Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Mdann52 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Mkdw ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk)
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 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 6 |
2–3 | 5 |
4–5 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
2) 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, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.
4) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) and their accountability under WP:ADMINACCT.
2) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) questionably removed WP:NPR permissions from Legacypac ( talk · contribs) during an ANI discussion, directly reversing and challenging an administrative action performed by Swarm ( talk · contribs). Arthur Rubin did not adhere to WP:RAAA when he failed to notify, and discuss in advance, the reversal with Swarm. The permission removal was later overturned via discussion.
In addition, as I mentioned below, it seems that a larger issue here is that AR did not adequately explain and support his action with evidence (as opposed to just making unsupported accusations). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem here looks, to me, like Arthur removed the right without offering a substantiated reason (only allegations). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
3)
Arthur Rubin (
talk ·
contribs) was not in violation of
WP:INVOLVED at the time
WP:NPR permissions were removed from
Legacypac (
talk ·
contribs) on
11 June 2017. The following discussion at ANI and on Arthur Rubin's user talk page was the point where Arthur Rubin was "
becoming involved".
4) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) made several claims against The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) over the span of several weeks. Numerous requests were made, such as the 18 July 2017 request on Arthur Rubin's user talk page, for them to supply evidence in the form of diffs or examples to support their claims. On 25 July 2017, an ANI report was started by The Rambling Man regarding the issue. Leading up to and during this time, Arthur Rubin did not adequately respond to concerns raised by the community until 3 August 2017, one week after the Arbitration case request was filed.
5) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) was temporarily community banned on 3 August 2017 from "editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, WP:ANI and any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it, broadly construed." The community ban was lifted on 7 August 2017, around the time the Arbitration case request was on the verge of being formally accepted.
6) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs)'s general absence and inability to adequately explain their actions and conduct has shaken the community's confidence in them. Arthur Rubin has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Wikipedia. These factors strongly contribute to a lack of accountability regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT as an administrator.
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.
1.1) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) is formally admonished by the committee for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities outlined in WP:ADMINACCT.
1.2) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
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.
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:
|
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 kelapstick( bainuu) 04:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) by WOSlinker.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Editor conduct | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Administrator conduct | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Conduct on Arbitration pages | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Locus of dispute | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | User permissions | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | WP:INVOLVED | 6 | 3 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Arthur Rubin's interactions with The Rambling Man | 10 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Community ban | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | Community confidence | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1.1 | Admonished | 7 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Fails due to second choice votes. |
1.2 | Desysop | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
0 | Enforcement of restrictions | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Passes by default |
0 | Appeals and modifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Passes by default |
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.
Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Mdann52 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Mkdw ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk)
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 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 6 |
2–3 | 5 |
4–5 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
2) 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, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.
4) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) and their accountability under WP:ADMINACCT.
2) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) questionably removed WP:NPR permissions from Legacypac ( talk · contribs) during an ANI discussion, directly reversing and challenging an administrative action performed by Swarm ( talk · contribs). Arthur Rubin did not adhere to WP:RAAA when he failed to notify, and discuss in advance, the reversal with Swarm. The permission removal was later overturned via discussion.
In addition, as I mentioned below, it seems that a larger issue here is that AR did not adequately explain and support his action with evidence (as opposed to just making unsupported accusations). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The biggest problem here looks, to me, like Arthur removed the right without offering a substantiated reason (only allegations). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
3)
Arthur Rubin (
talk ·
contribs) was not in violation of
WP:INVOLVED at the time
WP:NPR permissions were removed from
Legacypac (
talk ·
contribs) on
11 June 2017. The following discussion at ANI and on Arthur Rubin's user talk page was the point where Arthur Rubin was "
becoming involved".
4) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) made several claims against The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) over the span of several weeks. Numerous requests were made, such as the 18 July 2017 request on Arthur Rubin's user talk page, for them to supply evidence in the form of diffs or examples to support their claims. On 25 July 2017, an ANI report was started by The Rambling Man regarding the issue. Leading up to and during this time, Arthur Rubin did not adequately respond to concerns raised by the community until 3 August 2017, one week after the Arbitration case request was filed.
5) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) was temporarily community banned on 3 August 2017 from "editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, WP:ANI and any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it, broadly construed." The community ban was lifted on 7 August 2017, around the time the Arbitration case request was on the verge of being formally accepted.
6) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs)'s general absence and inability to adequately explain their actions and conduct has shaken the community's confidence in them. Arthur Rubin has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Wikipedia. These factors strongly contribute to a lack of accountability regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT as an administrator.
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.
1.1) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) is formally admonished by the committee for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities outlined in WP:ADMINACCT.
1.2) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
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.
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:
|
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 kelapstick( bainuu) 04:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) by WOSlinker.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Editor conduct | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Administrator conduct | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Conduct on Arbitration pages | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Locus of dispute | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | User permissions | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | WP:INVOLVED | 6 | 3 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Arthur Rubin's interactions with The Rambling Man | 10 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Community ban | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | Community confidence | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1.1 | Admonished | 7 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Fails due to second choice votes. |
1.2 | Desysop | 10 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
0 | Enforcement of restrictions | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Passes by default |
0 | Appeals and modifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | Passes by default |
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.