Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Proposed remedies: s the last two
→‎BrownHairedGirl topic banned: propose a reverse ban
Line 452: Line 452:
:Comments:
:Comments:
: As I spoke about during drafting, this needs to be a meta-spaces ban to be sufficiently palatable. CFD is not the issue. BHG in those spaces is. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
: As I spoke about during drafting, this needs to be a meta-spaces ban to be sufficiently palatable. CFD is not the issue. BHG in those spaces is. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

===BrownHairedGirl reverse topic banned===
2a) BrownHairedGirl is limited to making contributions only in the following namespaces, as if BrownHairedGirl were banned from the unlisted namespaces: Main, Talk, User, User talk, and Wikipedia. In the Talk namespace, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only to respond to concerns directly about her edits. In the User talk and Wikipedia namespaces, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only to respond to concerns directly about her behavior. In User and User talk namespace, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only on BrownHairedGirl's own user and user talk pages. In the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces, BrownHairedGirl is limited to two comments per day per page no longer than 300 words each.

:Support
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

:Comments:
: I am proposing this remedy even now after the full ban is supported by a passing number of arbitrators, as I support something like it regardless of that result. This is the shape of the restriction I had proposed offline but didn't get a lot of feedback on. Primefac's and Money's comments allude to a similar idea. I am flexible on most specifics. I understand this makes it hard to "collaborate", but it is clear and obvious to me and the other members that BHG's definition of collaboration does not match the rest of the encyclopedia's, especially with regard to dispute resolution and other meta spaces, and I would rather put in place a stepping stone like this now than later for a potential return. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


===BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction===
===BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction===

Revision as of 21:07, 23 August 2023

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 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.

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 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 result in sanctions.

Support:
  1. Given discussions during this case, I think it is worth pointing out the two-pronged nature of this principle. Wikipedia is not merely about the content we produce, it is also about fostering a positive working environment for those creating content. This is not a new belief. A version of this principle has been in use since 2009, and the sentiment goes back to the earliest days of Wikipedia. For example, Jimbo's 21 October 2001 Statement of principles says 7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way [...]. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk. — Wug·a·po·des 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Being right isn't enough

3) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Support:
  1. This is probably going to become evergreen after a few years. So often people come to arbcom for this reason --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL Just because we are online and unpaid does not mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office are not supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something is worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. — Wug·a·po·des 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks to those that drafted this one. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This would indeed seem to make a nice addition to the index of principles. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There is much wisdom in this. As a similar corollary, the ends do not justify the means. Creating an encyclopedia does not allow one to behave however one wishes, even if they are achieving that end goal. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may be used to force editors to do so.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus

5) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Bludgeoning

6) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Repeated behavior

7) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. I prefer the classic title of this, Recidivism --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Use of policies and guidelines

8) Reasonable editors can disagree on how to apply policies and guidelines in a given circumstance. When a group of editors have repeated disagreements on policy and guideline application they are encouraged to use dispute resolution and to otherwise gain broader community feedback about the policy or guideline. Failure to do so can result in an invalid or contradictory local consensus forming.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Universal Code of Conduct

9) The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, is under no specific obligation to separately discuss the application of the Universal Code of Conduct when resolving disputes above and beyond the Committee's existing application of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As written, this principle I think improves upon the last one that passed ArbCom. By passing this principle, we recognize that ArbCom has the duty of enforcing enwiki policy, and that by discharging that duty, ArbCom is also acting not inconsistently with any requirements from the UCoC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given the repeated invocation of the UCOC during this case, I think it is important to reaffirm that in enforcing policy, we are not somehow sidestepping the UCOC. I should clarify: this was not a UCOC test case. We have yet to fully deal with the ramifications of the UCOC, and will need to wait for the appropriate case to do so. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. per my objections from the last time this was used. Further if one sidesteps my objection, adding the UCOC to this case does nothing to strengthen it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't worth challenging when it was an abstain but since you're opposing: I think the UCoC falls into WP:CONEXCEPT. I think not having the community ratify it was a huge mistake and oen that, as this shows, carries an ongoing cost. It's why community ratification was in the open letter from ArbComs and why as a member of the enforcment guideliens drafting committee, I pushed that community ratification be required to amend it and why it will be necessary for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee. That said, the enforcment guidelines were ratified by the global community, of which enwiki is a member. That matters. And the quickest way for enwiki to start having things come on down from above, rather than based on what is right for our community, would be for ArbCom to pretend its obligations as a high-level decision making body (something, again, the global community has ratified by with over 75% in support) don't exist. Given that the UCoC sets such a low minimum, and we already go so far above it in so many many ways, this does not feel like a hill worth dying on as an Arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my objections from the same case as cited by Guerillero. ArbCom has apparently decided by fiat without so much as a basic pointer to any document that actually does indicate that English Wikipedia "maintains the UCOC criteria as a minimum" much less that it "goes beyond them". Izno (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also more-weakly echo Guerillero's "not necessary" for this case. Izno (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

SmallCat

1) The inciting incident for this case arose from a number of CfDs which hinged on how to apply SmallCat to categories involving expatriates. The dispute began when BrownHairedGirl questioned several nominations. A number of such categories had been uncontroversially decided at CfD in 2022 and 2023 by a small number of editors, most of whom are parties to this case, including some after BrownHairedGirl began to participate in these discussions (Oculi evidence).

SmallCat has been part of a guideline since 2006. Originally named "No potential for growth", it was changed after editors were using it to delete categories based purely on numbers. There has been an ongoing desire, never reaching consensus, to apply a strict numerical threshold for SmallCat (jc37 evidence). Use of such numerical thresholds, even if phrased as a "rule of thumb" or similar such phrase, in CFDs is therefore not supported by the guideline. However, reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.

Support:
  1. — Wug·a·po·des 21:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BrownHairedGirl Portals history

2) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) was a party to the January 2020 Portals case. The Arbitration Committee found that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, mass reverted another editor, used her administrative powers to delete portals, and violated a temporary injunction during the case. As a remedy, BrownHairedGirl was deysopped, topic banned from portals, and placed under an interaction ban.

Support:
  1. It's worth reading the related FoF in that case. The committee observed BHG "stating that editors are either liars or lying" and labeling opponents as "portalistas" which she defined as "editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals". Especially given the #Repeated behaviour principle above, it's worth considering whether the remedies previously imposed actually remedied the issues identified. — Wug·a·po·des 21:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BrownHairedGirl conduct since the PORTALS case

3) BrownHairedGirl has displayed a history of starting and escalating disputes with the way she labels other editor's actions and otherwise engaging in incivility (e.g. DanCherek, DIYeditor evidence). Her participation in discussions can often become disruptive owing to the number and length of her replies (e.g. August 2021 ANI, July 2023 ANI, Trainsandotherthings evidence). BrownHairedGirl has shown limited ability to compromise, even in conversations that remain civil and productive, though she can sometimes convince others of her point of view (e.g. Pppery, Tamzin evidence).

