1) When an editor has a concern about another editor's behavior, it is generally appropriate to contact that editor privately and attempt to discuss the issue before initiating a more public discussion of it. Generating additional drama by making premature public proclamations is unhelpful.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits editing from open proxies; these may be blocked at any time for a significant duration. At the same time, users editing from open proxies do not face sanction solely for that act; their behaviour from those proxies must be taken into consideration. This constitutes an acknowledged 'gap' in policy: proxies are prohibited from editing, but those who use them are not.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. But are we being deliberately vague re: hard vs. soft block? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) In the course of CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s RFA, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posed a question regarding the former's use of Tor, based on information that he had obtained through unrelated use of the Checkuser tool. The question, and CharlotteWebb's failure to adequately respond to it, likely affected the outcome of the RFA. Subsequently, a large number of IP addresses used by CharlotteWebb, apparently including both Tor and non-Tor ones, were blocked.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Although Jayjg was aware of CharlotteWebb's use of Tor for a considerable time prior to the RFA, he failed to initiate any discussion with her regarding it until his public question there.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) While Jayjg's question did not constitute an actionable violation of the privacy or Checkuser policies, its timing resulted in an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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) The Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time.

Support:

1. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Jayjg is admonished to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice Fred Bauder 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. SimonP 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Everything now has the required majority to pass except for "Jayjg admonished" (which was superseded by "Jayjg reminded" which does pass). Newyorkbrad 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Close. Seems done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. SimonP 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Kirill 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]