Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( 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 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
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) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
2) 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, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research 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.
3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
4) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.
1) This case is focused on the article Historicity of Jesus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as various venues in which conduct of involved editors was discussed (including Requests for Mediation, Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) – see #Controversy of editing at Historicity of Jesus – and relevant case discussion pages).
2) Editor behavior at Historicity of Jesus has recently generated five ANI threads ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ), largely centered around widespread accusations of bad faith or POV editing.
3) Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) was community topic banned from "any article related to the Historicity of Jesus" in October 2014 at ANI( [6]).
4) A WP:BOLD change of the Historicity of Jesus article to a disambiguation by User:Wdford ( [7]) spurred a Request for Comment ( [8]) and a Request for Mediation ( [9]). In response, Fearofreprisal filed an inappropriate anti-vandalism request ( [10]) which was declined ( [11]).
5) Fearofreprisal cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy ( [12] [13]) though later admitted it was not ideal ( [14]).
6) Some users in conflict with Fearofreprisal characterized his actions as being trolling, and the editor as being NOTHERE to contribute. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
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) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Historicity of Jesus page. Should discussion of the Historicity of Jesus issue expand outside of this article, the committee will consider expanding the scope of these sanctions, per request.
1.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the articles relating to the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed.
2) Bill the Cat 7 ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith or bias against other editors, even when convinced that is the case.
3) Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
4) Robert McClenon ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
5) Wdford ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
6) Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.
7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus. [21] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.
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:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
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 Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
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: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( 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 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
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) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
2) 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, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research 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.
3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
4) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.
1) This case is focused on the article Historicity of Jesus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as various venues in which conduct of involved editors was discussed (including Requests for Mediation, Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) – see #Controversy of editing at Historicity of Jesus – and relevant case discussion pages).
2) Editor behavior at Historicity of Jesus has recently generated five ANI threads ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ), largely centered around widespread accusations of bad faith or POV editing.
3) Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) was community topic banned from "any article related to the Historicity of Jesus" in October 2014 at ANI( [6]).
4) A WP:BOLD change of the Historicity of Jesus article to a disambiguation by User:Wdford ( [7]) spurred a Request for Comment ( [8]) and a Request for Mediation ( [9]). In response, Fearofreprisal filed an inappropriate anti-vandalism request ( [10]) which was declined ( [11]).
5) Fearofreprisal cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy ( [12] [13]) though later admitted it was not ideal ( [14]).
6) Some users in conflict with Fearofreprisal characterized his actions as being trolling, and the editor as being NOTHERE to contribute. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
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) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Historicity of Jesus page. Should discussion of the Historicity of Jesus issue expand outside of this article, the committee will consider expanding the scope of these sanctions, per request.
1.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the articles relating to the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed.
2) Bill the Cat 7 ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith or bias against other editors, even when convinced that is the case.
3) Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
4) Robert McClenon ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
5) Wdford ( talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.
6) Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.
7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal ( talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus. [21] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.
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:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
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 Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
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.