Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 8 |
1–2 | 7 |
3–4 | 6 |
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, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to 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), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). 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 have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
2) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.
3) Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé to improve their behaviour by advice and guidance. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to the reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be taken to mean that the associated conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary measures.
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages.
5) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
1) Over an extended period of time ( [1]), GoodDay ( talk · contribs) has striven for the removal of diacritics from articles within various topics ( [2]) while marginalising the concerns of opposing editors ( #GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct).
2) On many occasions, the behaviour of GoodDay has been disruptive. Among other recurring issues, GoodDay has: misinterpreted the legitimate complaints of other editors ( [3], [4]); cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ( [5], [6]); and failed to conduct himself with due professionalism ( [7]).
3) In December 2011, GoodDay was the subject of a requests for comment about his conduct. Since January 2012, GoodDay was mentored by two experienced editors ( [8]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic-banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ( [9]). Despite these measures, the conduct of GoodDay remains disruptive.
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.
1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other content page, broadly construed.
1.1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
2) GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.
3) GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
3.1) GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year; the ban to be suspended indefinitely. If GoodDay engages in battleground or uncollegial conduct, the ban will be enacted by motion of the Arbitration Committee. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for this suspended ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.
1) Should GoodDay violate any topic ban imposed as a result of this case, he may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or to the Arbitration Committee.
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 Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Recidivism | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Fait accompli | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Mentorship | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Consensus | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Etiquette | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics (1) | 5 | 6 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
1.1 | GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics (2) | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GoodDay warned | 9 | 4 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GoodDay banned | 4 | 7 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
3.1 | GoodDay banned (suspended) | 2 | 9 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Enforcement by block | 1 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
· |
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 needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Kirill Lokshin ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 8 |
1–2 | 7 |
3–4 | 6 |
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, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to 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), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). 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 have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
2) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.
3) Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé to improve their behaviour by advice and guidance. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to the reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be taken to mean that the associated conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary measures.
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages.
5) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
1) Over an extended period of time ( [1]), GoodDay ( talk · contribs) has striven for the removal of diacritics from articles within various topics ( [2]) while marginalising the concerns of opposing editors ( #GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct).
2) On many occasions, the behaviour of GoodDay has been disruptive. Among other recurring issues, GoodDay has: misinterpreted the legitimate complaints of other editors ( [3], [4]); cast aspersions about groups of opposing contributors ( [5], [6]); and failed to conduct himself with due professionalism ( [7]).
3) In December 2011, GoodDay was the subject of a requests for comment about his conduct. Since January 2012, GoodDay was mentored by two experienced editors ( [8]). In February 2012, GoodDay was topic-banned from "pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed" ( [9]). Despite these measures, the conduct of GoodDay remains disruptive.
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.
1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other content page, broadly construed.
1.1) GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
2) GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.
3) GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
3.1) GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year; the ban to be suspended indefinitely. If GoodDay engages in battleground or uncollegial conduct, the ban will be enacted by motion of the Arbitration Committee. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for this suspended ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.
1) Should GoodDay violate any topic ban imposed as a result of this case, he may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or to the Arbitration Committee.
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 Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Recidivism | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Fait accompli | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Mentorship | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Consensus | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Etiquette | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | GoodDay has engaged in battleground conduct | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GoodDay has engaged in uncollegial conduct | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Prior attempts to resolve these problems have failed | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics (1) | 5 | 6 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
1.1 | GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics (2) | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GoodDay warned | 9 | 4 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GoodDay banned | 4 | 7 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
3.1 | GoodDay banned (suspended) | 2 | 9 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Enforcement by block | 1 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
· |
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 needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.