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

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & CodeLyoko (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Mkdw (Talk) & Bradv (Talk)

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 15 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	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 by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 prohibited

1) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals, with the exception of arbitration case pages, until this case is concluded.

Enacted CodeLyoko^talk 03:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Proposed. The behavior needs to cease, full stop, until we can examine all parties involved. Wordsmithing welcome, as always. Katie^talk 20:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 21:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This case may go on a little while, and the entire area needs a break while the case is ongoing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WTT, I think both parties need to disengage for a while. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been mulling this over for a few days. In the early parts of the case request, BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 had not been seemingly editing or discussing portals such as at MfD. Some of that has since resumed. I agree with others that we need a break while we look into the situation further, so I support this without any prejudice. Mkdw ^talk 04:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a minor copyedit (changed "still be sanctioned" to "still result in sanctions" to avoid the confusion arising from the fact that "sanctioned" is an auto-antonym that can mean either "penalized" or "permitted"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

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

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

3) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same reason we block people for edit warring, even if they are editorially correct in their position. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator conduct

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator involvement

5) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this is interpreted reasonably, per below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
` per NYB DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~# I oppose as insufficiently comprehensive without some such addition as I mention below. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Abstain:

I don't see anything indicating parties took issue with BrownHairedGirl's or NorthAmerica1000's administrative actions in this sphere, so I'm not sure this principle is necessary. –xeno^talk 14:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Although this is a principle we have used before, I have some concern about the wording of the second sentence. It can be read to suggest that an administrator is disqualified from taking administrator actions against an editor if the admin has ever disagreed with that editor about any subject ever. That is too broad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really that proscriptive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support on that basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it extends not just to involvement with the editor, but to involvement with the topic. (both interpreted reasonably) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The principle already says "and disputes on topics"—doesn't that address this point? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, You are correct, I only mentioned this because there had been some previous disagreements at various places; the current wording is indeed sufficient and should clarify this going forward. . DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the crux of this entire case, it isn't really about the portals themselves but the battles around them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never liked the term "battleground" in this context, but I haven't come up with something better to replace it.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on content, not contributors. –xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

7) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that our including a principle in a decision does not necessarily mean that the parties have breached that principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

There's no related finding. –xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Consensus can change

8) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that evaluating when consensus is established and must be accepted, and when it is appropriate to test whether consensus exists or has changed, can sometimes be art rather than a science. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

9) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in fairness, I believe all the parties to the case understand this fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While decisions of this Committee can, as DGG points out, influence such discussions, it does not change this principle that we are not tasked to do so. Regards So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I oppose, because I consider that s sentence such as I wrote below is necessary. We do not operate in a purely abstract setting. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The principle is best read as a comment on jurisdiction: "[not] to settle good-faith content disputes". AGK ■ 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

It however, is the role of the arbitration committee to deal with the behavior during these disputes. The pattern of behavior can contribute to the difficulty in settling such discussions, and will sometimes have an effect upon the eventual solution. Thus, in the actual context of some Wikipedia disputes, the Arbitration Committee's actions or failure to take action can influence the solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The disputes in this case center around the behavior of editors active in the editing of, deletion of, and discussions about portals.

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Portals

2) Portals, a page-collation function created on Wikipedia in 2005, are tools intended to help readers browse broad subject areas. Recent community proposals have been contentious and have not resulted in a clear consensus about their use. (proposal to discontinue their use, proposal to adopt community guidelines, proposal to delete portal space)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a minor copyedit (changed "area" to "page-collation function" for clarity; any arb may revert if desired). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mass-creation of portals

3) Following the first RfC on a proposal to end the system of portals in April 2018, thousands of additional portals were created in a semi-automatic fashion (primarily by an editor who is not a party to this case). Most of these new portals have since been deleted, many through mass-nominations at MfD.

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With copyedits (added "on a proposal" and "primarily by an editor who is not a party to this case"); any arb may revert either or both if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct but not strictly required. I have seen no reason to assume that the behavior would have been different if those portals had come into existence another way. Regards So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is immediately relevant, though it does help contextualize the volume of BrownHairedGirl's deletions mentioned in FoF 9. –xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Deletion discussions

4) Portal deletion discussions have been highly contentious, with many involving accusations of bad faith, accusations of lying and incompetence, and other violations of the civility policy.

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit (added "with many"); same comment as above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines (I)

5) Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines had been listed as a guideline since 2008. In 2019, it was tagged for update requests and disputes before being marked as under discussion, which led to its current status as a failed proposal. (proposal to adopt community guidelines)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 5.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines (II)

5.1) Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines was reviewed and abolished in 2019 (discussion) after increasing community concern about both the proliferation and utility of portals.

