Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) →Arzel warned: clarification |
Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) →Discretionary sanctions: at wit's end |
||
Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
:Comments: |
:Comments: |
||
::I realize this may seem like it will open the door to lots of amendment requests, and indeed it probably will. That seems to me to be a much better solution than needing lots of full cases, of which this is at least the fourth in the past year. So in the end this should actually help curb disruption more quickly. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
::I realize this may seem like it will open the door to lots of amendment requests, and indeed it probably will. That seems to me to be a much better solution than needing lots of full cases, of which this is at least the fourth in the past year. So in the end this should actually help curb disruption more quickly. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::A necessary remedy to avoid the need for full cases that tie up the arbitration process. However, since this is a draconian remedy, I suggest that the arbitrators add a principle, "At Wit's End", that has sometimes been used, justifying seemingly draconian remedies. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Arzel: 1RR=== |
===Arzel: 1RR=== |
Revision as of 18:33, 1 July 2014
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.
Expression error: Unexpected mod operatorAbstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
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), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
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.
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.
Template
1) {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 online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Consensus
2) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Behavioural standards
3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Fresh eyes
4) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Edit warring
5) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Ownership and stewardship
6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- LFaraone 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of dispute
1) This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States. This is at least the fourth arbitration case in the past year related to American political and social issues. Every time a case is concluded a new dispute seems to pop up elsewhere. Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll support, although I'm not certain whether the phenomenon of disputes arising across multiple "American politics" articles is a systemic problem or more a series of isolated ones. Some political and social issues are contentious by nature, and hence so are their wiki articles, and articles about the US particularly so not because US politics and US social relations are especially nasty or divisive, but in large measure simply because we have the most editors from here. I think the real point here includes that in some instances we have some of the same editors finding themselves in disputes on multiple topics within the broad subject-matters, and parallel disputes arising on page after page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Arzel (edit warring)
2) Although there was no evidence that he had breached the three-revert rule (3RR), Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] This has had a disruptive effect on the topic area, and has increased tensions.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- There was a user-conduct RfC on Arzel, and I generally agree with the talkpage observation that the finding should focus primarily on post-RfC conduct (although earlier conduct is relevant background). I think the crux here may be that Arzel has failed to benefit from the guidance provided at the RfC and improve his behavior—is that right? (My apologies for not having raised this sooner.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less it. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel 2 was closed on April 15. This case was opened later that day. So the "post RFC" period is really exactly the same as "the period the case has been underway". The ability to behave while the sword is hanging over one's head is not quite as compelling, and there was some evidence that problematic behaviors were still ongoing during the RFC, even right up to the end.
- My overall impression is that Arzel is a user whose heart is in the right place. I do not believe he acts in bad faith, he is honestly trying to make Wikipedia more neutral. It's his approach to that task that is the problem, hence these findings and proposed remedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Arzel (personalising disputes)
3) Arzel has personalized and/or politicized disputes with other editors, often accusing them of being "activists", which increased tension and hindered the community's ability to apply the dispute resolution policy to the affected topic areas. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] (Note that these diffs are only a selected portion and that there are many more diffs in the submitted evidence showing the same types of behavior)
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
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.
Discretionary sanctions
1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input
- Support:
- Given the ever-shifting nature of these issues and the fact that this is at least the fourth full case, this seems the best way to "cut the knot". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- I realize this may seem like it will open the door to lots of amendment requests, and indeed it probably will. That seems to me to be a much better solution than needing lots of full cases, of which this is at least the fourth in the past year. So in the end this should actually help curb disruption more quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- A necessary remedy to avoid the need for full cases that tie up the arbitration process. However, since this is a draconian remedy, I suggest that the arbitrators add a principle, "At Wit's End", that has sometimes been used, justifying seemingly draconian remedies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Arzel: 1RR
2) Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Arzel warned
3) Arzel is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including blocks.
- Support:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- I would note that this is basically a rewording of the end of the closing statement of the RFC, and that this simply turns that non-binding statement into an "official" warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
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 may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
- Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
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 needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comments
-