Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & SilkTork ( 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 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 6 |
2–3 | 5 |
4–5 | 4 |
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 is preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
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)
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) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 pages, and moving or renaming categories.
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.
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.
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.
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)
8) Nederlandse Leeuw is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
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.
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.
Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & SilkTork ( 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 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 6 |
2–3 | 5 |
4–5 | 4 |
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 is preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
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)
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) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 pages, and moving or renaming categories.
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.
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.
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.
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)
8) Nederlandse Leeuw is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
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.
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.