporting the ban were sock puppets? Is 12:4 sufficient consensus? --B 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See why we don't assess consensus numerically? It just doesn't work. --Tango 09:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If B thinks that sockpuppetry among those forming the consensus a real possibility, shouldn't B make a checkuser request? Otherwise B's hypothetical situation is a red herring.

Here is my tally of those supporting. The roster of those supporting a ban in the final poll is: jossi (admin), Odd nature, Pleasantville (real name Kathryn Cramer), OrangeMarlin, Filll, KillerChihuahua (admin), Severa, EdJohnston, ornis, SWATJester (admin) (real name published by the Washington Post & the NYT), Jim62sch, Avb, Tvoz (real name published by the Washington Post), dave souza (admin), FeloniousMonk (admin). Others whose positions could be construed to be supportive the ban at one point or another: Durova (admin), Andrew c (admin), Raymond Arritt (admin), bbatsell (admin), Guettarda.

I don't see where B is getting two possible sock puppets. On superficial inspection, all seem to have substantial track records. Did I miss anyone? --Pleasantville 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that a few of those users are also OTRS volunteers and are personally known to the foundation.⇒ SWATJester 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. I do not recall FeloniousMonk having crossed paths with Ferrylodge during a content dispute. There are 1,355 admins out of 5,600,000+ registered accounts and chances are that any admin with a 16000+ edit count is going to have run into a user with a 8000+ edit count somewhere before. FeloniousMonk registered his concerns with Ferrylodge, but, the point is that the comment was a one-off. It would be a lot different if FeloniousMonk had frequented abortion and pregnancy-related articles or Ferrylodge evolution and intelligent design-related ones — and, moreover, that they had a history of disagreement on these articles. Then the apppropriateness of FeloniousMonk enacting the ban would have been questionable. -Severa (!!!) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ferrylodge's comment makes no sense. He seems to feel that no admin can take action more than once on a given issue. That is, if I warn someone about disruptive behavior, that disqualifies me from taking action if the behavior continues. Patently absurd. Thatcher131 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge was unable to respond

4) Ferrylodge was not given enough time to defend himself on WP:CSN

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is important, he said he'd be on vacation at the beginning of the discussion, and thus was unable to properly defend himself. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't know how far arbcom needs to go here. The issue really should be looked at without prejudice. In other words, arbcom should focus on what, if any, sanctions should be imposed on Ferrylodge, not merely whether process was followed. I really despise the CSN board, but I don't want to go invite every troll ever banned there to come back and contest it. --B 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If the CSN was done correctly, then there is a community consensus to ban, and ArbCom would just go along with that consensus. The validity of the CSN is very much an issue here. --Tango 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He did defend himself, so this is simply untrue. Perhaps we wasn't able to defend himself fully, but he did defend himself. --Tango 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. First of all, he did defend himself there, he was specifically unblocked for it. Do not confuse him having no defensible position for him not having time to make a defense. Secondly, Ferrylodge's proper time to defend himself was the weeks before when he was being a tendentious editor. Had he behaved himself properly he would never have reached CSN in the first place. Once he was there, it was no longer an issue if he had no time to "defend himself"....he had months to defend himself. ⇒ SWATJester 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts Do Not Support - Ferrylodge added 15,555 bytes of material to the CSN discussion on sept 21 between 5:57 and 6:08. If none of that was a proper defense/counter of the request/explaination of why he shouldn't have participation restrictions what else can be done? --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts Do Not Support' - Though I disagree that he didn't have time, since he composed a substantial amount of prose during the time available to him, I agree that during that time he did not properly defend himself. Ferrylodge identifies himself as an attorney and so can be reasonably be expected to know that he should have argued convincingly in his own defense. Instead, for reasons I will not speculate on, he did something else. --Pleasantville 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. FerryLodge commented 8 times: Then FerryLodge ended his participation in the discussion prior to the ban being instituted: Odd nature 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. MastCell unblocked Ferrylodge for the purpose of participating in the CSN discussion and he wrote 20 paragraphs in his own defense. However hasty the CSN request closure might have been, Ferrylodge was given the opportunity to defend himself, and moreover he did defend himself. -Severa (!!!) 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely unable to respond is obviously false. "Did not have have adequate time to address all points" is probably more accurate. Even better would be "there was not sufficient time for a complete discussion" as this covers all bases. --B 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ali'i was incivil

5) User:Ali'i was incivil toward and harassed the administrator who instituted the ban and replied with more incivility when asked to moderate his tone

