Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:26, 19 February 2021

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

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 by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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 online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Preexisting disputes

2) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit disputed issues to be imported into its encyclopedia articles or to affect the pursuit of its purpose. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing of articles

4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the Reliable sources or Content Noticeboard should be used.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Civility

5) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

National and territorial disputes

6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally and participate in talkpage discussions.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Personalising disputes

7) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

8) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

9) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General sanctions

10) Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time ArbCom has weighed in on GS in its principles and I think the drafting arbs for this statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct during arbitration cases

11) The arbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it depends on the arbitrator, we generally allow a bit more leeway on cases, but that's not a blank check to behave contrary to basic decency and to further embitter disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David's point that there is a range of behavior that is tolerated at ArbCom. However, that range does have limits. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior at articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, especially at Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute has resulted in a strained editing environment featuring assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and incivility. It is further characterized by tendentious and battleground editing, with frequent accusations towards perceived opponents of pushing points of view for or against Kurds and Kurdistan. Finally, there have been extensive disputes as to the validity of sources, although the Arbitration Committee notes that assessing the suitability of individual sources is not within its jurisdiction.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Valereee's source restriction

2) Valereee imposed a source restriction at Syrian Kurdistan [1], which was within reasonable administrative discretion under a general sanctions authorization.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this was a point of concern for parties in this case. I have some level of concern with "bespoke" DS/GS sanctions but for me a source restriction is a standard GS/DS sanction at this point and so I do not have a concern as a general point with this sanction. Nor do I think it was inappropriate given the evidence at the time of imposition. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

GPinkerton

3) GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring (e.g. [2][3][4][5]) and personalizing disputes (e.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]) for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. GPinkerton has been blocked on multiple occasions [25]. The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic from the Middle East post-1453 AD [26]. GPinkerton has since violated the topic ban [27][28] and received multiple warnings from an uninvolved administrator [29][30].

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Thepharoah17

4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor,[31] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[32][33] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[34][35][36], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[37][38][39][40] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[41]

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم

5) عمرو بن كلثوم has edited tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area, by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[42][43] and by pushing anti-Kurd POV.[44][45] On three occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2020, عمرو بن كلثوم has been blocked for conduct in the topic area, which included edit-warring. [46][47][48][49]

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Two of the blocks mentioned here are from 2015 and then nothing until December's partial block. If the December block hadn't happened I wouldn't support including that at all. December's partial block does put this in a new light, but I still think the large gap is important context for that last sentence. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the timing of the blocks explicitly in the finding. @Primefac and BDD: does that change your vote? Maxim_(talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for verifying. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness

6) Supreme Deliciousness has engaged in tendentious editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area. This pattern of editing has centered on the misuse of sources [50][51][52] as part of a broader battleground-style approach to article edits [53][54] and talk page discussion [55][56][57]. Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked on two occasions for conduct in Kurds and Kurdistan topic area [58][59][60].

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this but I will note that the one of the blocks (the 1 hour one) is not something administrators should make a habit of doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Paradise Chronicle

7) Paradise Chronicle has accused other editors of pushing extreme views without evidence.[61][62]

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

GPinkerton: decorum at arbitration case pages

8) GPinkerton's conduct during the case repeatedly fell well short of expectations. On multiple occasions, GPinkerton antagonized other parties to the case [63][64][65], and was subsequently issued warnings by arbitrators [66][67]. GPinkerton has further refused to follow the norms of the arbitration process by submitting and maintaining an evidence submission far greater than the limits on words and diffs [68][69]. As a result of these actions, an arbitration clerk removed a portion of the evidence submission which exceeded the prescribed limits on words and diffs [70].

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Standard discretionary sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

GPinkerton banned

2) GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Is there evidence of disruption outside of this topic area? I think the topic ban is definitely called for given the pattern of disruption documented. The disruption during this case suggests a ban may be necessary but it also all could suggest that a topic ban would be sufficient to stop disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The indef block in December is not based only on conduct in Kurds/Kurdistan topic area, and the topic ban following the unblock is Middle East post -1453. The diffs in FoF show similar conduct across multiple topic areas. Maxim_(talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton topic-banned

3) GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Regardless of whether Remedy 2 passes, this is an area in which GP should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Thepharoah17 topic-banned

4) Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم banned

5) عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

I don't think there is enough of a pattern of misconduct to support a banning. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم topic-banned

6) عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Regardless of whether Remedy 5 passes, this is an area in which AIK should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Supreme Deliciousness banned

7) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned

8) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Regardless of whether Remedy 7 passes, this is an area in which SD should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Paradise Chronicle reminded

9) Paradise Chronicle is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) by Barkeep49.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority): Principles: All; Findings: All; Remedies: All; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

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

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

Support

Oppose

Comments

@@ Line 449: / Line 449: @@
 :Oppose:
+:# I don't think there is enough of a pattern of misconduct to support a banning. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
-:#
 :Abstain: