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

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & Primefac (Talk) & SilkTork (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop

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.

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

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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 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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. I am late to the party here and probably won't bother voting on the standard boilerplate principles, but this is different. This principle goes to the core of what has been very much an ongoing and time consuming issue for not just this committee but the entire project. Being otherwise good at content work does not give a user a free pass to regularly, repeatedly act in an uncivil manner towards their fellow editors. It never should have been this way, but the fact is that the community, and even this committee have sometimes acted as if we should expect less from certain users with regard to their behavior if they are otherwise doing good work, or are in an editorially cortrect position. I have never agreed with that and never will.
    talk) 21:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 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 UCoC 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]

3. Solely on the basis that it is not needed. Per Izno's post on the talk page "it really should be trotted out only when we think there's a merit to the UCOC argument". In the previous case where we used a principle like this, there was some merit to whether policy and the UCoC covered different things; in this case it was just rhetorical fodder. If it's to have any real meaning, we should save it for when we actually decided substantive conflicts between the wording of the UCoC and Wikipedia guidelines. — Wug·a·po·des 23:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Wugapodes entirely-- not bad, but I'm not sure of the point here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. I share the concern that this simply is not needed here, and am further concerned that we are heading into a situation where if anyone mentions the UCoC at any point in the case, there is a feeling that we have to address whether it is pertinent. We do not. People bring up irelvant points all the time in ArbCom cases, we are free to ignore anything that is not relevant. I would be more interested in having a discussion with the committee to pass something in our procedures which stipulates that UCoC violations will be discussed in a case only
   talk) 21:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Abstain:

1. While I agree with the statement (and won't oppose) I also believe it is silent on points which need to be addressed. It had no impact on my thinking on the points of contention so I can't support, and find myself at abstain. The points could be made as a standalone motion someday, but here, now, I'd agree with Guerillero, it's not needed. Cabayi (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

SmallCat

1) The inciting incident for this case arose from a number of CfDs which hinged on how to apply

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. talk) 21:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. talk) 21:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose:

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. I feel like we are, once again, deciding a case where a user was their own worst enemy and just could not see it.
    talk) 21:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. I'm actually not sure I agree with the way the sanction was structured (a 12 hour block after literally years of problems seems unlikely to resolve anything) but as an FoF this is a fair reading of that situation.
    talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]

   I want to echo Guerillero's comment here also. Izno (talk) 22:53, 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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. talk) 21:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. talk) 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. I found this user's behavior sickening and utterly out-of-place on this project.
    talk) 21:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]
10. I make as many typos as anyone. It's something others may point out, and indeed they are pointed out me regularly, but usually with a "did you mean to say that?" as opposed to mockery.
    talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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]

This one's a bit much... Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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
   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
   ]
7. Per the others. Izno (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Can't say it better than everyone above. Everything happens around here through collaboration. When someone makes it impossible to collaborate with them, that's fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the project. Reading through the discussions involving BHG submitted as evidence, and then reading through basically any other conversation that happens around here... it makes such a big difference when everyone's trying to reach a collaborative outcome together, and some of these those submitted discussions are the polar opposite. We can't go on like this. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. I was going to write a long essay, but I realized it boils down to: BHG is exhausting. We had ample evidence that dealing with her is an exercise in frustration. She has been given every chance to reform her ways, and remains recalcitrant. Unfortunately, she has left us no choice but to ban her. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enough has been said, and enough is enough. Per Eek, BHG has exhausted the community, the admin corp, and this committee's patience. She needs time away from this project and this project needs time away from her.
    talk) 22:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. insufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Insufficient. Izno (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Izno's comment below. — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not a bad idea, but I think this is too narrow. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Insufficient. Cabayi (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. While I was initially in favour of this, I do now recognise that it would just move the issue to yet another location a few months or years down the line, as we saw with Portals. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 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]

I am of the opinion that BHG is the problem, not CFD or project space, and the siteban deals with that.

talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support

1. I honestly think this is a decent idea, but accept that unblock conditions is likely where we'll handle this. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too bespoke and complex. Given that the siteban is passing, I think it's better that any conditions of an unblock are worked out between the committee which would be unblocking her and BHG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding Given that the siteban is passing, I think it's better that any conditions of an unblock are worked out between the committee which would be unblocking her and BHG., you still support the CFD topic ban. Izno (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per barkeep — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Barkeep said exactly what I was thinking with regards to working this out when a potential appeal comes around. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Insufficient and too complex --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Too complex to monitor. Cabayi (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. The history of this committee is littered with examples of overly-complex sanctions that caused more problems than they solved. We can worry about unblock conditions if and when a future committee recieve a compelling appeal to the site ban.
   talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Abstain:

1. I like the idea, but I think this is a bit too complex; a simple namespace restriction combined with the conduct restriction would likely work better. Given the overall opposition to this motion I do not see much point in throwing up an alternate version, though. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

Second choice to the site ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. ... without concern to choices. Izno (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   This needs to be in place for any eventual unblock (which I do hope happens). Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm not sure if this will actually end up being used, but I don't think it'll hurt. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. insufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. This would be my second choice to a ban, but since that's passing I'll keep the counting simple. This may be useful in the future either as an unban condition or for any similar cases that might arise. — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. To keep the counting simple. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moved here with the ban passing for ease of counting. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Too bespoke a sanction given the circumstances and the fact that a full ban is passing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. talk) 22:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. per Eek's reason above and Izno's conjecture in the closing comments. Cabayi (talk) 06:41, 25 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]
8. Today's poor choice is just the longest in a string of choices that show careless offense will be regularly given by Laurel. Combined with the bold way that they empty categories and otherwise try to get their way, I find myself here. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Wug. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cabayi (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Anyone who would even consider making that edit sumarry has no place on this project. It is by itself more than enough for a site ban. In other words, I was ready to support before the more recent appalling remarks.
    talk) 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Izno (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per the related finding of fact, the interactions with Fram and MJL, the warning from Ymblanter, and recent activity/misbehavior. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is a point of contention and needs to be dealt with, assuming there is an unblock in the future. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weakly, but this can be revisited during an appeal. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. In case of unblock. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is by no means the main problem here and I agree that on its own it is entirely insufficient. I have a hard time even imagining what would have to transpire before even considering unblocking this person, but having this already in place would be something if such a day should come.
   talk) 22:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

1. insufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Insufficiant. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 24 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]

I would prefer pages in place of articles. I think this can be changed without Guerillero's comment given his voting pattern of "insufficient". Izno (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the language, since no one seems opposed. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 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]
2. Insufficient. Izno (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good to have this in the PD but ultimately not necessary at this point. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Insufficiant. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't think admoinishments actually do anything and strongly prefer either an actual sanction or a formal "final warning".
   talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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]

Laurel Lodged civility restriction

6a) Laurel Lodged is restricted from employing incendiary language and making inflammatory comments towards others. If Laurel Lodged violates this restriction, an uninvolved administrator may block Laurel Lodged in accordance with the enforcement provision for this case.

Support:

1. Izno (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'd prefer not to put LL in a position to do any of this again, even once. — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't see the draw of this, given the sort of trollish way LL was uncivil and how previous civility sanctions imposed by Arbcom have panned out. I'm worried this will just invite time-wasting line toeing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. insufficient --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Insufficiant. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. All editors are already subject to this restriction.
   talk) 22:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Abstain:

1. I support this in principle, and I do recognise that "civility restrictions" imposed by the community — and even our Policy pages — do not always work to stop these sorts of comments happening, but I am not sure this is significantly different enough to merit passing. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Copyediting requested. I want to make it clear that a remedy here is an "enforcement" kind of remedy rather than the "admonished"'s weaker "could maybe happen". Izno (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl - Laurel Lodged interaction ban

