Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Catflap08 and Hijiri88

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 26 July 2018 (fix s tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & Jim Carter (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Standards of editor behavior

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions

3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Another version of the standard "serious accusations require serious evidence" principle. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Interaction bans

4) Interaction bans are intended to stop conflicts between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way (aside from the standard exceptions). This includes making reference to the other editor (directly or indirectly), and undoing edits by the other user (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This works now. Courcelles (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm going to land here given that "in any way" does not line up with the standard exceptions to bans. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
@GorillaWarfare: would you accept an amendment that mentions WP:BANEX to resolve Courcelles's concerns (which I agree are legitimate)? LFaraone 18:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. Very reasonable point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles: Do you still have an issue with the wording of this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

5) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This could be stronger than "not desirable" Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've upped not desirable to disruptive as I doubt anyone would oppose such a change. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Canvassing

6) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It can also be problematic to selectively notify parties "friendly" to the notifiers position. Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hounding

7) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavor to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
It is also acceptable to follow if you think in good faith there are major continuing problems; Hounding is only doing it to be disruptive or because of a personal quarrel. It can be difficult to distinguish this from a good fait attempt to deal with problems. The usual criterion for hounding is also following up where there are no problems, or looking for minor unrelated problems. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

8) "Forum shopping" is the raising of essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively. It is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, as well as various noticeboards.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As a result also spilled into some areas involving Korean culture but no qualms about the above. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between Catflap08 and Hijiri88

2) There has been an ongoing conflict between Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) since June 2014. The two parties have repeatedly been the subject of attempts at dispute resolution. (Blackmane's evidence)

Support:
  1. Slightly repetitive of 1, but illustrates the extent to which dispute resolution has been unsuccessful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 interaction ban

3) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) are subject to a two-way interaction ban, placed on 17 April 2015 after a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08 has violated the interaction ban with Hijiri88

4) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly breached the two-way interaction ban. ([1], [2], [3], [4])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08 has forum shopped

5) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has requested comment and dispute resolution for the same issues repeatedly, both across different fora and on a single page. ([5], [6], [7])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. LFaraone 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08 has edit warred

6) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has edit warred (on Kenji Miyazawa: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]; on Kokuchūkai: [15], [16], [17], [18]).

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True though very slow-moving. More a failure to WP:BRD. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Slow edit wars are still edit wars. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ala Euryalus. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also per Euryalus. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Seraphimblade. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88 has violated the interaction ban with Catflap08

7) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly breached the two-way interaction ban. ([19], [20], [21], [22])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88 has edit warred

8) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has edit warred. (on Korean influence on Japanese culture: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]; on Kenji Miyazawa: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]; on Kokuchūkai: [37], [38], [39], [40])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Borderline, tbh. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True as a statement of fact, but a fair while ago as Doug Weller observes. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Factually correct, but noting that it was some time ago. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. These seem all to have occurred 2 days in early May, I don't see a continued pattern. Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Added more diffs for this. @Doug Weller: You may wish to review your vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior

9) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has engaged in personal attacks and incivility, ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) and has issued a threat of on-wiki retaliation. ([47])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88 has canvassed

10) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing. ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weakly. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. with the new evidence --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Two examples of an editor approaching another editor (the same one both times) aren't sufficient evidence of canvassing. Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think there's enough here to support a finding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On balance. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Per new diffs. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure this sort of outside requests for input is a strong enough form of canvassing to support a FoF. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Is there more examples of this? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, Euryalus, and Guerillero: I've just added some diffs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980 has edit warred

11) TH1980 (talk · contribs) has edit warred. ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True as a statement of fact, but a fair while ago. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Again, with the consideration that it was quite some time ago. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 6 months ago is to long ago to consider here. Doug Weller (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edit warred, yes. Showing a pattern of it rising to a level for a finding of fact? No. I see a two day edit war which would have resulted in 1 block if enforced, and then I see 2 reverts. I'm looking for an established pattern, not a one or limited time issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

TH1980 has hounded Hijiri88

12) TH1980 (talk · contribs) has engaged in hounding of Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). ([62])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With the standard disclaimer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CurtisNaito has edit warred

13) CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) has edit warred ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69])

