Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license as defined by the parts of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that pertain to licenses. Media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria (formerly known on Wikipedia as "fair use criteria").

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mostly fine, but the parenthetical closing bit is not correct (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Fine with this. I don't mind going along with Carcharoth's change either. NW (Talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree with the spirit, but recommend Carcharoth's alternative. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. WP:FUC (an initialism of Fair Use Criteria) redirects to the non-free content criteria, so I'm not entirely sure why this principle is inaccurate. In any event, the meaning seems clear enough to me. AGK [•] 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The non-free content criteria are stricter than fair use criteria, and the two should not be equated. This is actually made clear in the policy itself: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." This is also made clear at the longer policy page : "Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than U.S. copyright law [...] This policy allows such material to be used if it meet[s] U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations." This is the reason that those discussing non-free content criteria try to avoid referring to them as fair use criteria. So the parenthetical bit should just be dropped. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you're technically correct about the difference between the two points, I believe Hersfold is adding that because that is the term used by a significant part of the community, and it is better to acknowledge that fact rather than have someone misunderstand that the two terms are regularly used interchangeably. Wikipedians use all kinds of phrases and expressions in a non-standard way (consider the name of this committee, for example, which doesn't do arbitration but instead some uniquely Wikipedian dispute resolution process). Risker (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was to avoid using the term 'fair use' incorrectly that those Wikipedians that discussed such matters (I was one of those, when I participated in such discussions a few years back) consciously adopted the term "non-free content criteria" instead (to be used in place of 'fair use', while still recognising that fair use formed part of the rationale). The terms shouldn't be used interchangeably. That they are can be noted, but it shouldn't be endorsed. FWIW, the original policy was named 'fair use' and was renamed following (as far as I can tell) two discussions in 2006 and 2007: 1, 2. Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing parenthetical is an artifact of earlier decisions (beginning with Abu badali) written when these pages were still evolving. At this stage, Carcharoth's point is correct. I've taken the liberty of changing "also known" to "formerly known" which is more accurate; revert if undesired; and I'm also okay with removing those words altogether if preferred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"formerly known" is fine. To answer AGK's point, the reason the FUC redirect points at NFCC is because that was the earlier name and it was renamed from one to the other (see the links to the renaming discussions I provided in my 03:09, 10 March 2013 comment), not that they are equivalent. It is a bit pedantic, as NFCC with respect to text is much closer (often identical) to US fair use provisions when compared to NFCC with respect to images, but it is a distinction that has confused editors in the past so it is important to be clear on this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that copyrighted or otherwise non-free media may be used only under strictly defined circumstances. Such media must not be of high resolution, must provide significant value to one or more articles, and must not be easily replaceable by a freely-available equivalent. Wikipedia:Non-free content states that brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea," but notes that all such uses must be accompanied by an appropriate citation and must not be excessively long.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Trivial copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. With minor copyedit. AGK [•] 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) The policy Wikipedia:Copyrights states "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Specifically for external links, this is further explained in the guideline Wikipedia:External links: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of that work's copyright, do not link to it."

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With the caveat that Wikipedia policies and Arbitration Committee decisions may be based in part on legal considerations, but do not constitute legal advice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Added copyedit and comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. AGK [•] 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

It should be noted that determining whether a site is hosting a legitimate copy or is infringing copyright is not a trivial matter. Sometimes it can be obvious. Sometimes a site is legitimately hosting a copy, usually indicated by them correctly attributing the copyright or having paid a license to use the copyrighted material. Sometimes the only way to be sure is to find an official site where the copyright notice equates to that of the site hosting the material in question. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) While Wikipedia works on the consensus model, certain policies that have legal implications (including Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) may not be overruled by local consensus or personal preference. However, questions regarding whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decided by the community. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions that are believed to violate policy can be appealed.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Trivial copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is a statement of how this works in practice (comment below). Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. AGK [•] 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sometimes the local consensus can incorrectly determine whether particular content is in violation of policy, which isn't great. The supposition being that ultimately if the copyright holder objects to the right people (i.e. OTRS or the WMF) and the objection is considered valid, then the material will get taken down regardless of local consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor who is the subject of an Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 23:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. With comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes, I broadly agree with this. NW (Talk) 16:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. The key word here being may. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

