Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 20 January 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 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. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of editor behaviour

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:

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 personalised, 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 forum.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

No personal attacks

4) The policy no personal attacks outlines that editors are expected to comment on content and conduct, not the contributor themselves. In particular, the policy prohibits using one's affiliations as a means of discrediting their arguments.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Inappropriate canvassing and notifications

5) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. In addition, the Help:Notifications or "ping" system is important to allow editors to know where they are being discussed. However, biased canvassing, including inappropriate use of the ping system, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include only contacting one side of a dispute or selectively contacting individuals who had previously supported the editor.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Background of dispute

1) The dispute primarily revolves around the interactions of WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn in gender-related areas. This area has been the subject of numerous acrimonious talk page disputes and AN/I reports, e.g. [1][2][3]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Flyer22's behavior

2) From an early point in their interactions, Flyer22 needlessly provoked WanderingWanda, accusing them of being a sockpuppet,[4] and threatening them with bans.[5] They have attacked Wanda and others as activists, rather than discussing strength of arguments, and implied other editors cannot be impartial based on immutable characteristics or their personal experiences.[6][7][8] In addition, she has labeled others' behavior canvassing while deliberately pinging individual editors in a non-neutral and targeted manner violating appropriate notification guidelines.[9][10][11]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

WanderingWanda's behavior

3) WanderingWanda has needlessly inflamed disputes with flippant or personalized remarks that have further heightened tensions and degraded discussions.[12][13][14]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Halo Jerk's behavior

4) Halo Jerk1 is Flyer22's brother, and was previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts. As part of their unblock conditions, Halo Jerk was to edit only while logged into his own account and avoid the same topics as Flyer.[15] Despite this, Halo Jerk has proxied for Flyer22, degraded discussions with unnecessary commentary and combative language,[16][17][18] and admitted to violating the unblock conditions.[19]

Support:

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.

Interaction ban

1) WanderingWanda, Flyer22, and Halo Jerk1 are subject to an indefinite mutual interaction ban, broadly construed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Parties reminded

2) Parties to the case are reminded to avoid enflaming discussions with flippant or dismissive commentary, and to focus on content, rather than contributors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Halo Jerk1 banned

3) Halo Jerk1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from editing. They may appeal this restriction after one year.

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 22:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) by David Fuchs.

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