7) BrownHariedGirl and Laurel Lodged are indefinitely

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]
2. Not obviously necessary in the FOFs. Izno (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not necessary — Wug·a·po·des 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Recent events (i.e. the Jewish comment) indicates that the issue is not necessarily with these two specifically interacting. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. There's merit to this, but I don't think it'll be necessary. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. ^ Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. May be useful if both successfully appeal their bans, but can be imposed as unblock conditions at that time. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per all the above. Obviously these two should avoid each other, but both being site banned makes that moot.
   talk) 22:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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]
9. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. talk) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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. 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]
8. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cabayi (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This isn't wrong, I just don't think these reminders actually accomplish anything.
   talk) 22:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Support:

1. Izno (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think we have to pass this? The standard provision doesn't pass because we proposed this one. I'm not sure anything is passing that makes the "except where noted in a specific remedy" useful, but the rest of it is still the standard provision so support. — Wug·a·po·des 00:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I think if we don't pass this the stgandard provision still applies? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, you're right, I got the order wrong. The standard provision is triggered by us not passing anything; I thought it was triggered by not proposing anything. — Wug·a·po·des 00:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Non-standard enforcement not needed. Leave it as standard. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

General

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 Primefac (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC) by Primefac.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Decorum	10	0	0		·
3	Being right isn't enough	11	0	0		·
4	Wikipedia is not a battleground	10	0	0		·
5	Consensus	10	0	0		·
6	Bludgeoning	10	0	0		·
7	Repeated behavior	10	0	0		·
8	Use of policies and guidelines	10	0	0		·
9	Universal Code of Conduct	3	6	1		Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	SmallCat	11	0	0		·
2	BrownHairedGirl Portals history	11	0	0		·
3	BrownHairedGirl conduct since the PORTALS case	11	0	0		·
4	BrownHairedGirl community restriction	11	0	0		·
5	BrownHairedGirl's block history since August 2021	11	0	0		·
6	Laurel Lodged failure to observe consensus	11	0	0		·
7	Laurel Lodged behaviour towards other editors	11	0	0		·
8	Nederlandse Leeuw	10	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	BrownHairedGirl banned	11	0	0		·
2	BrownHairedGirl topic banned	1	7	0		Cannot pass
2a	BrownHairedGirl reverse topic banned	1	6	1		Cannot pass
3	BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction	4	7	0		Cannot pass
4	Laurel Lodged banned	11	0	0		·
5	Laurel Lodged topic banned	7	4	0		·
6	Laurel Lodged admonished	0	7	1		Cannot pass
6a	Laurel Lodged civility restriction	1	6	1		Cannot pass
7	BrownHairedGirl - Laurel Lodged interaction ban	1	4	4		Cannot pass
8	Nederlandse Leeuw warned	11	0	0		·
9	XfD Editors reminded	9	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement of restrictions	2	1	0		4
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	The standard enforcement of restrictions would apply unless 1 passes.
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·

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

1. While we have some remedies left open, I think what are passing now forms a complete and reasonable response to this case and so I don't see a reason to hold this open any longer especially with two sitebans passing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree, we're done. Cabayi (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. With CaptainEek's votes, I think we're done. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Izno (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. — Wug·a·po·des 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Everything is at majority. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would like to see the two remaining minor remedies voted on. I think they both have a potential to pass. Izno (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I literally just walked in the door from two days out in the woods. I did not expecrt this to come so far so quick and would like to register my own votes if we could hold off just a few hours.

talk) 21:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Beeblebrox The clock for closing started ticking only 20 minutes ago, so you basically have 24 hours until actual close. Do you think you'll need more time? (NB you can help change only one of the line items, and I'm pretty sure on that specific item Cabayi would vote to oppose, so effectively your vote is not critical to closing.) Izno (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I know it isn't critical at this point, but I anticipated partipating in this case and took the time to familiarize myself with it, so it seems like a waste of effort to not vote even if the result is clear on almost everything.

talk) 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]