It would be better to keep sanctions the same, but shorten the appeal times for long-term contributors. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with that sentiment, which is why I generally oppose principles such as this one. I've proposed it here, not because Richard has been editing for a long time, nor because he has a very high edit count, but because he has acknowledged his errors and noted that he is willing to make an effort to improve. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said keep the sanctions the same for everyone regardless of tenure or level or type of contribution. Currently, the wording says that the 'positive and valuable contributions' may affect the sanctions. I'm saying make them affect the restrictions on when an appeal is allowed. i.e. if the standard sanction would be a one year ban, do that regardless, but let the contributor with a proven track record appeal earlier than someone with a lesser record. Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a strong case that sanctions really do need to be tailored sometimes to a contributor's overall record, but as it's not going to affect the outcome here and we are near closing, we can have that discussion another day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6) Per the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction over Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia. However, the Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia, if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Support:

1. Rephrased slightly from Courcelles's proposal on the workshop. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. But bearing in mind that this refers to seriously problematic conduct elsewhere, and certainly does not include legitimate commentary on or criticism of the project, nor (except in exceptional circumstances) conduct entirely unrelated to Wikipedia.Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. NW (Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 21:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. It seems like a pretty obvious extension to our appraisal of off-wiki activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kirill ^[talk] 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since 2004. During his time on Wikipedia he has made well over 100,000 edits on a variety of subjects.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Never really been a fan of findings that chronicle a contributor's wiki-career, but I see why this one is necessary. AGK [•] 21:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kirill ^[talk] 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been responsible for adding or linking to copyrighted content, including both text and images in various forms, to Wikipedia since 2005 (Fram's evidence, Carrite's evidence). A substantial number of these additions have been found to be in violation of applicable policies, and have resulted in a block in 2006, two Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCIs) (one for images and another for text), and a community-issued topic ban from creating new articles.

Support:

1. The last sentence of the original proposal on the workshop ("At the time of this case, neither CCI has been completed.") has been removed from here; as Courcelles pointed out, that process is set up in such a way that these CCI's remaining open is not entirely unusual in itself. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. With the caveat that I do not believe that each and every example offered in evidence is a violation, nor do I believe that occasional violations of our very complex free-content and non-free-content policies and their interpretations constitutes misconduct. Our policies (like copyright law itself) have plenty of gray areas and places where reasonable editors can disagree. Unfortunately, however, the number of copyright-problematic contributions by this editor, and the clear nature of the violations in some of them, go well beyond any reasonable benefit of the doubt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Newyorkbrad and Hersfold. Risker (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. With NYB's caveat. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. NYB's point is worth making, and perhaps should be in one of the findings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per NYB Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. I echo my colleagues' comments. On the face of it, CCI is less a dispute resolution process and more a method of building evidence for suspicions of widespread copyright abuse. AGK [•] 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also added a link to the community discussion that led to RAN's topic ban. AGK [•] 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11. — Coren ^(talk) 23:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kirill ^[talk] 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has done little to contribute to resolving the alleged copyright concerns listed at the Contributor Copyright Investigations concerning himself (Garion96's evidence). When asked about his work on the investigations, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) provided two diffs demonstrating his work ([1] [2]); however, the first of these edits comments out, but does not remove, copyrighted text.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Trivial copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Con. WTT, I consider contributors to have a personal, direct responsibility to fix their own mistakes (and I believe the community considers likewise). RAN has not fixed the majority of his errors with copyright, which is problematic in and of itself. AGK [•] 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Like AGK, I believe that it is always ultimately one's own responsibility to clean up after one's mistakes; leaving the work to others is not only profoundly unfair, but also quite a bit disrespectful. — Coren ^(talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kirill ^[talk] 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. (ec) What AGK said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I can't quite get behind this, though I don't oppose it. I generally think that an editor who is subject to a CCI would do much better to learn from the experience and modify their behaviour than go back and fix the mess themselves. The finding is not incorrect, but I do not believe it is necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think the idea here is so much "clean up your own mess" in a pejorative sense, so much as "you are interested in these topics and you have access to the sources, so you may be among the most qualified users to make the needed changes to these articles." Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It's certainly a more positive slant on the idea, and I would encourage Richard to help out in CCI. However, I still don't believe this requires a finding. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

4) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) was blocked three times for violation of his topic ban on article creation. This case was opened following a report at the Incidents noticeboard of another violation: [3].