Support:
  1. — Wug·a·po·des 21:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I want to take a moment here to address some of the concerns BHG has had about the process of this case, namely her in ability to submit evidence. Behind the scenes I advocated for her to be able to submit her entire evidence, but obviously that was not the will of the committee. As a drafter I felt an obligation to uphold and respect that consensus. That said, I think it's worth noting what the evidence had and didn't have. If the evidence had been entered into evidence it's entirely possible that there would be additional findings of facts against other parties and perhaps some additional remedies. I have only skimmed it over and so I can't say for sure what impact it would have had compared to the evidence that was entered (which I read at least twice and which involved further read to appropriately understand the context of what had been submitted).
    What I don't see it doing is changing any of the FoF or the way arbs use those FoF to decide what remedies are appropriate in regards to BHG. BHG has noted that she has felt targeted because of personal characteristics. From my skim of the evidence, that case wasn't made. I know for a fact that the single most compelling diff - one so compelling it was largely (but not completely) responsible for us re-opening the evidence phase, was not mentioned or linked to despite the fact that it would have shown this targeting. In fact the draft evidence offered no real mitigation of her own behavior other than advancing the idea that she was right on the merits. BHG's draft evidence was entirely focused on the (mis)deeds of others. I note all this not because it's going to change my vote - I'm going to vote on the evidence submitted and on the FoF none of which this is. Instead I noted it because I want to clearly explain to those who might be concerned that BHG was not allowed to have an unprecedented length extension in order to submit her evidence why even if it had been allowed I don't think it would change the outcome of the case for BHG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Since we are litigating the evidence limit here, there was no possible way that we were going to give 10x the standard limit to one party when less words have been submitted as evidence in total. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Barkeep says a lot of good. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BrownHairedGirl community restriction

4) On August 8, 2021, a report regarding BrownHairedGirl's conduct was made to ANI. That same day, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for 1 week for Major breaches of WP:CIV and WP:NPA toward many editors. This block was lifted 1 hour later. On August 10, a case request was made to the Arbitration Committee related to issues raised at ANI and the block/unblock. Later that day a community restriction stating that Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. was proposed and was adopted by the community on August 16. The case request was subsequently declined.

Support:
  1. I believe that the second-mover advantage WP:WHEEL gives to administrators reversing a block is a major problem that needs serious policy work to properly resolve. The community's attempt at resolving it through an individual restriction was laudable and, I think, a good start. Unfortunately (as often happens with first attempts) it did not work out as well as expected, but I'd encourage further attempts at refining this kind of community restriction. — Wug·a·po·des 21:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Wugs. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BrownHairedGirl's block history since August 2021

5) On August 9, 2021, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for violating her community restriction for 12 hours (and subsequently had talk page access revoked). On July 16, 2023, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for 48 hours for violating her community restriction. 3 hours later this block was reversed. The unblocking administrator subsequently noted at the SmallCat case request that it would have likely been better to wait a few more hours to confirm the consensus was present to unblock, while the blocking administrator commented at the SmallCat case request that he didn't have a problem with the unblock.

Support:
  1. Looking towards future versions of the community restriction, I think more clarity around what consensus in a community discussion means might be beneficial. Additionally, we should consider how to best enforce the community's consensus requirement. The "don't unblock without consensus" clause is, essentially, a tightening of WHEEL. If an administrator had reblocked on the basis of that discussion, would we have called it a valid consensus or seen it as a WHEEL violation? That's not at issue here (so I haven't looked or thought about it much), but as we look ahead to how we might avoid this situation in the future it's worth considering how we might improve at various steps along the way. — Wug·a·po·des 21:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am not thrilled by both admins involved in the most recent block-unblock cycle. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Laurel Lodged failure to observe consensus

6) Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) has failed to observe the consensus reached at CfD and has emptied categories out-of-process (ANI, Dan Cherek evidence, MJL evidence).

Support:
  1. — Wug·a·po·des 21:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Laurel Lodged behaviour towards other editors

7) Since 2021, Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) has been called to task for misgendering users, making comments about other editors' mental health (Dan Cherek evidence), using incendiary language when mentioning religion, indicating religious intolerance (MJL evidence), using sexually-charged language in an edit summary towards BrownHairedGirl and later making a personal attack towards her by speculating on her mental health. (Beccaynr evidence). When concerns have been raised with him, Laurel Lodged has sometimes made inflamatory comments and at times failed to respond (MJL evidence, Valereee evidence).

