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

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

Case clerks: Amortias (talk) & Miniapolis (talk) • Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (talk) & DeltaQuad (talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. Seven support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

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

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). 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 require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss

1) Because Andrevan (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Passed 12 to 0 on 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support:

1. Now that Andrevan has resigned both tools, there is really no reason to continue the case. If there are any other conduct issues they can be handled by the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Given his resignation, this seems appropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
3. The piece the community couldn't solve was an examination of admin/bureaucrat. That is now moot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Worm^TT(talk) 06:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
6. This settles everything that actually needed a case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 13:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
9. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Arbitrator Mkdw (talk · contribs) by email – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Arbitrator Euryalus (talk · contribs) by email – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments from arbitrators:

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 14:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC) by Miniapolis.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

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

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments