Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Cthomas3 (Talk) & Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Standards of editor behavior[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Civility[edit]

3) Civility is one of the five pillars. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Fellow editors should be treated as respected colleagues who are collaborating on an important project. New users who contribute constructively should be welcomed and treated with patience, but non-constructive newcomers should be politely discouraged or, where appropriate, counseled as to how to make more constructive contributions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor privacy[edit]

4) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Harassment[edit]

5) Wikipedia is created online. Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication. Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface; while email availability is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may constitute harassment. Unexpected contact using personal information as described in Posting of personal information may be perceived as a threat to the safety and well-being of the person being contacted.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While noting that the section that this is quoting, WP:OWH, was not written in policy at the time Jytdog was blocked. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While true, other factors we should consider are severity of actions, likelihood of any other person to take similar actions outside of communtiy norms (i.e. "common" sense) and repeating behaviours, especially after stating that they would not. WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Repeated behavior[edit]

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 editor's being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per my comments above WormTT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute centers around the conduct of Jytdog (talk · contribs), now editing as Jytdog2 (talk · contribs) after scrambling the password of the original account. Jytdog is a prolific editor with more than 187,000 edits over twelve years.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Noting he scrambled his password and currently has account at Jytdog2. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I added in the note about the new account but feel free to revert. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Assuming no objections to Maxim’s edit, please remove the {{tq}} formatting before posting the final decision. –xenotalk 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
is it maybe helpful to mention the new account created to participate in this case? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to it being mentioned, but as with any case this is about the person behind the account, not the specific account. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's history of oversight blocks[edit]

2) Jytdog has previously been subject to oversight blocks for revealing non-public information about other editors (block log). He received his first oversight block in 2015 for outing another editor by posting email addresses to that editor's talk page. He promised that he would not repeat this behavior, and he was unblocked eleven days later. Approximately seven months later, Jytdog was oversight blocked again for outing, this time for posting a LinkedIn profile to an editor's talk page. After a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he was unblocked after two months with a topic ban from COI-related editing, including "investigations and allegations against other editors" ([1]). This topic ban was lifted in 2017 by an Arbitration Committee motion based on Jytdog's assurances to the committee that he would not repeat his previous improper behavior ([2]).

Support:
  1. Important background. I'm not sure I know of any other editor who's managed to accumulate three outing-related/oversight blocks (counting the 2018 one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Noting that similar blocks have been made as indefinite for other users and remain in force. The fact he had oversight blocks overturned twice is telling. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Jytdog's other sanctions[edit]

3) Following several prior disputes, Jytdog was subject to editing restrictions:

  1. A voluntary agreement not to interact with a specific other editor (2015 ANI discussion)
  2. An indefinite topic ban from genetically modified organisms (2015 Genetically modified organisms case)
  3. A two-way, mutually agreed-upon interaction ban with a second specific editor (2017 ANI discussion)
Support:
  1. As background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

History of edit warring and incivility[edit]

4) Jytdog has a history of edit warring with multiple editors (Smallbones' evidence, Julia W's evidence, [3]), as well as being uncivil toward and making personal attacks against multiple editors ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).

Support:
  1. Important to note that although the outing-related issues are the most egregious, there have been ongoing issues with Jytdog's ability to collaborate with other editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll note that I had not realised the extent of users that Jytdog had affected and the evidence by Julia W (a user I'd worked with in the past and thought of as unflappable) has rather resonated with me. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The extent to which Jytdog has affected other editors adversely, outside of the precipitating incident of this case, is important to note. Katietalk 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Off-wiki contact[edit]

5) In November 2018, Jytdog used external links to find the telephone number of an editor and called that editor without permission ([9]). Upon discovery of this incident, Jytdog was indefinitely blocked, then unblocked a few hours later (Jytdog block log). The editor had not posted their telephone number or other contact information on-wiki or given any indication they were willing to be contacted by telephone, nor did Jytdog obtain the editor's permission before calling them. Although Jytdog has stated that he called the editor in attempt to be helpful, he has admitted that the conversation became unfriendly and he wound up hanging up on the editor; he has also admitted that the call was improper. An arbitration case regarding the incident was accepted but not opened, because Jytdog stated that he would be retiring and had scrambled access to his account (motion). His account was re-blocked on December 5, 2018 as a part of that decision. In February 2020 he asked to be allowed to return, and this case was opened to consider his request.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –xenotalk 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Jytdog banned[edit]

1) Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. With regret, first choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I just can't see any other remedy as proportional to the scope and duration of the problem, and explicitly reject the idea that we consider a "time served" argument. No second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only choice. I just can't think of any other set of restrictions that would assuage my concerns about editor safety. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. The problem I have with the crafted remedies is that previous committees have tried them, and no sanctions previously prevented the recurrence. While I'm not opposed to them and will support the ones below (as they're the only real option for Jytdog being able to actually prove he can edit productively while steering away from the problematic parts of his conduct) I don't find much fault with the argument it's starting to dip into the definition of insanity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As a committee that must routinely deal with sensitive and confidential information, it quickly becomes apparent that much of what we do is for the safety and well-being of individuals and the community as a whole. Nothing else is more important and it remains our top priority. As editors of the English Wikipedia, we are all entrusted to pursue its principles and mission, but never at the expense of endangering the health and safety of its editors from perceived threats of harm including harassment. Jytdog has repeatedly crossed the line while being closely watched which finally culminated in an egregious and shocking incident. No one should feel unsafe in their home, the very place where they are supposed to feel the most safe. We as a community and a committee must condemn this type of intolerable behaviour without fail. Previous committees attempted to address past WP:OUTING and conduct issues with Jytdog by showing leniency, but did not imagine it would escalate so dangerously. It ended in disaster. This Committee must look at this editor's track record over years and recognize the seriousness and significance of the situation. We must not fail again. Now, we have a moral and ethical obligation to act to ensure no other editor in our community is put in harm's way and for history not to repeat itself. I am saddened and disappointed to see opposes that seemingly place the importance of the principle of wanting 'a route back' ahead of the principles necessary to ensure the safety of our community. At least, not to the point where an oppose vote would be recorded on a ban, or where these comments could not have been made elsewhere. Such an explanation would seem like such a fruitless and hollow rationale if ever it was necessary to explain to another victim why Jytdog was allowed to return despite the last incident and a clear history of escalation. There would be no reasonable defense if another incident happened where there was a severe invasion of privacy, harassment, or possibly something worse; or to wrongfully justify it as an acceptable risk and price to pay. We have no right to ask other people to pay such a steep price. Finally, this decision being made here today does not introduce a new concept of a "lifetime ban" nor is it within our ability to force unblock conditions upon a future community or committee. Mkdw talk 22:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Only choice. I understand the concern with there not being a path to restoration, but I can't support allowing someone to edit with so many restrictions. Especially given this would be a fourth chance. The rest is as much a general comment as anything else. The best path to restoration is not even as "Jytdog". It would be as a quiet return to topic areas that have nothing to do with medicine, COI, or anything remotely controversial, and preferably with no off-wiki contact. Maybe edit something about volcanoes? Maxim(talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only choice. I've spent the last few hours thinking about this - largely trying to think if there was an option to return and what it would look like. There isn't. He's on his umpteenth chance - each time breaching rules that are not just clear policies, but also community norms. If he cannot see that this is how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia, after multiple attempts, why would we think this time would be different? I'd go further, and would say that I do not believe 12 months is sufficient here. I have a hard time supporting a lifetime ban - but when a person keeps making the same mistakes, and those mistakes cause real world harm to people, that's a time we should be considering it. WormTT(talk) 22:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only choice. Previous committees have tried and failed to use restrictions to modify Jytdog's behavior; they have received assurances and promises and pleas to the better angels of their nature, and the restrictions were lifted. Yet here we are again, and I cannot condone the repeated violations of, really, basic human decency toward other editors. Bradv, I appreciate your sentiments about no possibility for appeal, and I'm well aware of how our internal appeals process works. I also note GorillaWarfare's comments about intent. I would argue, though, that Jytdog does intend to, in some form, harm the editors whom he targets, because he believes they do not fit into his picture of what the project should be, and if that's what it takes to get those editors out of here, so be it. Harm takes many forms, including embarrassment and shame, and words can hurt, as evidenced by the many submissions to us during this case. He's had a bunch of chances now to change, and he keeps saying he won't do it again only to go and do something even more outrageous weeks or months later. I do not want to find out what the next more outrageous thing is, so with regret, this is where I come down. Katietalk 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Most of the above phrase it in a way that I would. The end does not justify the means. WRT WTT, he has essentially served some time so 12 months from now would be over two years. I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber, I disagree. The clock should start from the date of this case, when the full issues came to light publicly. We have already seen arbs thought the ban was just due to one egregious action, as did many members of the community, I'm sure.