Support:
  1. Hostility based on gender, sex, nationality, or religion are acutely harmful to a collegial working environment. Egregiously poor behavior. — Wug·a·po·des 21:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Brace Me Bridget diff really was beyond the pale and had exactly the impact that Wugapodes noted. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Noting that I have blocked Laurel Lodged as an individual administrator action for 72 hours for comments made at a CfD. I have offered to bring over from his talk page any comments he'd like to make to the PD during that period. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw

8) In July 2023 Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) made fun of BrownHairedGirl for multiple typos in her statements at an ANI thread, continuing to do so even after it was revealed that BrownHairedGirl had a malfunctioning keyboard. Nederlandse Leeuw later apologised for making those comments. Nederlandse Leeuw has also bludgeoned some discussions. (DIYeditor evidence)

Support:
  1. — Wug·a·po·des 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Somewhat of a tangent: there was a year where the "]" key on my laptop didn't work. Contributing was an absolute pain. Wikipedia destroys keyboards. I genuinely believe keyboard damage is a problem that we don't acknowledge enough. I think the WMF should have some kind of keyboard fund for contributors. Obviously don't go making fun of people with broken keyboards---that's so petty---but if the WMF gave contributors money to repair damaged equipment we would probably could have avoided at least one negative interaction (or that's what I'd tell them at least). — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

