Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) →Proposed principles: votes |
Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) →Proposed findings of fact: votes |
||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# As background. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 320: | Line 320: | ||
===Wikicology has held volunteer positions in other WMF-affiliated projects=== |
===Wikicology has held volunteer positions in other WMF-affiliated projects=== |
||
9) Wikicology has participated in a number of Wikimedia Foundation-affiliated efforts, including serving as a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ocaasi_.28WMF.29|Wikipedia Library branch coordinator]], a member of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_JethroBT_.28WMF.29|Individual Engagement Grants Committee]], and a member of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FloNight|Wikimedia User Group Nigeria]], through which he has participated in [[:m:Wikimedia_Usergroup_Nigeria/Wiki_Loves_Africa_2015_in_Nigeria|real-life outreach events]]. |
9) Wikicology has participated in a number of Wikimedia Foundation-affiliated efforts, including serving as a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ocaasi_.28WMF.29|Wikipedia Library branch coordinator]], a member of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_JethroBT_.28WMF.29|Individual Engagement Grants Committee]], and a member of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FloNight|Wikimedia User Group Nigeria]], through which he has participated in [[:m:Wikimedia_Usergroup_Nigeria/Wiki_Loves_Africa_2015_in_Nigeria|real-life outreach events]]. |
||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 336: | Line 337: | ||
:Support: |
:Support: |
||
:# [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
Revision as of 19:52, 9 May 2016
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.
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.
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 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 be sanctioned.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Acknowledgment of imperfection
2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and these errors will sometimes result in errors or omissions occurring in mainspace articles. Neither editors nor edits are required to be perfect. However, when errors are repeated, frequent, and persistent despite feedback from the community, they may become disruptive even if made in good faith.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Verifiability
3) Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core content policy. When articles are written in violation of that policy, with unverified statements, or even statements whose references do not verify those statements, Wikipedia loses its credibility as an encyclopedia. This damage may be done regardless of whether the errors were introduced due to good-faith mistakes, haste, carelessness, deception, or any other reason.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Use of sources
4) To comply with the verifiability policy, the contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor implicitly claims that they have read and understood that source, and that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source. Failure to accurately represent sources undermines the integrity of the articles in which those sources appear and by extension the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. Even when caused by good-faith mistakes, repeated failures to represent sources accurately is disruptive and may result in sanctions.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Copyright
5) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license. Introducing text and media that do not meet these criteria compromises the encyclopedia's mission, even when done in good faith due to misunderstandings of the copyright policy or due to poor practice in avoiding close paraphrasing. Repeatedly introducing copyrighted text or uploading media without proper licensing is disruptive and may result in sanctions.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Disruptive editing
6) Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. Disruption may occur in good faith and yet still be harmful to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to respond to community feedback; if the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Sockpuppetry
7) Sockpuppetry is not permitted, with limited exceptions. The creation or use of additional accounts to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Editors who have used sockpuppets outside of policy may find it difficult to regain the trust of the community.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Collegiality and self-representation
8) While Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to reveal personal information about themselves, and therefore are also under no obligation to actively take steps to correct others' mistaken impressions, it is uncollegial behavior to deliberately take advantage of mistaken impressions for the purpose of personal benefit.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Limitations of arbitration
9) The jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee is limited to the English Wikipedia. The Committee is unable and unwilling to conduct investigations of editors' outside activities in order to shed light on editors' on-wiki self-representations. The Committee is also unable to direct the decisions made by other projects, programs, and affiliates within the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella. However, best efforts may be made to ensure that these groups are aware of Committee decisions that potentially impact them.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed findings of fact
Wikicology has used sockpuppets
1) Wikicology acknowledged in his early edits under that account that he had previously used the account Isaacatm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account had previously been found to have used sockpuppets.
- Support:
- As background. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has engaged in autobiographical editing
2) Under the Wikicology account and under past accounts, Wikicology has engaged in autobiographical editing, creating his own autobiography under various article titles a total of 14 times, most recently on 2 March 2016. In addition, he linked his own autobiography from other articles. All of the autobiographical material has been deleted. Wikicology has been banned by the community from further autobiographical editing.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has given the impression of self-promotion
3) Wikicology's behavior and self-presentation has given the impression of self-promotion to other editors. He has represented himself as a Wikipedia expert in an outreach context ([1]), asserted his own notability ([2]), accepted an RfA nomination despite the nomination's inaccurate description of his real-life work ([3]), and repeated that description himself ([4]). (He has since stated that he regrets doing so: [5].)