    By leaving of his own accord for a year, he attempted to evade the scrutiny of this case, and then came back asking about a path of return. I do not wish to reward that behaviour, or give people the impression it is acceptable. WormTT(talk) 08:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jytdog's contributions, including his work with COI editing, are valuable to the project. But the incidences of him crossing the line are too severe and have been repeated too often for me to believe that a lesser sanction will be effective. Previous committees have tried to manage these problems whilst retaining Jytdog as an editor and it has not worked. Regarding a path to return, he has the same one that is open to the dozens of editors who are indef blocked every day: start contributing to other projects and show that he can do so without the same problems resurfacing. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't remember the previous conflicts, they were in a time I was not very active. But I did review the findings and evidence and it all points to this being the only possible remedy. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have a hard time with the idea that there is no path to restoration for Jytdog, or that the path to restoration is simply to wait another year. Lifetime site bans with no possibility for appeal should be reserved only for those editors who have proven that their aim is to harm others or to sabotage the project, and that standard is not met by the evidence in this case. I should add that, although it is not an option here, I am also opposed to unblocking Jytdog without any restrictions – he has a long way to go to restore the trust of the community, even after 16 months away. As a middle ground, I would like to see us adopt a plan to gradually restore that trust. – bradv🍁 18:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with bradv: despite the popular saying, time does not heal all wounds, and I don’t see what another 12 months alone will do to convince next year’s committee that Jytdog can be trusted to return. I would not oppose an indefinite ban that sets out what conditions must be met for the ban to be reconsidered, but it just seems cruel to have him return again in 12 months, hat in hand, to potentially just get the same answer. –xenotalk 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to abstain. –xenotalk 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Moved from oppose in consideration of comments by Mkdw (who should place a new time stamp with their comment, as the timeline now looks weird). –xenotalk 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Bradv, I can't speak for everyone but I am certainly not of the opinion that there is no path, just that as of now Jytdog does not appear to be on said path, and he needs to be before I would even consider letting him back in, given the profound nature of his previous violations and the fact that he's already been given numerous chances to stop doing this sort of thing. I'm also not sure where you are getting "Lifetime site bans with no possibility for appeal" at all, that sounds more like an office ban to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, what would you need from Jytdog before you would consider him to be on a path to restoration? We're not even telling him what he needs to do differently in this motion, even though he hasn't edited in 16 months. What advice are we giving him? – bradv🍁 19:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd sum it up as "change comes from within". If he can't see for himself what he needs to change, and based on some of his comments I don't believe he does, then a ban is the correct response. There evidence and the FoF show that multiple second chances, where he was told what to do, were not successful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, what you are proposing is a violation of policy. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against the old account. – bradv🍁 20:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, it is and it isn't. If someone can completely ditch the old unwanted behaviors, become a productive editor, and do so undetected, I'm OK with it. I think that such a path has a higher likelihood of success than the myriad of proposed restrictions. Maxim(talk) 22:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it happens, and that we look the other way when clear sockpuppets aren't a behavioural match. But I've never seen "just go ahead and sock" used as a rationale for banning someone before. Why didn't we just tell him that when he emailed us? Why bother having this case? – bradv🍁 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could have said something like that in response to the email, but then we wouldn't deliberate and consider the facts at hand. As for "just go ahead and sock" being a novel rationale to ban someone, perhaps someone had to be the first? Although, a more fair way to state that rationale would be "just go ahead and sock if you still want to edit, but far, far away from anything that's been previously problematic". Given the findings at hand, a quiet return has a higher probability of success than intricate bespoke remedies. I'm basing this assertion on how bespoke remedies have failed in the past for this case, and for other cases as well. Another thought is that someone so invested in a certain area to get in this much trouble over it might not be interested in other topic areas. In that case, however, a ban and targeted restrictions become functionally identical. Maxim(talk) 23:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, if Jytdog is to return to editing in any form, it must be cautiously, gradually, and under close supervision by Arbcom. I'm fine being outnumbered on whether or not he should return – I am just one vote out of 15 – but I am completely opposed to your explicit endorsement of him evading scrutiny, and I'm dismayed that you would use that rationale to support the ban in the first place. In my opinion you need to retract this statement, not just for the message it sends to Jytdog, but also for the message it sends to all editors about the enforceability and integrity of Arbcom remedies. – bradv🍁 04:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, Given that the linked essay is User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return, I felt I should comment. The essay is pragmatic - Wikipedia is open. CU is not a strong tool against technically minded editors. What is a strong tool is behavioural evidence - and the fact is that is any problematic user starts a new account and edits an area far from their own interest and does not repeat the problematic behaviours, we would not know. I have no problem saying that out loud, because it is the truth. We wouldn't.
That's not to say this is the path for Jytdog. It defies the Sockpuppetry policy and I do not see him as the sort to do that. It means that he'd have to drop anything to do with medicine, or paid editing, or any other of his passionate points - I don't see him as someone who would be interested in doing that. What's more, for him in particular, there is such a broad area where he's caused problems (i.e. doxxing, outing and harassment) that he'd have as much trouble limiting himself as we would.
Finally, there's Jytdog's self control. If he were to do something like that, would he be able to completely stay away from those areas he is most passionate about forever? He couldn't edit the project space, he would probably have to keep out of talk page communications and doing his best to not be recognised for his actions - a quiet little content creator in a far area of the encyclopedia. Because the moment people realise it's him, he will lose another account - even if it's been doing good for a long period.
I don't support this route for Jytdog, as a person, I don't think it would be a good fit for him. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just spitballing here, but what about a restriction to creating new articles in draft space only and User talk:Jytdog2? –xenotalk 21:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept that Jytdog did not intend to harm other users, the fact of the matter is he has harmed other users, repeatedly, after assurances he would not do so again. There is an article I really like, titled "Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter". It's more for social justice contexts, but I particularly like the section, At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of [harming] those around us? (slightly rephrased, since the marginalization/oppression side of things is perhaps not the core issue here).
I am not comfortable putting other editors at risk of being the target of another blunder like this, regardless of whether Jytdog truly means well, because I do not trust that this third promise not to out or harass someone will have a different outcome from the last two. If there is any path back to editing that I can envision, it would be an extremely narrow restriction to a small set of articles, along the lines of what was imposed in one of the strictest sets of unban conditions I can recall. However I did not propose this here because I still have concerns about Jytdog interacting with other editors, as well as concerns about whether someone who needs to be so heavily restricted is capable of being a member of this community at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment: I am seeing some discomfort from folks who feel like we need to be giving Jytdog a path back to editing. I am not one who generally supports "infinite" bans. But editing is a privilege, not a right, and Jytdog has repeatedly shown he cannot be trusted with that privilege. I don't think we should be finding any possible way to let him back into the community because we feel bad about a protracted or even infinite ban—by doing so we are effectively saying that we care more about his ability to edit than we do about the safety of the editors he might out or otherwise harass in the future, or the ability of editors like Julia W to edit without the constant hassling that has previously driven them away. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, that should be the remedy to be passed, rather than providing false hope about an appeal 12 months hence. Though we can’t bind future committees, I suppose. –xenotalk 04:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. We could say that Jytdog is banned forever and may never appeal, but the fact of the matter is every new committee could overturn the decision we make now. So we might as well let him ask. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Managing "false hope" is not our primary mandate nor should we be acting as a coach or advisors for Jytdog on the next appeal. We are setting a standard minimum prohibition on when the next appeal may be heard; we are not trying to predict the future on when we think Jytdog's next appeal will be successful or under what exact conditions. A successful appeal may not be possible for several years but that is something for Jytdog and a future committee and community to assess. An oppose vote on this PD materially means supporting the immediate unblock of Jytdog. There are other ways to cite concerns about a situation down the road. Mkdw talk 22:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog unblocked with restrictions (I)[edit]

2.1) Jytdog (as Jytdog2) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

  1. Jytdog is subject to a topic ban from all matters related to conflict-of-interest editing. This includes investigations of and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page. If he is concerned about COI editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee or the functionary team by email, without restriction.
  2. Jytdog is prohibited from contacting any other editor off-wiki, unless the editor in question has indicated on-wiki that they are willing to be contacted off-wiki. Jytdog is allowed to reply to off-wiki communication initiated by another editor if he wishes. As a sole exception to this rule, he may contact the Arbitration Committee, functionaries, or Trust and Safety groups by email, without restriction.
  3. Jytdog is subject to a one revert restriction.

The above restrictions shall apply indefinitely, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee in no less than six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Equal to 2.2 as second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal to 2.2 as a second option; I think this is pretty much the minimum set of restrictions necessary to try and preempt the past behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 2.2. Restricting Jytdog from interacting with new editors altogether will provide a safeguard around the interactions that led to the previous outing and offwiki contact incidents. – bradv🍁 18:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal to 2.2 as second choice. I could live with this if there were support for it. I do think he has the interests of the 'pedia at heart and I do think he'd be watched closely. Whether it is an overall net positive with the extra effort to monitor, who knows. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I feel like a tailored restriction like this requires us to have some degree of trust that they will abide by it, (the second part is impossible to police unless someone aware of the restriction reports it with evidence) and given the track record I do not feel that at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I spent a lot of time while drafting this case trying to come up with ideas of restrictions that would allow Jytdog to return without endangering other editors, and I really can't think of anything. The fact that Jytdog has been blocked three times for various breaches of the outing/harassment policy, each time promising it would not happen again and then managing to breach policy in some new and egregious way, makes me believe that there is a serious inability to understand the ramifications of his actions. In my opinion even highly tailored, strict sanctions like 2.1 and 2.2 here leave editors at risk of being on the receiving end of Jytdog's perhaps well-intended, but harmful actions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Irresponsible. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per remedy 1. Maxim(talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per remedy 1. WormTT(talk) 22:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comments at 1). Katietalk 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think a much smaller window should be opened in order to facilitate a gradual return: perhaps a restriction to creating new drafts from scratch only. However, remedy 1 is already passing, so I’m not going to spend time developing the idea further. There was a limited discussion on the talk page about this idea. –xenotalk 02:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my vote for #1. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Jytdog unblocked with restrictions (II)[edit]

2.2) Jytdog (as Jytdog2) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

  1. Jytdog is prohibited from interacting with anonymous and non-autoconfirmed editors, that is, IP editors and accounts which have existed for less than 4 days or have fewer than 10 edits.
  2. Jytdog is subject to a topic ban from all matters related to conflict-of-interest editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page.
  3. Jytdog is prohibited from contacting other editors by any means other than open, on-wiki messages. As a sole exception to this rule, he may contact the Arbitration Committee, functionaries, or Trust and Safety groups by email, for any reason.
  4. Jytdog is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours, which shall apply in all namespaces.

The above restrictions shall apply indefinitely, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee in no less than six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Equal to 2.1 as second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal to 2.1 as a second option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. I would also endorse a stricter set of restrictions if necessary, as part of a plan to restore trust. – bradv🍁 19:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal to 2.1 as second choice. I could live with this if there were support for it. I do think he has the interests of the 'pedia at heart and I do think he'd be watched closely. Whether it is an overall net positive with the extra effort to monitor, who knows. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Same as above, point 3 in this case requires trust. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per 2.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Irresponsible. Mkdw talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per remedy 1. Maxim(talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per remedy 1. WormTT(talk) 22:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per above. Katietalk 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments on 2.1. –xenotalk 02:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my vote for #1. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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 CThomas3 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Standards of editor behavior 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Civility 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Editor privacy 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Harassment 13 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Sanctions and circumstances 13 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Repeated behavior 13 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Jytdog's history of oversight blocks 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Jytdog's other sanctions 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 History of edit warring and incivility 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Off-wiki contact 13 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jytdog banned 11 1 1 PASSING ·
2.1 Jytdog unblocked with restrictions (I) 4 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2.2 Jytdog unblocked with restrictions (II) 4 8 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
2 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes

The two standard enforcement provisions are not applicable in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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
  1. okay I'm done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. –xenotalk 02:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 05:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We're done here, results are clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voting seems to be pretty stable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thank you for waiting. Mkdw talk 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079519794"