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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
2) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.
3) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.
4) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.
5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from repeatedly undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.
6) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behaviour are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behaviour of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
7) {text of proposed principle}
1) Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly shown poor judgment in using his administrative tools. His behavior includes wheel-warring ([1]), incivility and unacceptable commentary in log summaries ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), abuse of protection ([9], [10]) and blocking ([11]) to further his viewpoint in a content dispute, inappropriate removal of protection ([12]), and unwillingness to respond to good-faith community concerns ([13], [14]).
2) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the community-banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the Committee.
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
1.1) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated after three months, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
1.2) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means.
2) For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are suspended for one month. Alkivar is instructed to review polices related to the use of administrative tools during the period of the suspension. Future reports to the Arbitration Committee about consistent poor judgment in performing administrative actions will cause the administrative tools to be revoked.
3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is banned as a meat-puppet of JB196.
4) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Alkivar&page=Image%3ADrew+Pinsky+New.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Alkivar&page=Image%3AFront.jpg){kind=link}