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has introduced numerous errors to articles
4) A review of Wikicology's editing has identified a large number of errors of fact, citations to poor sources, and citations to sources that fail to support the statements they are presented as supporting. Several examples of this have been analyzed in depth by community members here. These errors are primarily concentrated in articles related to chemistry and biomedicine ([6] cf. EdChem and Peter Damian, [7] cf. Anthonyhcole, [8] cf. Smartse), articles related to Nigeria ([9] cf. Pldx1, [10] [11] cf. Tribe of Tiger, [12] cf. Jayen466), many of which were created by Wikicology himself. In addition, he has introduced citations that fail verification to a number of articles he was not otherwise involved in editing (e.g. [13], [14]).
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has introduced copyright-violating text
5) A review of Wikicology's editing has also identified a number of instances in which he introduced copyrighted text to Wikipedia or copied Wikipedia articles without attribution. In some cases text was copied wholesale ([15], [16], [17]) and in others sources were closely paraphrased ([18], [19]). After copyright violations were discovered in 2014, Wikicology explicitly acknowledged the problems and promised to educate himself on Wikipedia's copyright-related policies ([20], [21]). He has since, on multiple occasions, delivered warnings to other users about copyright matters ([22], [23]), implying that he understood copyright policy. He stated in his evidence that he has not violated copyright since the 2014 incident ([24]). However, multiple instances of copyright violations have been identified in recent contributions ([25], [26]).
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has uploaded copyright-violating images
6) Copyright violations have also been identified in Wikicology's image uploads on both the English Wikipedia ([27]) and Commons ([28]). In many cases these images were labeled as "own work" although Wikicology was not the photographer (e.g. local: [29], Commons: [30]). He asserted he had been unaware of the meaning of labeling uploads as "own work" ([31]).
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology is not a novice editor
7) Wikicology has been an active editor under the Wikicology account since 2014, has amassed around 8,000 live edits, and has created 547 articles. He has been given the rollback, account creator, and autopatrolled user rights (the last was removed on 4 April: [32]). He requested, received, and accepted a nomination for adminship. He has participated in outreach events.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has received feedback on his editing
8) Wikicology has received extensive feedback on the systematic errors in his editing, including image copyright errors (see here) and article sourcing errors, both from individual colleagues ([33], [34], [35]) and from the community (2014 ANI). He has often responded positively to this feedback and made assurances that he would correct his errors (2014 ANI apology, 2016 ANI apology). However, improvement has not been forthcoming and numerous problems have been identified in recent article work (see Softlavender's analysis).
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has held volunteer positions in other WMF-affiliated projects
9) Wikicology has participated in a number of Wikimedia Foundation-affiliated efforts, including serving as a Wikipedia Library branch coordinator, a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, and a member of the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria, through which he has participated in real-life outreach events.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology has been harassed
10) Wikicology has been subject to recurring harassment, which escalated during the course of the case, and much of which has now been revision-deleted or suppressed. One account was blocked during the case for this behavior.
- Support:
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (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.
Wikicology topic-banned from biomedical content
1) Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of WP:MEDRS, broadly construed.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology topic-banned from images
2) Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology site-banned
3.1) Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Wikicology placed under mentorship
3.2) Wikicology is permitted to edit the English Wikipedia only on the condition of active mentorship. He may make no edit to any content namespace other than the Draft: namespace without explicit review and endorsement of that edit by a willing mentor approved by the Arbitration Committee. In addition, he may not submit any content to the Articles for Creation process without approval. He may draft content in his own userspace or in the Draft: namespace in order to offer it for review by a mentor. He is expected to use this opportunity to concentrate on correcting errors in content he has contributed, subject to topic-ban restrictions. He may choose up to three mentors for review by the committee. Mentors may end the arrangement at any time by notifying the committee. If Wikicology is unable to find willing and approvable mentors, or if his mentors report persistent unsatisfactory work, he may be banned by motion. He may request reconsideration of this arrangement twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Community encouraged
4) The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Other projects informed
5) The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.
- 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:
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.
These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) by Opabinia regalis.
- Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
- Principles: All
- Findings: All
- Remedies: All
- Enforcement provisions: Pass by default
- Proposals which have passed
- Principles: None, yet
- Findings: None, yet
- Remedies: None, yet
- Enforcement provisions: Pass by default
- Proposals which cannot pass
- Principles: None, yet
- Findings: None, yet
- Remedies: None, yet
- Enforcement provisions: Pass by default
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 needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.
- Support
- Oppose
- Comments