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. AGK [•] 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Coren ^(talk) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kirill ^[talk] 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) After this case was opened, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) stated that he accepts that improvements in his editing are needed and is willing to accept restrictions to prevent further incidents.

Support:

1. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Added "After this case was opened," to the beginning, per NYB below. Feel free to revert if you disagree. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. It's accurate, but paints a skewed picture of the actual difficulty in getting RAN to admit to his mistakes. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps add "After this case was opened," at the outset? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Coren. Kirill ^[talk] 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I suppose this is broadly accurate, but RAN has also been markedly slow at acknowledging his own failings and errors—which is part of the problem we are faced with. I see where this finding is coming from, but I worry that—considered in vacuo—it gives an inaccurate impression. AGK [•] 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   See my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.

Support:

1. While the sheer scale of the copyright violations committed by Richard is probably enough to merit a ban, I am not proposing one for a few reasons. First and foremost, he has stated that he acknowledges the errors he has made and is willing to improve upon them. Such self-awareness and commitment to improve is rare at Arbitration, and should be given significant consideration. Secondly, while not all parties to the case agree, a few editors familiar with Richard's history have noted that he's made some improvements since the topic ban was enforced. Thirdly, Richard's help is sorely needed to clean up the remaining copyright violations, and banning him would prevent that from happening. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Though I do not believe there is much rope left. Courcelles 23:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. At a minimum. If this case returns to us with problems recurring, more would be required. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weak support. All things considered, I'm not wholly convinced we shouldn't be site-banning RAN. However, this decision as it stands is a feasible solution. AGK [•] 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per AGK. Kirill ^[talk] 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'm not convinced that this suffices, or that RAN actually understands the severity of the violations he has committed, but given that 2.2 is passing and that the topic ban remains in place, this will suffice. — Coren ^(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2.1) The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt to curb his text-based copyright violations, and further recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times. However, in an attempt to more directly address the issues presented in this case, this sanction is suspended for a minimum period of six months. After at least six months have elapsed, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may appeal to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted in full. However, if, by the consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is found to have created an article that contains copyrighted content, the suspension will end, and the topic ban will be assumed under the Committee's authority.

Support:

1. Equal preference with 2.2 below. I drafted this proposal partly based on comments by Carrite and a few others that the topic ban was doing more harm than good; it has certainly reduced Richard's copyright issues, however that could largely be due to the fact that he hasn't been editing anywhere near as much since the topic ban was enacted. It appears to have a chilling effect of some sort on him. This would act as a sort of "parole"; he can go back to creating articles, and if he is able to demonstrate that he can do so without causing more problems, then the topic ban will be lifted entirely. However, if he does cause further issues, the topic ban will be re-enacted with full force, this time as an Arbitration remedy, in addition to any other sanctions he may face for the copyright violations themselves. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. First preference. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. 1st choice. I see this as allowing Richard to put into place and test his understanding of copyright issues (which should be acknowledged in this case as sometimes quite difficult to judge) without fear of immediate sanction, while at the same time allowing the community topic ban to be taken over and enforced by ArbCom should there be "issues". I do wonder, though, if there will be a problem in assessing when to move from parole to ArbCom taking over the topic-ban. I would hope that Richard is not sanctioned too quickly, but also that there isn't too much delay in moving back to the topic ban in case of significant problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm OK with trying this out. First choice. NW (Talk) 16:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm willing to give this a go, in light of the fact that I oppose 2.2 Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal preference with 2.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not in light of FoF 4. Courcelles 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. We can't force RAN to help with the CCI, but 2.2 at least gives him some incentive to. This one doesn't. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 2.2. And it is not necessary to create articles to demonstrate understanding of copyright. That can be done elsewhere, and then used as part of any appeal to lift such a restriction. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. The thinking behind this proposal is, "RAN has violated his topic ban, which was really bad, and we admonish him for doing so. We're also vacating his topic ban, so he can have at it." That strikes me as fundamentally backwards. Prefer 2.2). AGK [•] 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Prefer 2.2. Kirill ^[talk] 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. In favor of 2.2. — Coren ^(talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with T. canens. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Both 2.1 and 2.2 are plausible outcomes, but I wonder if there should be some intermediate proposal, under which Richard Arthur Norton would be permitted to create a limited number of articles at first, using reading available sources so that others could ensure that the sourcing and any use of copyrighted material is proper. If he displayed proper practice going forward, the restriction could then be loosened or lifted. Or something along those lines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially the intention of 2.1. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2.2) The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt to curb his text-based copyright violations, and further recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times. This topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority. After at least six months have elapsed, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may appeal to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted in full; in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

Support:

1. Equal preference with 2.1 above. I'm proposing this in response to some comments regarding the above proposal made on the Workshop; a number of people pointed out that since Richard has recently violated his topic ban, hasn't done very much to help the CCI's, and any improvement could be explained by a simple decrease in activity, there are no actual grounds to have the topic ban lifted in any form. These are all also valid points, I believe, and so this remedy will require some significant work to the CCI pages by Richard before we will consider lifting the ban. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second preference. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. 2nd choice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. NW (Talk) 16:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Feasible and balanced. Only choice. AGK [•] 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't think that suspending the case is useful, RAN needs to take positive steps to improve the situation, not just avoid trouble for a while. — Coren ^(talk) 23:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kirill ^[talk] 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Equal preference with 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do not believe forcing a person to work on CCI is a Good Thing^TM, which is a pity because otherwise I prefer this motion. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   See my comment on finding 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee notes that media files can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a project which is outside the jurisdiction of this Committee. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement as if the image were uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia in violation of this remedy. This shall apply retroactively to all images currently uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to the Wikimedia Commons at the time this remedy is enacted, but shall not apply retroactively to any uses on the English Wikipedia in existence at the time this case closes.

Support:

1. We can't forbid any activity on Commons, however we can forbid activity that impacts the English Wikipedia. See also my more detailed comment below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Although I might be open at some point to a proposal that could allow Richard Arthur Norton to upload a limited number of images (perhaps limited to images that could not be located and uploaded by someone else) after clearing their copyright status with another trusted editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. This has the added advantage of making the media available to other projects, as well. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may want to consider seeking out a mentor with significant focus on copyright amongst Commons users in order to develop a better understanding of image copyright, should he elect to upload images to that sister project. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. As Hersfold points out below, Richard can use Wikipedia:Files for upload. A long term period of successful use of Files for upload would aid a future appeal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. NW (Talk) 16:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per SilkTork. AGK [•] 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kirill ^[talk] 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. — Coren ^(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

This is probably a bit confusingly worded, so I'll explain. When I discussed the PD with Courcelles last night, we noticed that Richard has a very large number of deleted uploads over at Commons as well; unsurprisingly, (almost?) entirely for copyright reasons. For this reason, I was originally opposed to an outright ban, as I felt such a remedy would simply be foisting our troubles over to Commons. However, Courcelles pointed out that free images uploaded here will usually be transferred over to Commons anyway, so it wasn't making much difference other than adding more work to the people and bots that do the transfers. This remedy will prevent Richard from uploading a copyrighted or improperly licensed image to Commons and then using that image here on the English Wikipedia. If he does so, and that image is later identified as having copyright issues, he can be blocked for violation of this remedy. He may also be blocked if, after this case closes, he uses any image uploaded before this case, that is likewise found to have problems. He may not be blocked over any current usages on the English Wikipedia. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: There is WP:FFU, which he could probably use as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning this in the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think so, though someone might want to point it out to him. I have made some copyedits to the remedy that are not intended to change the meaning of it. NW (Talk) 18:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies; if accepted, another editor may add these links as desired.

Support:

1. This will prevent contributory copyright infringement, which has apparently been an issue as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. This would not necessarily solve the problem if the external pages that Richard Arthur Norton creates themselves violate copyrights. Editors reviewing links proposed by Richard Arthur Norton should bear this in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Courcelles 23:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Enforcing this will require some care. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would be nice if this were an across the board thing; this has come up before. NW (Talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. AGK [•] 21:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kirill ^[talk] 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. — Coren ^(talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) The community is strongly advised to hold a binding discussion on the subject of quoting copyrighted material in articles, most specifically on how long such quotations should be to still qualify under the terms of fair use, and how to more effectively handle cases where an editor has created a large number of copyright issues.

Support:

1. Added the last bit to the original workshop proposal as it seems clear that the way CCI currently functions is not an ideal solution at all, and something needs to be improved there. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do feel ArbCom should stop advising the community to do things. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per SilkTork. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. In part per SilkTork. I also think that it will not be possible to come up with a "binding" decision on this matter because many of the cases need to be considered individually; a two-sentence quote from a 10-sentence article is not the same as a two-sentence quote from a 500-page book. Risker (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't really think binding rules on quoting are going to be possible to construct. A process of getting uninvolved editors to evaluate specific cases would be useful, but I fear the nuances will make a binding RFC a waste of time. Courcelles 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. A binding discussion is a poor fit for this. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per comments above. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. I sympathise with the thinking behind this proposal, but I also share SilkTork's concerns. However, an overriding counter-argument to this remedy is that existing policies and guidelines in this area are not really deficient. The problem is confined to one user and his misunderstanding and misapplication of those policies. AGK [•] 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill ^[talk] 23:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Binding decisions are only useful in cases where there is a set number of clear alternatives to choose from. — Coren ^(talk) 00:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per other comments above, my comment on a similar proposal in the Doncram case, and MLauba's comment on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per recent vote in the Doncram case. If we want to force the community to have a binding discussion we can, but I generally dislike measures that fall short of that (and that's not to say that I would support such a measure in this case). NW (Talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'd be interested in knowing how often this issue arises and is disputed, outside the context of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It arises fairly often, and has often been the topic of discussion in audited content processes. I'm not entirely sure this is workable, though, given the wide range of materials that are quoted. I'm very hesitant to consider mandating a "binding" solution, particularly given the generally poor response to recommendations addressed to the community as a whole over the years. Risker (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

1) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year; after the third block issued under this provision, subsequent blocks issued under this provision may be of any duration, including indefinite. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement (where a consensus of uninvolved administrators will determine the result of the appeal), or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Support:

1. Due to the severe nature of copyright violations and the long history of this situation, I am proposing this more severe version of the standard enforcement provision. Typically serious copyright violators are blocked indefinitely, and while administrators will be free to do so w/r/t Richard outside of arbitration enforcement for typical copyright issues (and are encouraged to do so with Remedy 1 above), the standard enforcement provision does not allow such a block. This special enforcement provision allows that determination to be made after serious and repeated violations of the remedies of this case. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Risker (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 23:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. NW (Talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. I appended "(where a consensus of uninvolved administrators will determine the result of the appeal)" to "thereafter to arbitration enforcement", to make it clear we expect appeals to be decided by a consensus of administrators. This codifies usual practice, which is why I made this clarification through a copy-edit and not through a new proposal, but feel free to revert if there are objections. Per talk page. AGK [•] 11:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 11:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kirill ^[talk] 23:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. This supersedes the standard enforcement provision for this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC) by User:SilverLocust.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Free-use and fair-use content	10	0	0		·
2	Non-free content criteria	10	0	0		·
3	Linking to copyright violations	10	0	0		·
4	Policies with legal considerations	10	0	0		·
5	Sanctions and circumstances	9	0	0		·
6	Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee	9	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	10	0	0		·
2	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s copyright history	10	0	0		·
3	Contributions to Contributor Copyright Investigations	9	0	1		·
4	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has violated his topic ban	10	0	0		·
5	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has acknowledged errors	9	0	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) strongly admonished	10	0	0		·
2.1	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation	5	4	0		2	[1]
2.2	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation	8	1	0		·	[1]
3	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from uploading images	10	0	0		·
4	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from referencing external sites to which he has contributed	10	0	0		·
5	Community discussion on copyrighted material	1	7	1		Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Special enforcement	9	0	0		·

Notes

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

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Everything necessary seems to have been voted through (or down). With thanks to Hersfold and Courcelles for drafting this decision. AGK [•] 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. T. Canens (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 23:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Things are still chaotic here with the builders so I won't get a chance to go through all this and vote until tomorrow at the earliest. Best to mark me inactive on this one so I don't hold it up.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]