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter in this context? I don't know that a finding is needed here regarding anyone other Ferrylodge, the blocking admin, and possibly the one who proposed the ban, but that only if it has some mitigation on Ferrylodge's own conduct. --B 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom has long taken into account behavior of non-named parties, especially when they gratitiously fan a conflict's flames. Odd nature 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? Pot calling the kettle black? If you have an issue with my behavior, I humbly request that you follow the appropriate course of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, and quit maligning my name in the meantime. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali'i is not a named party to this hearing. Unless you would like to add the user (and propose to arbcom to add), I think this finding doesn't belong. My feeling is that the user's conduct should be evaluated by a community discussion prior to being added here. --Rocksanddirt 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This would only seem to me to relevant if Ali'i were suspected as a Ferrylodge sockpuppet. Is that the case? If not, this is just a distraction. --Pleasantville 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Pleasantville. Unless Ali'i = Ferrylodge, this is beyond the scope of the arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant. We can deal with simple incivility without ArbCom's help, this case is for the more serious issues. --Tango 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's relevent because it shows FerryLodge's supporters using the same method of harassment and incivility on his behalf and in his stead. Odd nature 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's supporters are not the scope of this Arbcom. Ferrylodge is.⇒ SWATJester 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above ... only relevant if there is sock puppetry involved, which there almost certainly is not. --B 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... if Odd nature has any, any, evidence that Ferrylodge is a sock (or, I guess I would be the sock since he's been around longer), I humbly request that he present that as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's Arbcom precedent that a party's actions make them party to a case, regardless of whether they are named or not. Odd nature 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The incivil remarks made by Ali'i to FeloniousMonk do not reflect poorly on Ferrylodge by association. As I stated earlier, this case is about Ferrylodge, so we should concentrate only on incivility by or toward him. Ali'i's incivil comment is worthy of consideration but it should be addressed independently of this ArbCom case. -Severa (!!!) 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge ban is justified by Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time

6) Proposed: Separate from issues of CSN procedure, Ferrylodge ban is justified by Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time. --Pleasantville 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's not a fact for the finding of facts section. --B 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is exactly a finding of fact. It's certainly not a principle or a remedy. ⇒ SWATJester 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where should I put it? Remedies doesn't seem right. But this is the real core issue. --Pleasantville 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is your conclusion, the finding of fact could read something like "Ferrylodge has edited disruptively based on X and Y" or "Ferrylodge has (whatever Ferrylodge did). Then the remedy could be something like "The community ban on Ferrylodge is endorsed" or "Ferrylodge is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of (time)". (Again, as above, I'm just suggesting wordings, not commenting on the merits. Although at the end of the day, the arbitrators will come up with the wording, so editors don't necessary need to spend too much time on the little details or remedy wording if the ideas are clear.) Newyorkbrad 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this should be split into a fact and a remedy. --Tango 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

19 hours is not long enough to establish a consensus

7) Whereas Misplaced Pages has over 5,000,000 editors, and

Whereas Misplaced Pages has at least 45,000 active editors (based on September 2006 statistics, and a conservative linear rate of growth), and

Whereas active editors do not or cannot always utilize Misplaced Pages every single day of the week, and

Whereas Wikipedians do not all edit in the same time frame of the day, and

Whereas a Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause cannot be used based on opposition to a proposal,

Be it resolved by the Arbitration Committee that 19 hours is not a long enough time period to establish a true consensus of the entire Misplaced Pages community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. E kala mai for the style. ;-) --Ali'i 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible disagree. Sets WAY too strong a precedent. Can you imagine us having to wait 24 hours before emergency desysopping someone because of this rule? How about an RFA as an accounts first edit? We have to wait 24 hours to Snowball Close that? It's not within the scope of this arbitration to set a bright-line rule as to what the minimum length of time is before a consensus is reached. If 100 people agree with something in 5 hours, and zero disagree, we have a consensus by definition. Furthermore, this would automatically kill the concept of WP:SNOW by placing an arbitrary limit on how long one must wait for a consensus to be reached. Also, we're not writing a UN resolution here.⇒ SWATJester 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty strong disagreement. :-) First, Misplaced Pages does not run on precedence. Second, I am not placing an arbitrary limit on how long it takes consensus to form... I am simply stating that in order to gauge consensus of an entire community, it takes longer than 19 hours. Emergency de-sysoppng is a red herring. The snowball clause is a strawman argument in this context, and opposed by some Wikipedians altogether. But I'll amend the proposal above. And I believe I am allowed to style my proposal how I please. (Plus I already apologized for it ;-) )--Ali'i 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It is outside of the scope of this arbitration to determine what the appropriate time period for a CSN discussion would be. -Severa (!!!) 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about the community sanction board here... I am talking about a "community consensus". Ever wonder why ArbCom/Board votes take a long time? It's because we want to allow everybody a chance to participate, and understand that gauging the consensus of an enormous community should not be rushed through. --Ali'i 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No-one is disagreeing with that. It's the wording of the proposal that we don't like - saying "19 hours is not long enough" is far too precise and restrictive. A general principle about not rushing decision making would be fine. --Tango 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Too general a statement to be so precise. A vaguer principle along the same lines could be written, but this is far too restrictive. --Tango 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's outside the scope of this proceding. --B 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua has been uncivil

8) KillerChihuahua has been uncivil to Ferrylodge on multiple occasions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, see Ferrylodge's opening statement. It is within the realm of the case as KC is a party. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Ferrylodge's ban is upheld

1) The community ban on Ferrylodge is upheld.