BrownHairedGirl banned

1) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. There is evidence both from this case and PORTALs that BHG struggles with incivility, having a reasonable number of replies of reasonable length (sometimes called bludgeoning), and an inability to compromise. Really diving into the evidence in this case I was struck by the fact that I could find only 1 minor piece of evidence of BHG ever conceding a point/ground to another editor across dozens and dozens of conversations (which includes everything in evidence plus a number of conversations those conversations linked to). Instead the best case scenario was BHG and the other editor(s) agreeing to disagree and some sort of status quo (often but not always favoring BHG's position) lasting. More often one of the following outcomes happened: BHG got her way on the merits, BHG got her way because the other person gave up trying to keep up with all of BHG's replies and points, BHG got her way because the other person gave up because they grew tired of dealing with her incivility, or BHG didn't get her way because she was the only person (or one of a very small group) who thought something which caused her to work overtime to try and convince everyone else they were wrong. None of those, except getting her way on the merits (because others listended to good points and/or compromised), are productive for the encyclopedia.
    I was also struck by the rapidity and harshness with which she would turn towards attacking others. DanCherek's evidence was hugely important here. Interestingly, for me, was that her earliest accusations of gaslighting in March 2020 seems reasonably justified and perhaps this is why she would return to using it in so many circumstances that were not justified. However, by the time she started using it regularly it seemed to be in situations that did not call or justify it; for instance by July 2020 I think she's using it in an instance where she's right on the merits of the argument she's makign but wrong in her usage of the word itself. And "gaslighting" is just one word that we can see her use repeatedly, but the actions of incivility were present in so many ways throughout those conversations. As the principle above notes being right isn't enough to excuse this, but even that mindset (being right excuses other things) means that her incivility cannot be excused when she was only partially correct, ambiguously correct, or even wrong.
    I take absolutely no joy in casting this vote. BHG has done far more than I have or ever will to improve the encyclopedia for our readers, even if you give me indirect credit for some of the work I've done. However, the good work that she's done isn't so great that it can justify the loss to the project of all of those who she has harmed and who have been partially or driven away from contributing. I would like to have a Wikipedia where BHG was my colleague. But BHG has shown no desire or willingness to be a colleague to anyone despite multiple chances and warning in the last few years of her need to become one. So I find myself firmly, and sadly, supporting this site ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Committee identified some core issues with BHG's participation in 2020 (Portals FoF 6). The immediate issue at the time was Portals and related policies and guidelines. The committee at the time recognized the value of BHG's contributions and passed a number of remedies in the hope of retaining positive contributions while limiting the potential for further negative interactions which waste volunteer time resolving (proposed FoF 2). Negative interactions continued, and volunteer hours were again diverted from working on the encyclopedia to managing BHG's conduct (proposed FoF 3). A substantial number of volunteer hours were spent crafting and imposing a community restriction to better address the core civility issue (proposed FoF 4). The behavior continued and still more volunteer hours were diverted in order to monitor her compliance and determine proper responses. She was first blocked for 12 hours as stated by the community restriction, and a second block under the restriction around the time of this case request was reversed within 3 hours (proposed FoF 5). This brings us to the current case.
    Nothing has changed in the last 3 years, we've just wasted more of our time. In Portals the Committee noted that she would repeatedly state "that editors are either liars or lying"; in this case she prefers to call others "disingenuous". In Portals the Committee noted that she alleged editors in favor of portals "engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals"; in this case she alleges others are engaged in misconduct to subvert SMALLCAT. In Portals she labeled her opponents "portalistas"; in this case she calls the a tag team. All those volunteer hours spent crafting remedies and the core behavior three years later is the same. I do not hold out hope that trying the same thing as last time will lead to different results.
    My belief that she will not abide by our behavioral guidelines is based, in part, on her own statements. Contrary to proposed principle 1, she views attempts to create a collegial editorial environment as anti-intellectual bullying, tone-policing, and part of a cancel culture. She has asked us to enforce the UCoC against the other parties, and submitted a workshop proposal saying that "No [...] arbitrator is permitted to disregard the UCoC", but when I asked her whether she believes the UCoC sections on civility (2.2) and not insulting others (3.1) apply to her, she responded that an editor challenging others (i.e., she) deserves "leeway" regarding those parts of the UCoC. There is no indication that spending even more volunteer hours administering ever more complicated restrictions will result in a pattern of behavior consistent with our behavioral guidelines; it would amount to a waste of our human resources. A ban is an appropriate and proportional next step for the pattern of behavior in evidence. — Wug·a·po·des 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not see the attempts by my colleagues and editors on the talk page to find a solution short of a ban as a viable alternative either as a package or on their own. The community and the committee have already invested a lifetime worth of person hours to keep BHG on the project. Dispite all of that effort, BHG continues the same behaviors and shows zero awarenesses that, to quote Taylor Swift, "I'm the problem, it's me". It is time to thank her for her work on the project and to show her the door. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Barkeep and especially Wugapodes. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When BrownHairedGirl is being productive, she is one of our best editors. When she is not getting her way, she is not. I have struggled with this dichotomy, but realised a few minutes ago that we as a community have simply spent too much time attempting to force her to play nice. I do not like that it has come to this, but I do not see another way forward other than restricting her edits to only the Article space, which so far has not been put forward as an option. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Barkeep and Wugapodes say it well. Per recidivism, battleground, and the "being right isn't enough" principle. Bhg is a talented and prolific editor who has done much good over the years, but is combative and uncivil on the regular, and inordinate time and resources (several book-length discussions over the course of several years) have been spent trying to mediate this. It's good to be passionate about something and correct and call out those who are in the wrong. But a lot of the debates and drama Bhg has been involved have been unnecessary (in particular, the stuff involving The Signpost) and have hurt good faith editors. While I was thinking about a "metaspace" ban and was thinking of proposing and supporting one, I thought back to how Wikipedia is the free collaborative encyclopedia. Banning someone from most project discussions because they don't collaborate very well contradicts that. I don't believe it will prevent Bhg from getting into conflict again-- it'll be prolonging another issue down the road, and things will end up back at a noticeboard or here, which no one wants. It stings to do this to someone who has been around for so long and done so much, but I don't think there's much other choice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BrownHairedGirl topic banned

2) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely topic banned from Categories for Discussion, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
As I spoke about during drafting, this needs to be a meta-spaces ban to be sufficiently palatable. CFD is not the issue. BHG in those spaces is. Izno (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl reverse topic banned

2a) BrownHairedGirl is limited to making contributions only in the following namespaces, as if BrownHairedGirl were banned from the unlisted namespaces: Main, Talk, User, User talk, and Wikipedia. In the Talk namespace, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only to respond to concerns directly about her edits. In the User talk and Wikipedia namespaces, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only to respond to concerns directly about her behavior. In User and User talk namespace, BrownHairedGirl is limited to participating only on BrownHairedGirl's own user and user talk pages. In the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces, BrownHairedGirl is limited to two comments per day per page no longer than 300 words each.

Support
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I am proposing this remedy even now after the full ban is supported by a passing number of arbitrators, as I support something like it regardless of that result. This is the shape of the restriction I had proposed offline but didn't get a lot of feedback on. Primefac's and Money's comments allude to a similar idea. I am flexible on most specifics. I understand this makes it hard to "collaborate", but it is clear and obvious to me and the other members that BHG's definition of collaboration does not match the rest of the encyclopedia's, especially with regard to dispute resolution and other meta spaces, and I would rather put in place a stepping stone like this now than later for a potential return. Izno (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction

3) The August 16, 2021, community restriction is rescinded. In its place, the Arbitration Committee, enacts a restriction where by any uninvolved administrator may block BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact of this case or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including instating a site ban. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice to the site ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ... without concern to choices. Izno (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Laurel Lodged banned

4) Laurel Lodged is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. The behavior exhibited in proposed FoF 7 is egregious and plainly unwelcome in a global, multi-cultural, and collegial encyclopedia. Were it not for the ongoing Arbitration proceedings I believe Laurel Lodged would have been quickly blocked when the meaning of his insult was explained (my belief being based on my own finger hovering over the block button a few days prior). — Wug·a·po·des 23:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The "Bridget" edit summary really took this over the line. Simply unacceptable. I appreciate the case participants for uncovering the meaning of that and enlightening us. Beyond that, LL was generally unpleasant, abrasive, and uncollegial. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per eek it is time to swiftly show LL the door --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Wugapodes and CaptainEek. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. To answer a question, I think arbs are quicker to support this ban because of LL's more obviously offensive and uncivil conduct when compared to Bhg's; I don't think there's any evidence of her making comparable discriminatory comments. There's also that Bhg has nearly three million edits (the second most of anyone on Enwiki), was once an admin, has generally acknowledged expertise in a few different areas, and has been prolific for close to 20 years now. Most editors have come across Bhg, whether as part of a discussion or in an articles' history. Despite having nearly 70,000 edits, LL is the smaller name and has not been as involved in community processes. I wanted to account for these biases when thinking about my vote here, and ultimately I find the history of sanctions and recent conduct enough to ban. But I didn't even need to say all that, because the recent odd comments about "Jewish questions" makes it easy. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Laurel Lodged topic banned

5) Laurel Lodged is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from articles, and moving or renaming categories.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Wording update to be as explicit as possible per the talk page. Primefac (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
jc37 has suggested changing articles to pages. I'm not sure our evidence show disruption outside of articles but the problem we're attempting to stop could certainly happen with internal categories. So I have no real preference either way but do think he's right we should be defaulting to pages if no one cares. Pinging Izno and Guerillero as people who've voted already. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged admonished

6) Laurel Lodged is admonished for their incendiary language and inflammatory comments towards others and is warned that further such comments may lead to arbitration enforcement blocks.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Ignoring the other remedies above, this remedy actually wants/needs to be a civility restriction of some sort off the bat, not an admonishment. Izno (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl - Laurel Lodged interaction ban

7) BrownHariedGirl and Laurel Lodged are indefinitely banned from interaction, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. If anything I think there's reasonable evidence (though perhaps needing some additional FoF) that some other ibans are needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
What specific finding speaks to a need for a 2-way here? LL's behavior is clearly on display but none of the FOF's speak to BHG singling out LL so as to need an IBAN. Izno (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FoF 3 which cites sections of evidence that show the incivility by BHG towards LL even before the bridget diff. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not speak to BHG singling LL out. Izno (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wp:IBAN says The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. There is a clear and demonstratable conflict between these two, with each giving grief to the other. Your point that perhaps other ibans are needed because LL isn't unusual in that regard is obviously something I agreed with in my support of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not my point actually. I have an FOF that says "BHG was mean to everyone" and an FOF where "LL was mean to everyone with particularly egregious comments to/at BHG". Levying a 2-way here without an FOF that says "BHG was particularly interpersonal with/to/at LL" doesn't make sense to me. I'm not opposed to a 2-way, but the as-written FOFs don't support it IMO. Izno (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if other IBANs besides one regarding these two users are merited, I will entertain those also. Additional FOFs to support each would be needed, I suspect. Izno (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw warned

8) Nederlandse Leeuw is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.

Support:
  1. — Wug·a·po·des 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As a piece of practical advice for NL, I suggest working on your conciseness. Less is usually more. I also suggest giving careful consideration to whether replying is actually benefitting a discussion. Two or three replies is standard. But once you start to reply to everyone, or are having very extended back and forths, it might be better to step back and let others get a word in. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good points from Eek. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

XfD Editors reminded

9) Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Support:
  1. I want to highlight the second sentence. The job of closer isn't just to decide an outcome. Over time, closers in a topic area get a wide survey of community views on a subject that would (and did) take hours of work for someone outside the area to research on their own. That's really valuable expertise that would be helpful in crafting policy and guidelines. If you're seeing patterns, it is helpful to us not working in the area when you note the patterns that seem to be arising. It's clear from reading a lot of the CfDs that this area has a lot of institutional knowledge (some might say local consensuses), and writing that down would be helpful for the broader community when it comes time to consider wider changes to guidelines. — Wug·a·po·des 22:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Local consensus is very important on Wiki. Most of our consensus is local, usually to an article, or a project, or some other discrete area. But we must beware the insular nature of local consensus. Editors cannot lock themselves in the house of local consensus and pretend they have no neighbors. Local consensus does not exist in a vacuum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia:Common outcomes is the result of that second sentence, with an example of a practical effect being the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES back in 2017. As a regular TFD closer, I make these sorts of notes on a regular basis and definitely encourage closers in other areas to do the same when they start seeing patterns emerging. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As a regular AfD closer, this seems correct to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

1) Except where noted in a specific remedy, 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.

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
So this isn't our standard enforcement motion, which is fine, but I'm not seeing any specific remedy that mentions a blocking regime distinct from the standard provisions? I presume that's why we need the addition of "Except where noted in a specific remedy" part, so am I missing something obvious? — Wug·a·po·des 21:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes my read is that both BHG's conduct restriction and LL's admonishment would not have been covered under the standard wording. Should neither of those pass then this wouldn't be needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 — Wug·a·po·des 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 21:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) by Izno.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Decorum 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Being right isn't enough 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Wikipedia is not a battleground 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Consensus 9 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Bludgeoning 9 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Repeated behavior 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Use of policies and guidelines 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Universal Code of Conduct 3 2 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 SmallCat 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 BrownHairedGirl Portals history 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 BrownHairedGirl conduct since the PORTALS case 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 BrownHairedGirl community restriction 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 BrownHairedGirl's block history since August 2021 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Laurel Lodged failure to observe consensus 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Laurel Lodged behaviour towards other editors 8 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Nederlandse Leeuw 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 BrownHairedGirl banned 4 0 0 PASSING ·
2 BrownHairedGirl topic banned 1 1 0 PASSING ·
3 BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction 3 1 0 PASSING · One support second choice to remedy 1
4 Laurel Lodged banned 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Laurel Lodged topic banned 2 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Laurel Lodged admonished 0 1 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7 BrownHairedGirl - Laurel Lodged interaction ban 1 1 0 PASSING ·
8 Nederlandse Leeuw warned 7 0 0 PASSING ·
9 XfD Editors reminded 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING Cannot pass
Notes


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 arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Proposed_decision&oldid=1171906080"