m →Ownership and stewardship: rm whitespace (Proposed principles have been posted) |
Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) →Proposed findings of fact: posting FoFs |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
==Proposed findings of fact== |
==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. |
|||
1) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
:Comments: |
:Comments: |
||
: |
|||
===Arzel (edit warring)=== |
|||
2) Although there was no evidence that he had breached the [[w:WP:3RR|three-revert rule (3RR)]], Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&dir=prev&offset=20140426050000&limit=11&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&offset=20140427000000&limit=7&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel_controversies&offset=20140110052000&limit=8&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute&offset=20131002145000&limit=6&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Cruz&dir=prev&offset=20131019163800&limit=8&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Women&offset=20130925000000&limit=6&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers&offset=20130916182025&limit=13&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_King&offset=20130724190305&limit=23&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_King&offset=20130724190305&limit=23&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_the_Vote&dir=prev&offset=20130522223200&limit=13&action=history] This has had a disruptive effect on the topic area, and has increased tensions. |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
2) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
3) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
4) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
5) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
6) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
7) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
8) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
9) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
10) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 295: | Line 174: | ||
:Comments: |
:Comments: |
||
::: |
|||
===Arzel (personalising disputes) === |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orson_Scott_Card&diff=prev&oldid=581995089] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&diff=prev&oldid=573939222] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies&diff=590082269&oldid=590058895] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick-fil-A&diff=510771113&oldid=510770349] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coffee_Party_USA&diff=prev&oldid=572558511] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Redskins&diff=prev&oldid=577160628] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Redskins&diff=prev&oldid=577158386] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=prev&oldid=576530328] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arzel&diff=563910526&oldid=563894301] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_Industries&diff=prev&oldid=539508555] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Water_Department&diff=prev&oldid=533781375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_Women&diff=562977358&oldid=562947764] (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) |
|||
11) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
Line 310: | Line 188: | ||
:Comments: |
:Comments: |
||
::: |
|||
==Proposed remedies== |
==Proposed remedies== |
Revision as of 17:03, 26 June 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Ownership and stewardship
7) 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
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:
- 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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
13) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- 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 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:
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
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
-