1.1) Ferrylodge is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but I do not support. See below for reasonings. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First choice. It should have been upheld in the first place. ⇒ SWATJester 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both, but proposing 1.1. As per my comments above, below, and elsewhere, a community ban only occurs when no admin is willing to unblock. --B 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But prior to the request for this hearing, no admin was willing to unblock? So, he was community banned. Then based on either a change of heart or someone else getting involved the situation changed, and the community ban became subject to review. --Rocksanddirt 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows if an admin was willing to unblock. The question was never asked that I am aware of. I didn't even know about the discussion until after the fact. Prior to the request, no admin had expressed a willingness to unblock, so I suppose in that sense he was community banned, but that condition has already ceased to exist so there's no longer anything to uphold. --B 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I like number 1 better than 1.1. --Rocksanddirt 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per B, 1.1 is better. Ferrylodge is *not* community banned, since there is an admin willing to unblock. You can't uphold something that doesn't exist. --Tango 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my impression from reading Ferrylodge's talk page that the intention was to allow unblock solely for the purpose of arguing in his own defense in terms of initiating and pursuing this Arbcom case; it was NOT for the purpose of removing the stigma of a community ban. --Pleasantville 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is currently unblocked soley for arbcom purposes, but three admins are willing to unblock permanently, thus the arbitration. --B 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this, but since he was community banned, and since arbitration is binding, for the arbcom to uphold the ban would constitute the ban being extended into a site (rather than community) ban. ⇒ SWATJester 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording used in the past has been along the lines of "The community ban of X is endorsed" or "The Arbitration Committee endorses the community ban of X". (Not commenting on the merits, just the form, as with various proposals below.) Newyorkbrad 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Support 1. and/or 1.1. Odd nature 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's ban is overturned.

2) The community ban on Ferrylodge is overturned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but I do support this one. Just doing this cause I know someone else will down the line. The second reason I'm doing both is because one of these two outcomes pretty much has to occur (this one would have to be with another remedy probably though). Kwsn(Ni!) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Ferrylodge will come out of this case either banned or not, but there is a difference between "Ferrylodge's community ban is overturned" (which might suggest that the arbitrators believed it was unfair in the first place) and something like "Ferrylodge is unblocked and placed on probation" (which would be more along the lines of "there was a big problem but we will give him another chance"). (Not saying that I would or wouldn't support either of these; just discussing the possibilities.) Newyorkbrad 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, per NYB. Will be unnecessary if Remedy #3 is adopted. ⇒ SWATJester 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this one for a different reason - it confirms that a ban took place and legislates a change in the definition of a community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no admin is willing to overturn. This is an important safeguard to keep in there because it's the only protection against a ban being used as a weapon in a content dispute. --B 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a remedy for this page, it is fine. I do think that it will not pass the committee unless something else does with restrictions on participation. --Rocksanddirt 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and disagree with the rationale behind it. Evidence provided here and at WP:CSN shows a long pattern of troublesome behavior which he seems unlikely to abandon given his unwillingness to take full responsibility for it, and lesser remedies appear equally unlikely to make a difference. Odd nature 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge restricted for six months

3) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. He limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternate to ban, text borrowed from the Chrisjnelson - Jmfangio aka Techmobowl case. --B 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second choice. Would rather see 1 year, and would rather see restrictions much more strongly include protections against harassment and abuse of administrators. ⇒ SWATJester 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and disagree with the rationale. Again, evidence provided here and at WP:CSN shows a long pattern of troublesome behavior which FerryLodge seems unlikely to abandon given his unwillingness to take full responsibility for it, and lesser remedies appear equally unlikely to make a difference. Odd nature 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All editors reminded

4) All editors, particularly those who edit controversial topics, are reminded to be civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There's plenty of incivility all around in this topic area. --B 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem much like a remedy to me as much as a mix of a principle and a remedy. ⇒ SWATJester 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this kind of remedy is normally used to mean "We haven't forgotten about the incivility, and we recognise that it is a problem, but we've decided not to take any action on it." --Tango 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge censured

5) Ferrylodge is censured, and strongly admonished not to harass other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Something needs to be done to protect against future harassment by Ferrylodge. ⇒ SWATJester 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only needed if no other action is taken against him, which seems unlikely. --Tango 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for any action taken against him other than a site ban. Even then it's not inapplicable, it just is superseded by the fact that he can't edit. ⇒ SWATJester 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A censure is a warning, it doesn't make sense to warn someone and punish them at the same time. --Tango 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too light a remedy considering the scope of his harassment of others, with at least leaving the project due to his behavior. Odd nature 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge voluntarily backs away

6) Ferrylodge voluntarily backs away from editing Misplaced Pages thereby removing the need to either reimpose or overturn the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Unlikely, I know, but it's still a possibility, so I'm bringing it to the table. It may even work as a "best of both worlds" sort of solution. As the saying goes, "When faced with only two options, sometimes the best choice is neither." It neither opens the door nor closes it entirely. -Severa (!!!) 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not something ArbCom can impose. By definition, only Ferrylodge can decide that Ferrylodge will do something voluntarily. If Ferrylodge makes such an offer, ArbCom may well drop the case, but it's not something can can be voted on as a remedy. --Tango 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree ... this one doesn't really make much sense. As a matter of human dignity and doing the right thing, I wish we didn't feel the need to leave {{indefblocked}} and other similar templates on user talk pages. It isn't too terribly big of a deal when a user doesn't use their real name, but for someone who edits under their real name, butting that template on their page is a horrible thing to do to the person - it potentially shows up if a future employer googles them. Being banned from Misplaced Pages doesn't mean that we should set out to ruin your life. So to that extent, I think that if the ban is upheld, Ferrylodge or anyone else ought to be able to request a courtesy blanking of their user page, but to impose a voluntary action just doesn't make sense. --B 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree per B and Tango, but also by the fact that it requires that we assume a colossal amount of good faith, more I fear than our endless fountain has to offer. ⇒ SWATJester 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I never intended to suggest that this remedy be imposed — only to highlight it as a possibility for consideration. I've never participated in an ArbCom case before, so I'm still a little unsure of how, exactly, this process works. I was under the impression that the workshop was a place for brainstorming through all the potential options, but, if it's limited to only those actions which could practically be carried out by the ArbCom, I don't mind it if you strike this section out so as to take an inviable idea out of the running. Sorry. -Severa (!!!) 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Not likely given the fact he brought this RFAR, and it lacks teeth if he changes his mind. Odd nature 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali'i is warned

7) Ali'i is warned to remain civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You just did. Mahalo for the reminder, Odd nature. :-) --Ali'i 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Beyond the scope of the arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Swatjester. -Severa (!!!) 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is topic banned

8) Ferrylodge is banned from editing articles related to pregnancy, abortion, and American politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't have an opinion either way, but it was one of the options on the CSN that got some support, so just proposing it here as well. --Bobblehead 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Topical ban 2

9) Ferrylodge is banned from editing articles related to pregnancy and abortion. If Ferrylodge is unsure if an article falls within this scope (for instance, such as an article on a court case that deals with "right to privacy"), he is required to seek administrative approval before editing the page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have seen Ferrylodge contribute constructively on American politics articles, so I propose this topical ban instead. It seems to be where the real "disruption" is alleged. And had some support on the sanction board too. Tweak the wording? --Ali'i 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the administrator approval portion necessary? Any participant in arbcom is always welcome to request clarification and I'm not sure it is necessary to spell that out in a remedy? --Bobblehead 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all the discussion about how swamped and overloaded arbcom was, I thought I'd give 'em a break, but I would be fine with the removal of that sentence. --Ali'i 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocking for violation

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, borrowed from Jmfangio case --B 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say lower it to "After 3 blocks..." rather than 5. People need to be helped to learn faster. --Ali'i 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative 1.1 created. ⇒ SWATJester 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is inconsequential since, in any event, the blocking admin can use their best judgment. --B 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they can when discretion is preempted by an Arbcom enforcement procedure. That happened to me recently. I enforced a parole violation by block on the Azerbaijan arbcom, that as it turned out (I did not know this at the block time) had a "first 5 blocks up to 1 week" clause. Since my block was for the reason of parole violation, it follows that the first 5 blocks should be up to 1 week. Therefore, my block (which was longer than 1 week) was overturned and reduced to the 1 week length. (I believe it was the 5th block). Now if the wording says "at the discretion of the blocking admin somewhere" we might have a different story. But since it says "shall increase to one month" after five blocks, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. ⇒ SWATJester 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. 5 blocks is too many, too high a threshold. 2 blocks is more appropriate. Odd nature 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for violation

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Moving 1.1 to new section, from above. --Tango 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3 blocks is still too high a threshold. Odd nature 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: