Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( 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 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
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, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to 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), 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.
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.
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.
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. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored.
3) Creating accounts (" sockpuppetry") or otherwise evading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user. Depending on the behaviours demonstrated, a sockpuppet investigation may not be required to identify the banned user.
4) Considerable leeway is given to users on what they allow in their own user space, including their personal talk page.
5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary, and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content was originally added by a banned user if an editor in good standing has assumed ownership of the material. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
6) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
7) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping [1]. Between July 2012 [2] and August 2014 [3], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others. [4]
2) The conduct and editing patterns of the accounts User:The Rewarder and User:Spotting ToU (e.g. [5] [6]) made clear that these accounts were operated by banned editor User:Thekohser.
3) The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales was the site of significant edit-warring over the removal or retention of edits made by a probable banned user who repeatedly added the same text. [7] [8] [9] [10] Several users reverted and re-added this text.
4) User:Smallbones and User:Hell in a Bucket reverted these edits on the basis of Wikipedia's policies regarding ban evasion. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Given that Tarc assumed responsibility for the content, reverting Tarc's edits constituted edit warring. Both parties used edit summaries rather than dispute resolution, resulting in a protracted dispute.
5) By re-adding text of a banned user, Tarc assumed responsibility for the text. Tarc continually edit-warred to include the content, [18] [19] [20] [21] to prove a point rather than on the merits of including the content itself. [22]
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) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, [23] [24] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.
1.1) For actions discussed within this case, Tarc is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
1.2) Tarc is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.
2) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, [25] [26] Tarc is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months.
3) Smallbones is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
3.1) For actions discussed within this case, Smallbones is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
4) Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
4.1) For actions discussed within this case, Hell in a Bucket is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
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 until they are satisfied with the 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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by → Call me Hahc 21 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
2 | Banned editors | 8 | 1 | 0 | ![]() |
-3 | |
3 | Identifying banned users | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
4 | User talk pages | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
5 | Consensus building | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
6 | Battleground conduct | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
7 | Recidivism | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Jimbo Wales' talk page | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | The Rewarder and Spotting ToU accounts | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Edit warring by parties | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Tarc's conduct | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Tarc restricted | 6 | 2 | 1 | ![]() |
-1 | |
1.1 | Tarc banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 2 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
1.2 | Tarc restricted and warned | 6 | 0 | 3 | ![]() |
-2 | |
2 | Tarc banned | 4 | 5 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
3 | Smallbones warned | 8 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
-3 | |
3.1 | Smallbones banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 2 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
4 | Hell in a Bucket warned | 8 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
-3 | |
4.1 | Hell in a Bucket banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 3 | 5 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
None proposed |
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.
Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( 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 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
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, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to 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), 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.
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.
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.
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. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored.
3) Creating accounts (" sockpuppetry") or otherwise evading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user. Depending on the behaviours demonstrated, a sockpuppet investigation may not be required to identify the banned user.
4) Considerable leeway is given to users on what they allow in their own user space, including their personal talk page.
5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary, and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content was originally added by a banned user if an editor in good standing has assumed ownership of the material. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
6) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
7) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping [1]. Between July 2012 [2] and August 2014 [3], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others. [4]
2) The conduct and editing patterns of the accounts User:The Rewarder and User:Spotting ToU (e.g. [5] [6]) made clear that these accounts were operated by banned editor User:Thekohser.
3) The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales was the site of significant edit-warring over the removal or retention of edits made by a probable banned user who repeatedly added the same text. [7] [8] [9] [10] Several users reverted and re-added this text.
4) User:Smallbones and User:Hell in a Bucket reverted these edits on the basis of Wikipedia's policies regarding ban evasion. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Given that Tarc assumed responsibility for the content, reverting Tarc's edits constituted edit warring. Both parties used edit summaries rather than dispute resolution, resulting in a protracted dispute.
5) By re-adding text of a banned user, Tarc assumed responsibility for the text. Tarc continually edit-warred to include the content, [18] [19] [20] [21] to prove a point rather than on the merits of including the content itself. [22]
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) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, [23] [24] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.
1.1) For actions discussed within this case, Tarc is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
1.2) Tarc is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.
2) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, [25] [26] Tarc is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months.
3) Smallbones is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
3.1) For actions discussed within this case, Smallbones is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
4) Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
4.1) For actions discussed within this case, Hell in a Bucket is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.
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 until they are satisfied with the 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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by → Call me Hahc 21 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
2 | Banned editors | 8 | 1 | 0 | ![]() |
-3 | |
3 | Identifying banned users | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
4 | User talk pages | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
5 | Consensus building | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
6 | Battleground conduct | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
7 | Recidivism | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
-4 | |
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Jimbo Wales' talk page | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | The Rewarder and Spotting ToU accounts | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Edit warring by parties | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Tarc's conduct | 9 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Tarc restricted | 6 | 2 | 1 | ![]() |
-1 | |
1.1 | Tarc banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 2 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
1.2 | Tarc restricted and warned | 6 | 0 | 3 | ![]() |
-2 | |
2 | Tarc banned | 4 | 5 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
3 | Smallbones warned | 8 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
-3 | |
3.1 | Smallbones banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 2 | 7 | 0 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
4 | Hell in a Bucket warned | 8 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
-3 | |
4.1 | Hell in a Bucket banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales | 3 | 5 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
None proposed |
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.