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True as a statement of fact, but a fair while ago as Doug Weller observes below. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is the same May edit warring mentioned above, too stale. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stronger than TH1980, but must oppose for similar reasons. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Catflap08: Topic ban (I)

1) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If and only if topic ban II does not pass. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08: Topic ban (II)

2) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:
  1. First choice. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to above. Overbroad but but preferable to having neither of these pass. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not think this is necessary, but would like to propose it in case other arbitrators would prefer a broader scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. too wide. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think casting the net this wide is necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Catflap08: 1RR

2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:
  1. Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)

3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:
  1. If topic ban II does not pass. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2nd choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice LFaraone 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)

4) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would prefer this was broader, to "Asian culture", or even broader than that. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1st choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Really it's broadly the intersection of korean and japanese culture and the intersection between them, but such a topic ban would be near impossible to enforce consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeForeigner (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice LFaraone 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. too wide DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88: 1RR

5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Euryalus (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

TH1980: One-way interaction ban

6) TH1980 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or commenting on Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This needs to be two-way; one-way interaction bans are not useful. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per courcelles. This is something we have tried before and failed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would support as a two-way Iban, if proposed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ditto. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. One way interaction bans do not work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I wish these would work, but historically they haven't and i don't see anything novel here to suggest it would, unfortunately. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As above. LFaraone 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. By principle only. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned

6.1) TH1980 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:
  1. If needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Better than one-way bans. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. By principle only. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CurtisNaito: 1RR

7) Subject to the usual exceptions, CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except CurtisNaito's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Euryalus (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think this is necessary at this point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wouldn't solve a current issue. LFaraone 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per FoF comment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrators encouraged

8) Administrators are encouraged to more strictly enforce the interaction ban between Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GorillaWarfare, I think we should explicitly take over this iban as an arbitration remedy, thoughts? Courcelles (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I wouldn't have an issue with courcelles's suggestion --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. @Courcelles: I'd say go for it. I have to agree with Seraphimblade, but not enough to oppose this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'd rather take over as an AE ban, but if we don't this isn't in any meaningful sense a remedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. More strictly than what? This is too vague. LFaraone 22:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. It's good advice but I don't see it as requiring a specific Remedy. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
@Courcelles: I'm not really sure why that's necessary, but I'm also not opposed to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LFaraone: More strictly than they've been enforced, which has been minimally. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, 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.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. 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 longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, 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

General

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

These notes were last updated by GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) by User:WOSlinker.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Standards of editor behavior 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Criticism and casting aspersions 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Interaction bans 10 1 0 PASSING ·
5 Edit warring 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Canvassing 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Hounding 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Forum shopping 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Catflap08 and Hijiri88 interaction ban 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Catflap08 has violated the interaction ban with Hijiri88 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Catflap08 has forum shopped 9 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Catflap08 has edit warred 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Hijiri88 has violated the interaction ban with Catflap08 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Hijiri88 has edit warred 8 1 0 PASSING ·
9 Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior 10 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Hijiri88 has canvassed 5 3 0 NOT PASSING 1
11 TH1980 has edit warred 7 2 0 PASSING ·
12 TH1980 has hounded Hijiri88 8 0 0 PASSING ·
13 CurtisNaito has edit warred 7 2 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Catflap08: Topic ban (I) 6 0 0 PASSING · [1]
2 Catflap08: Topic ban (II) 2 4 0 NOT PASSING 4 [2]
2.1 Catflap08: 1RR 7 1 0 PASSING ·
3 Hijiri88: Topic ban (I) 2 0 0 NOT PASSING 4 [3]
4 Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) 9 1 0 PASSING ·
5 Hijiri88: 1RR 8 1 0 PASSING ·
6 TH1980: One-way interaction ban 1 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.1 TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 CurtisNaito: 1RR 3 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
8 Administrators encouraged 4 4 1 NOT PASSING 2
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING 6 Passes by default
2 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING 6 Passes by default
Notes
  1. ^ Not counting two support votes contingent on Remedy 2 failing
  2. ^ Not counting two support votes contingent on Remedy 1 failing
  3. ^ Not counting six support votes contingent on Remedy 4 failing

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 needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. looks done to me. Let's carry over one less thing to 2016 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think we've done all that needs doing here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88/Proposed_decision&oldid=852068256"