Support:

Second choice. I have proposed some alternate text as well. Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Second choice after 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to five—this is factual. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

this seems to be taking sides in the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DGG. Anyone interested can read the discussion and reach their own conclusions, we shouldn't do it for them. Regards So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Far prefer 5. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the more neutral wording above. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also prefer 5). Katie^talk 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure "abolished" is the right word here. I prefer the first version. – bradv🍁 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that kind of bothered me too, but I voted for it anyway. Not sure why I did that, struck. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishment strikes me as a bit heavy-handed for what are ultimately relatively small-scale discussions of guidelines, not five-pillars policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate:

Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines was reviewed and not formally adopted as a guideline in 2019 (discussion) after increasing community concern about both the proliferation and utility of portals.

Mkdw ^talk 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word missing in the current text of this FoF? What are we saying happened in 2019? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say "abolished", but it looks like it was inadvertently removed by Mkdw in another comment. I've put it back. – bradv🍁 04:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl

6) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying ([1], [2], [3], [4]); labeling editors with opposing viewpoints to hers in portal matters as 'portalistas', which she defined as 'those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals' (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl); and questioning the intelligence of those participating in portal edits and discussions with accusations of mendacity, 'Dunning–Kruger conduct', and being a 'low-skill group' (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Portals, NA1K's evidence, BHG's evidence).

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment: I agree with much of the proposed decision, including some of the findings and remedies concerning BrownHairedGirl. That being said, I would prefer to recognize that while BrownHairedGirl's conduct in the portals arena has been problematic, she is a long-term, highly active editor and administrator with an unmistakable dedication to the quality of the encyclopedia we are creating. If, as appears, she sometimes lost her sense of perspective over the content and future of portals—which are a lesser-used, ancillary, and probably declining area of the project—this was the result of her dedication rather than of anything more sinister. And if we conclude that is in everyone's interest that BrownHairedGirl should continue to work on aspects of Wikipedia other than portals, I prefer to express that in a way that recognizes both the broader positive aspects of her work here as well as the more specific problems identified in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour has existed for many months and is not abating. AGK ■ 09:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with this finding, as it is accurate. Similarly to NYB, I believe BrownHairedGirl is a long term positive asset to Wikipedia, even if this limited area has become problematic. The comment about lies shows this - even if BHG believes a statement to be demonstrably untrue, that does not imply dishonesty or malice, which the term "lie" does. Good people can disagree, and assigning negative motivations to the opposition flies in the face or our core principle of "assuming good faith". Worm^TT(talk) 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl would do well by simply not commenting on contributors when discussing disagreements about content. –xeno^talk 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no context in which calling other editors liars is productive or civil. "Good intentions" or positive contributions elsewhere don't make these personal attacks any more acceptable (see Principle #3). – Joe (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

BrownHairedGirl was blocked for personal attacks

7) BrownHairedGirl was blocked for personal attacks on 17 November 2019. She was unblocked a few hours later. (BHG's block log)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being blocked illustrates how serious this matter got. AGK ■ 10:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure it was a bad block, and it is relevant in contest tof the case . DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As with Beebs below, I don't think this statement of fact really stands alone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is not inaccurate, but certainly does not convey the story. The block was made 19 hours after the comment in question, a comment which not explicitly a personal attack. It was overturned by another admin without discussion for these reasons. Without these elements, the finding can easily be mis-interpreted, and per Beeblebrox does not add to the decision. Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough context in current form. –xeno^talk 15:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my remarks below. There's no disputing the factual nature of this finding, but as we have not examined either the validity block itself or the subsequent unblock this finding simply doesn't say anything of use. I understand the argument that the block came right before the case was filed and is probably the proximate cause of it being filed, but the block was lifted by an uninvolved admin and not re-instated, so it was basically struck. Presenting it as an FoF tacitly suggests we all agree that it was valid, well-reasoned block when in point of fact we have not come to any such decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this doesn't really add to the case here—if we were to include it I'd want it to have more context around the circumstances of the block and subsequent unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Doesn't add anything not already covered by FoF #7. – Joe (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As last-minute wordsmithing, changing to oppose, as this is unnecessary and risks being categorized as an adverse finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) It's factually accurate, yes, but I agree with Beeblebrox that it doesn't really add to the case; FoF #6 is key here.[reply]
~~Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

I'm not sure why we're voting on this. There's no arguing it, she was blocked, and then unblocked. But if we are making no judgement on the validity of that block it's not clear to me what this really adds to the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that i) the civility issue is not new, and ii) the community has been unable to resolve it. Furthermore, if this behaviour persisted after the block, then the block itself was an ineffective reminder. – bradv🍁 20:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request was ...not great... and that was acknowledged by the unblocking admin, but they unblocked anyway because they deemed it to be unduly punitive and to be stretching the definition of "personal attack." If we don't indicate if we agree or disagree with that stance we're basically just saying "this happened". Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting further discussion but this far I find Beeblebrox's comment persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This block occurred the day before this case was filed. If it wasn't the precipitating event that led to the filing, it was certainly one of them, and necessitates mention here. It is also highly unusual for an administrator to be blocked, and that is also worthy of note. Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with my colleagues who suggest a block for conduct is not a relevant fact in a case where the scope is the "conduct of parties and others in discussions around portals and deletion of portals". I think that provides fairly clear context and if not, surely the immediate preceding FOF provides it in abundance and is passing unanimously. I really do not follow arguments that it lacks context or relevance especially when little to no evidence has been opined to even support this position. Mkdw ^talk 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 made edits to many portals, which BrownHairedGirl reverted with Twinkle

8) In September and October 2019, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) made edits to dozens of portals. On 12 October, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) reverted all of Northamerica1000's changes using Twinkle, calling every change 'unexplained', 'sneaky', and a 'stealthy mass-takeover of portals'. Northamerica1000 had made contemporaneous edits to the talk pages of many portals they edited. (ANI thread, BHG's October 12 Portal namespace contribs, NA1K's Portal contribs from 1 Sept to 12 Oct, NA1K's Portal talk contribs from 1 Sept to 12 Oct)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is understood that the quality and usefulness of these edits was sharply disputed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conceivably, I could approve of reverting NorthAmerica and agree that this (per BHG's submissions) was Bold–Revert–Discuss. But the edit summaries used were inflammatory and suggest BrownHairedGirl was losing her grasp of important Wikipedia principles, most of which we have documented at the start of this decision. This event was an important development in the dispute. AGK ■ 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really think of a situation where mass reversion of 2 months of work should happen without some sort of discussion. The edit summaries only compound the issue. Worm^TT(talk) 11:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mass reversion should be reserved for vandal edits or implementing a wide and specific consensus. –xeno^talk 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals

9) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~~moving to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) It doesn't fall under "best practices".[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl has used their rights as part of the conduct being examined, leading us to question whether they are fully able to recognise "involvement". AGK ■ 10:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Factual, but no one raised issue with the administrative actions of BrownHairedGirl in evidence or workshop (in fact, one party wrote admin tools "were never involved"); involvement is not mentioned in the remedies (so we aren't tying anything to our noticing of these actions); and (notwithstanding DGG's caution), BrownHairedGirl's explanation overleaf that these were generally housekeeping in an understaffed area following pre-existing consensus decisions seems reasonable. –xeno^talk 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably convinced by both my fellow arbs and the discussion on the talk page that, while factual on it's face, this FoF is simply not relevant. The case has not been made that BHG engaged in serious misuse of admin tools, and therefore was not a factor in my decision to support sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is true, and while I agree that it would have been best for BHG to have avoided using her admin tools in this way, I don't think there was misuse of tools here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Including this implies too restrictive an interpretation of admin involvement. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As last-minute wordsmithing, moving from abstain to oppose. I am persuaded by the talkpage discussion that this may be perceived as an adverse finding, which I find little basis for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

As noted below, this is a true statement, but I don't see any meaningful "WP:INVOLVED" violations or other misconduct from the fact of the nominations or the deletions, especially since BrownHairedGirl has specialized to an extent in this sort of post-decision implementation and cleanup work more generally (e.g. regarding categories). Other findings capture the essence of the problem with BrownHairedGirl's approach to portal discussions better than this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Per NYB. Not untrue, but I don't see this adding up to misconduct. Worm^TT(talk) 11:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I think it's important to note here that while BHG may have technically violated WP:INVOLVED, I have seen no evidence that these deletions were contrary to consensus or abusive in any other way. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a true statement, but I don't perceive any misconduct in the MfD nominations, nor in the deletions, which were the automatic result of decisions reached in MfDs closed by others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We made a table (well, Bradv made a table of a query, which I viewed) of BHG's deletion log in the Portal: namespace. There are a couple dozen instances where BHG is both the deletion nominator and the actual deletion performer. None of those necessarily looked sinister, but we have several hundred admins, and any one of those could have performed those deletions. Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice would be that the closer rather than the nominator is the one doing the deleting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As I've just noted on the talk page, I think it is always best if admins take a very strict reading of the involved admin policy, and let another admin action any matter in which they were involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have been discouraged from participation in portal discussions

10) The climate surrounding portal issues has led some editors to take a break from portal editing or the encyclopedia, and has discouraged editors who continue to participate in discussions about portals. (Voceditenore's evidence, Espresso Addict's proposals (see comments))

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) This FoF is particularly important.[reply]
So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the title (which I read as an order from Arbcom). I hope there's no issue with that. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not prepared to consider formal statements that "I am stepping away" as proof of another editor being disruptive. Setting that precedent now could affect the behaviour of users in future arbitration cases. AGK ■ 10:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary: Disputes rising to arbitration are by definition contentious and it is not extraordinary for editors to step away from editing in contentious areas. –xeno^talk 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Per my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I see evidence that several editors stepped away from portal discussions. I'm not sure there's evidence that editors were driven to step away from Wikipedia as a whole. But it's quite possible I missed something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl's conduct during arbitration

11) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of this finding is stronger than the first, imo. – bradv🍁 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As with Bradv. I think the added effect of the disruption during the discussion isa key factor in deciding how to deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bradv. That attack on the case talk page was wholly unprovoked and unnecessary. Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could overlook the "minor venting" on the talk page but I'm with bradv that the second part of this finding is stronger and cannot really be excused as mere "venting". Regards So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't love the comments that were made, but the discussion on BrownHairedGirl's talkpage was relatively minor venting, and the parties to an arbitration case need a certain amount of leeway to discuss the issues in the case, including the other participants. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Being a party to arbitration case absolutely sucks. I would rather give some leeway and not pass a finding based on less-than-optimal-but-not-egregiously-bad comments during a case.[reply]
The conduct was also confined to BrownHairedGirl's own user talk page. AGK ■ 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conduct would have to be a lot worse than this for me to have a finding on it. Per Maxim. Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like double jeopardy. We've already recognized that BrownHairedGirl is having trouble recognizing the undesired behaviour, so the fact that they've repeated it during the case is not surprising or notable. –xeno^talk 17:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page post was more BHG mentioning that she was subject to a temporary injunction, which she's allowed to do. As for her behavior on the case pages, parts of it are not optimal, but it is not egregious. I do not want to dissuade parties from engaging on case pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither incident was a big deal. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

@AGK: That is not true. The case diff is in the FOF. Mkdw ^talk 18:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I still disagree with the finding when suggesting that BHG breached the injunction in any way that had significant effect. Wide latitude is usually given to parties for their conduct on active arbitration case pages. Excluding intra-case edits, the only other edit was, as I said, to the party's own user talk page. The conduct criticised here does not really seem to rise to the level of a finding. AGK ■ 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I understand those arguments, albeit do not necessarily agree, but I just wanted to point out that it was not accurate to say it was confined to just BHG's user talk page. That would materially change the context and severity of any concerns. Mkdw ^talk 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No compelling evidence presented of misconduct by Northamerica1000

12) No compelling evidence was presented to indicate misconduct, abuse of admin tools, or persistent abuse of Wikipedia policies on the part of Northamerica1000.

Support:

Mkdw ^talk 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And we looked. Hard. Not liking the type and quality of the edits to those portals NA1K edited is fine, but it was not misconduct and it was not abusive. Katie^talk 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Katie said. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Katie. Whatever one might want to think about his arguments, his conduct was not problematic. Regards So Why 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 11:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Functionally unnecessary. AGK ■ 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
–xeno^talk 01:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All should please note that a finding that no arbitration-level misconduct by an editor was found is not an endorsement (or a rejection) of that editor's positions on any content or policy issues—much less those of other editors not named as parties to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I've changed the heading to 'No compelling evidence presented of misconduct by Northamerica1000' to better reflect the text, per Jehochman's comment on talk. –xeno^talk 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

BrownHairedGirl prohibited

1) BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia. She may appeal this restriction in six months.

Support:

I'm still considering the other remedies but I feel this, at a bare minimum, is necessary to stop the feuding. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I believe BrownHairedGirl has acted with the best of motives, but she has lost perspective on a relatively minor area of the project, and it is in everyone's interest including her own that she focus on other things for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the crux of the problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly echoing what Newyorkbrad said. Maxim_(talk) 01:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet about the other remedies but this one is definitely required. No matter if one thinks BHG is right or wrong, I echo NYB's comment about having lost perspective. Regards So Why 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing NYB. This isn't a statement about BHG generally, but in the portal area. Worm^TT(talk) 13:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizing that BrownHairedGirl's motivation was to improve the area, it will be best to disengage at this point. –xeno^talk 16:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very least that has to happen. BHG has unfortunately entirely lost perspective here. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essential. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

BrownHairedGirl restricted

2) BrownHairedGirl is subject to an editing restriction. Should BrownHairedGirl make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked in accordance with the enforcement provision below. She may appeal this restriction in six months.

Support:

– bradv🍁 21:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen that BrownHairedGirl has an inclination to uncivilly or belittlingly speaking to other users and to treating them like opponents. The inclination cannot be unique to Portals and BrownHairedGirl does not appear to be recognising that it exists. Applying this restriction for the time being is appropriate and necessary. AGK ■ 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I do not think this is appropriate, regardless of what view one takes of the seriousness of the conduct. If there is real danger of something like this, a desysop is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weakly. It was mainly the battleground conduct WRT portals that was/is the issue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DGG in terms of considering a desysop before this restriction. If an administrator needs to have a special civility restriction, to me, that's akin to saying that they can't follow WP:ADMINCOND at all. Maxim_(talk) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my remarks below. Anyone can be blocked for incivility or personal attacks, and I simply don't see how this realistically moves that bar. Other restrictions proposed should be sufficient if enacted. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence of the portal behaviour being a larger problem, I am unwilling to impose such a sanction. This is also without prejudice for a further case being raised if issues persist beyond the portal area. Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Beeblebrox. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. –xeno^talk 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Policy already allows for editors to be blocked if they behave in this way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This just restates the blocking policy. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA already apply to all editors. Mkdw ^talk 04:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure this is necessary as the problematic comments have, to the best of my knowledge, centered around the portals discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that technically we are all subject to this restriction, all the time. The bar for what is blockable should not be higher or lower for any one person. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 interaction ban (I)

3) BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed in six months.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept a "you two aren't likely to get along" style iBan. Worm^TT(talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support at this point. A two-way IBAN doesn't have to imply fault on NA1K's part, it's just an equitable response to two editors who can't get along. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see any need for a two-way IBAN here. – bradv🍁 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no grounds for restricting Northamerica1000 if no finding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per vote below. Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote below. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no finding that NA1K misconducted himself, there is no grounds for a two-way iban. Regards So Why 09:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 3.1. AGK ■ 10:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is good guidance for the parties as a strong suggestion, but is not needed in the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3.1, but only to make sure they stay away from each other if 3.1 doesn't pass. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. –xeno^talk 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love one-way interaction bans, but without any evidence of misbehavior from NA1K I'm uncomfortable imposing an IBAN on them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 04:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

BrownHairedGirl interaction ban (II)

3.1) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months.

Support:

Otherwise there is a real possibility of continuing problems. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One-way IBAN as we are not even considering any adverse findings on Northamerica1000. Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With an FoF that explicitly says Northamerica1000 did not engage in sanctionable misconduct, this is the only iban that makes any sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 09:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 10:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although BHG's issues with NA1K have been in the context of portals, it is clear to me that she has strong negative opinions about them and would do best to stay away. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their dispute may have been confined to portals, but it's clearly highly personalised at this point. An IBAN is a sensible precaution to make sure that it doesn't get dragged over to other topic areas. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been clearly demonstrated that the dispute has been personalized and should not be allowed to continue. Mkdw ^talk 21:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 16:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I believe that the issue is with BHG and portals, not BHG and NA1000. The topic ban, above, removes that part of the equation. I'm not a fan of 1-way interaction bans at the best of times, so I cannot support this. Worm^TT(talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT's first two sentences, this should not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moved from abstain: I think BHG knows that exporting her animus with NA1K to another topic would be viewed very dimly indeed. A colleague is citing the passing of "multiple" restrictions as a reason to desysop- I don’t think multiple restrictions are necessary (nor that a desysop be levied on that reason alone). –xeno^talk 22:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

This is probably unnecessary, but should not be unduly restrictive while remedy 1 is in effect. –xeno^talk 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

@Xeno: Not trying to push you back the other way, but for the record it is my position that a user who needs to be subject to any arbcom-level editing restrictions is not fit to be an admin. I'm fully aware many of you do not see it that way, but despite the very long list WP:RESTRICT, it is only a very, very small subset of users in total who are subject to such restrictions, and in most cases (including this one) thay had multiple chances to see the light and curb their problematic behaviors before arbcom restrictions were placed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. –xeno^talk 01:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl desysopped

4) For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

I do not think anything less than this is really equal to the situation, especially because of the question of involvement. I am aware others in the committee think this involvement at worst marginal. I do not. I consider it pretty much of a hard limit. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking this through, the reverting amounts to hounding in part, and the prolonged nature of this disupte lead me to here. I can see the case for not supporting this as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice relative to #5, and a distant one at that. Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
The "repeated instances of incivility and assumptions of bad faith" mentioned in remedy #5 have already occurred. Most non-admins would have received a block for personal attacks already for saying things like this, and I believe that WP:ADMINCOND demands that we hold admins to a high standard. – bradv🍁 04:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this quite a bit of thought, and it is my opinion that an administrator who I feel needs to be subject to not one but two editing restrictions simply isn't fit to be an admin. I realize this committee has in the past made numerous decisions that don't reflect this stance, but I feel it is the correct one. I sincerely hope BHG remains active on the project even if this passes, many former admins find it liberating to just be "regular" users again. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have examined misconduct of fairly serious nature in this case. Administrators are trusted to use their rights carefully, to treat other users harmoniously, and to broadly assist the community rather than hinder it. BrownHairedGirl has fallen short of each criterion and therefore of the expectations for administrators. There is good reason to think BrownHairedGirl will experience, time after time, the same difficulties that she did in acting correctly in this dispute. Leaving the rights in place would clearly leave a problem unresolved and desysopping is the only appropriate action. AGK ■ 10:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing those above, I have spent a while mulling over the right response to this mess but in the end, a mix of what Bradv, Beeblebrox and AGK said rings most true. With all due respect to David Fuchs and NYB below, I don't believe that a topic ban is sufficient. As principle #4 says, admins are expected "lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". It doesn't say "If the admin has strong feelings about a given topic, cut them some slack and let them hurl as many personal attacks as they like at people they disagree with". And it shouldn't. Regards So Why 13:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this since we started drafting the PD and only reached a decision this morning. BHG can't see herself in the mirror. It's unfortunate and terribly depressing, as she's been a great editor up to this point and has shown incredible dedication to the project. But calling people examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect is saying they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. Disagreeing with someone's point of view doesn't necessarily make the other person a liar or mendacious. These and the other examples she's shown just in the past week are absolutely incompatible with ADMINCOND, and I can't support her remaining as a sysop. I hope she continues to edit, but she needs to give up the mop. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For repeated breaches of ADMINCOND, and per Katie. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During the workshop and PD drafting phase, I was not supportive of desysop as it felt excessive. Since, others have brought up several important points including the fact that BHG still has yet to acknowledge and recognize the enduring and problematic issues surrounding her conduct. It is therefore in my opinion and with much regret that BHG cannot adequately or appropriately identify for herself whether she acting in accordance with the expectations and confines of ADMINCOND. Mkdw ^talk 21:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While there has been plenty of examples of BHG's conduct being suboptimal in the portal namespace, I don't think that merits a desysop, especially since I don't think clear violations of INVOLVED or tool abuse factored in. More to the point, very little evidence was presented with serious issues about BHG's conduct outside the portal dispute to demonstrate a clear pattern of detrimental behaviors. Outside of portals, BHG has in my opinion been a strong contributor that has helped, not hindered, the project. I'm hopeful being restricted from portals will be enough to keep BHG out of the area that causes friction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per David Fuchs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this further thought in light of the division of opinion here. In view of (1) the fact that the issues with BrownHairedGirl's conduct were confined to a narrow part of the project, (2) the obvious sincerity of her concerns about portals' role and quality, regardless of how ill-advisedly she expressed them, (3) her assurances on the proposed decision talkpage and her user talkpage that she understands the Committee's impending decision and will not react the same way to any other issues in the future, and (4) the important and useful work that she performs in other areas, I remain convinced that desysopping her is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This does not rise to the level of a desysop at this time. Worm^TT(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the remarks introduced in evidence and made during the case have been shocking, my understanding is that BrownHairedGirl remains a highly active and effective administrator in other areas. Recognizing that in this area BrownHairedGirl has lost perspective and fallen short of administrator accountability & conduct expectations, I remain hesitant to support a remedy to desysop without first recognizing their body of good administrative work in a finding and more importantly, without first attempting to address the issue via disengagement as with other remedies currently being supported. –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually find myself on this side of a desysop remedy. BHG's conduct has certainly fallen far below the standard expected of administrators. But from what we've seen, that conduct has been solely in the context of the portals dispute, and there's no persuasive evidence of misuse of tools. As long as BHG stays clear of portals from now on, I don't think it's likely that the poor conduct will continue. For that reason, a desysop now feels punitive rather than preventative. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I'm converting the distant second choice to an oppose. The misconduct is restricted to the portal dispute and I'm hopeful that disengaging from the dispute is sufficient to avoid similar concerns elsewhere. Maxim_(talk) 13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Bypassed redirects, primarily to link to the full section header for clarity. –xeno^talk 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl admonished for incivility

5) BrownHairedGirl is admonished for repeated instances of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, and she is warned that further behavior of this kind can result in desysop.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of other remedies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice over remedy #4.~~ Only choice. Maxim_(talk) 01:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice is this or desysopping, I prefer this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGK ■ 10:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Made unnecessary by the alternative remedy passing. AGK ■ 11:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice after remedy #4. Regards So Why 13:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~If 4) doesn't pass. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)~~ I'll just outright support here, to clear up any confusion. Katie^talk 22:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer being more direct (in "The committee will amend the case by motion should there be further behavior of this kind."), but I suppose this can be taken as understood from the text. –xeno^talk 17:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to procedural oppose, the remedy seems moot, or at least won't be relevant until some future point. –xeno^talk 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If remedy #4 doesn't pass. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too weak. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too weak, per DGG. This has already happened. – bradv🍁 05:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of these admonishments. If that was all that was needed we wouldn't require this elaborate process to come to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per bradv. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. –xeno^talk 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 4 passing should adequately make any concerns about conduct very clear. Mkdw ^talk 04:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

@Beeblebrox: If that was all that was needed we wouldn't require this elaborate process to come to it. That statement concerns me. It implies to me that because we've been through the process, we must have a more draconian solution. The process is about deciding where the problem lies and what can be done - it does not imply a necessity of an unpleasant outcome. In this case, I think the findings and admonishment are more than enough of a slap to make a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly open to the idea that we find an editor has not in fact engaged in behavior serious enough for any type of sanction at all, but I don't believe admonishments from the committee actually do anything and I'm not in favor of them generally. That does not preclude the possibility of anything less than a draconian solution, at least not in my mind. A "final warning" is much clearer in it's implications than an admonishment, and admins give those out all the time, but for some reason the committee uses what I consider much weaker wording when it attempting to do essentially the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer 'admonishment' over 'final warning' in case it isn't a final warning and (let's say) there are five years between issues and second infraction minor. I agree that opening a case needn't necessarily foreshadow significant sanctions.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "desysop" should be changed to "sanctions". –xeno^talk 17:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to either change the last word of this remedy, or not pass it as it is redundant to #4. Currently both are passing due to the lack of first/second choice votes. – bradv🍁 17:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl admonished for misconduct during arbitration

6) BrownHairedGirl is admonished for personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith on arbitration case pages. She is warned that further behavior of this kind can result in sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

I don't really think this is necessary in addition to 5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too weak DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
seems superfluous to 5 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per vote on related FoF. Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The remarks weren't great, but I don't believe were egregious enough to merit any sort of remedy, and per above not a fan of admonishments as a remedy anyhow. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. AGK ■ 10:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary with other remedies. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the related finding. –xeno^talk 17:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote on the finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Community discussion recommended (I)

7) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held whether to adopt a guideline addressing what factors should be considered in portal deletion discussions.

Support:

Second choice, prefer 7.1 Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. See also below. Regards So Why 10:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 7.1: AGK ■ 10:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 7.1 Worm^TT(talk) 13:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second to 7.1. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 7.1. –xeno^talk 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 7.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I wouldn't oppose this outright but I strongly prefer the second version's specificity. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion recommended (II)

7.1) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a guideline for portals. The committee further recommends that this RfC be kept open for at least 30 days, be closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, and at a minimum address the following questions:

Topics: How broad or narrow should a topic area be for it to sustain a portal?
Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured?
WikiProjects: Should portals be required to be connected to an active WikiProject or other group of maintainers?
Updates: How often should a portal be updated?
Automation: Can automated tools be used in the creation or maintenance of portals?
Links to portals: How should portals be used? Should they be linked on all relevant Wikipedia articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used?

Support:

This is of course non-binding, but it really, really, should happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point there's basically nothing guiding portals, which is an unworkable situation for their long-term use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-accepted and established in the community's Arbitration Policy that the committee can help clarify issues emerging from a closed case. It can be useful to do so even when ruling on those issues would be outside our abilities, or when Wikipedia may do well enough without our recommendation. AGK ■ 10:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand SoWhy's point, but having this structure makes it far more likely that an RfC will take place and that it will address the issues we have spotted. I believe falls within the Arbcom purview as it does not rule on what the answers should be. Worm^TT(talk) 13:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have consensus to delete portal space. We don't have a guideline on how to do anything with them. We don't have a standard way to use metrics to gauge their use. How do we solve a problem like a portal? We as a committee aren't mandating this list of topics for an RFC, only suggesting that these are good ideas for a starting point. We have faith in the community to figure it out. Katie^talk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason for the contention beyond the principal parties, and while I understand SoWhy's concern, there is often a bystander effect: large-scale RFCs are not easy to formulate and it's usually best done by a relatively uninvolved party (with limited motivation to stick their neck out or take the time to wade through complicated issues and deep-seated disputes). –xeno^talk 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think more eyes on the portal space would be helpful, and an RfC is a good way to accomplish that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can recommend it but it will ultimately be for the community at large to decide. Mkdw ^talk 04:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

While I support the community finding a way forward, I don't think this remedy is completely compatible with principle #9. This remedy makes it look like the Committee thinks certain questions are more important and thus might influence the structure and the participants of a future RFC. It also makes it appear as if the Committee is in favor of portals per se when it recommends a discussion on how but not if. I am aware that this was not the intention of those proposing this remedy and the non-binding status of such a remedy but realistically, the risk of unduly influencing the community exists nonetheless. Also, I think the community is able to structure their own RFC without any official looking endorsement and guidelines by this body. Regards So Why 10:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding per FoF 2 is that community consensus has not been found to deprecate Portal space. Accordingly, User:BrownHairedGirl's motivation and activity in this area has been to push for improvements to Wikipedia's portal inventory by inviting scrutiny and improvements (primarily via the deletion process). To your point about "If", see "Links to portals": should the RfC be able to determine that a portal only be linked from mainspace once a certain consensus-based quality level had been reached, then those (like BHG) who are concerned readers may unintentionally fall into uninspected work-in-progress areas of the project (and mistaking what they find for mainspace content, leading to astonishment) may have less immediate concerns about the state of portals that have not yet been evaluated and approved to be presented to the reader. –xeno^talk 13:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

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

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

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

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Just noting that the "temporary injunction" previously adopted will expire by its terms when this case is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should make that clear on the main case page; eg striking through the injunction's text. AGK ■ 09:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by – bradv🍁 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	15	0	0		·
2	Decorum	15	0	0		·
3	Good faith and disruption	15	0	0		·
4	Administrator conduct	15	0	0		·
5	Administrator involvement	14	0	1		·
6	Wikipedia is not a battleground	15	0	0		·
7	Wikilawyering and stonewalling	14	0	1		·
8	Consensus can change	15	0	0		·
9	Role of the Arbitration Committee	14	1	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	15	0	0		·
2	Portals	15	0	0		·
3	Mass-creation of portals	15	0	0		·
4	Deletion discussions	15	0	0		·
5	Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines (I)	15	0	0		·
5.1	Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines (II)	3	7	0		5
6	BrownHairedGirl	15	0	0		·
7	BrownHairedGirl was blocked for personal attacks	7	7	1		Cannot pass
8	Northamerica1000 made edits to many portals, which BrownHairedGirl reverted with Twinkle	15	0	0		·
9	BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals	9	5	1		·
10	Editors have been discouraged from participation in portal discussions	12	2	1		·
11	BrownHairedGirl's conduct during arbitration	8	7	0		·
12	No compelling evidence presented of misconduct by Northamerica1000	11	0	3		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	BrownHairedGirl prohibited	15	0	0		·
2	BrownHairedGirl restricted	2	11	0		Cannot pass
3	BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 interaction ban (I)	3	11	0		Cannot pass
3.1	BrownHairedGirl interaction ban (II)	11	3	0		·
4	BrownHairedGirl desysopped	9	6	0		·
5	BrownHairedGirl admonished for incivility	8	6	0		·	Second choice
6	BrownHairedGirl admonished for misconduct during arbitration	0	12	0		Cannot pass
7	Community discussion recommended (I)	8	0	0		·	Second choice
7.1	Community discussion recommended (II)	14	1	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default

Notes

Can arbs please be judicious with their use of first choice/second choice votes as we get towards closing time. They tend to make the notes unnecessarily complex. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, #BrownHairedGirl desysopped is passing and #BrownHairedGirl admonished for incivility is not due to first/second choice votes. This will be reversed if an arb Supports the admonishment and opposes the desysop. Things will bet weird if an arb would give the admonishment their first choice and the desysop their second choice. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guerillero, I'm probably doing the counting of second-choices wrong, but isn't neither remedy passing yet because it's not a majority of 8? For #4 it's 8-1=7 because I'm second choice and #5 is 9-2 = 7 because SoWhy and Katie are second choices? Maxim_(talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Maxim: I can't math this morning, you are correct. Unchanged votes: D - 5/4/0; A- 6/3/0. First choice votes: D - 7/5/0; A - 7/5/0 nothing passes the 8 vote threshold. Second choice votes: D - 6/6/0; A - 7/4/0 nothing passes as well. First/Second choices are the bane of clerks existence when things are close. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With Katie moving to outright support of the admonishment, the first choice votes stand as: D - 7/5/0 A - 8/4/0. The admonishment is passing and the desysop is not. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently passing

All Principles
FoF 1-5, 6, 8-12
Remedies 1, 3.1, 4, 5, 7.1
Standard enforcement

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: With Beeblebrox's vote the clock is ticking. If you would like to stop the 24 hour countdown, you need to oppose the motion to close --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

AGK ■ 12:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 04:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– bradv🍁 04:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Holding off until we resolve the redundancy in the wording of remedy #5. – bradv🍁 17:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've procedurally opposed; with the two "second choices", that should mean it's failing, right? –xeno^talk 01:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Thanks for clearing that up. – bradv🍁 04:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]