Main review page (
Talk) —
Evidence (
Talk) —
Proposed decision (
Talk) —
Original case page |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and 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), or 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. 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 Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Infoboxes case.
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among editors.
3) 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 in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
4) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of their position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate their concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness, attention to detail, or focus on the topic being discussed can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.
5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies.
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
7) Templates for Discussion is a Wikipedia process for determining and executing the community's decisions to keep, delete, or merge a template. If an editor is dissatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in a TFD discussion, the close may be brought to deletion review. As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate a template at TFD after a reasonable period of time has passed.
8) When there is a dispute about the scope or interpretation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, clarification should be sought at the clarification and amendment page. The Committee strives to write sanctions that are as clear and unambiguous as possible, but it is nearly impossible to create remedies that cover all possible situations in perpetuity. The Committee expects administrators considering enforcing remedies to use common sense in such situations; however, when the wording of a sanction is ambiguous and good-faith editors cannot agree on the correct or common-sense interpretation, the Committee should replace the wording of the remedy with clearer language.
9) {text of proposed principle}
1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, Remedy 1.1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."
2) In the 2005 Pigsonthewing case, Remedy 1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."
3) The current remedy has been the subject of four discussions about its scope and clarity. ( March 2014 AE, July 2014 AE, July 2014 ARCA request, December 2014 AE, January 2015 AE)
4) Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been blocked twice since the close of the Infoboxes case. On 27 May 2014, he was blocked for "edit warring"; the block was lifted two hours and thirty minutes later. On 8 December 2014, he was blocked for "Vandalism and breach of topic ban"; the block was lifted three hours and twenty minutes later. Pigsonthewing's block log
5) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." Some of this behaviour is still present. ( [1], [2])
5.1) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present. ( [3], [4])
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.
1.2) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding an infobox to an article; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments (in any 72 hour period) in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may (i) participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes and (ii) participate in discussions about infobox templates; with no restriction on number of comments.
1.3) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from making any edits to or about infoboxes across all namespaces.
1.4 (was 6)) Remedy 1.1 of the original infoboxes case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit infoboxes with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.
2.1) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.
2.2 (was 5)) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.
3) Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.
4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits that (i) add or remove an infobox, or (ii) are discussing infoboxes, including at templates for discussion.
7) {text of proposed remedy}
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}
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 -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 10:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.
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.
Main review page (
Talk) —
Evidence (
Talk) —
Proposed decision (
Talk) —
Original case page |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 5 |
2–3 | 4 |
4–5 | 3 |
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and 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), or 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. 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 Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Infoboxes case.
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among editors.
3) 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 in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
4) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of their position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate their concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness, attention to detail, or focus on the topic being discussed can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.
5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies.
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
7) Templates for Discussion is a Wikipedia process for determining and executing the community's decisions to keep, delete, or merge a template. If an editor is dissatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in a TFD discussion, the close may be brought to deletion review. As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate a template at TFD after a reasonable period of time has passed.
8) When there is a dispute about the scope or interpretation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, clarification should be sought at the clarification and amendment page. The Committee strives to write sanctions that are as clear and unambiguous as possible, but it is nearly impossible to create remedies that cover all possible situations in perpetuity. The Committee expects administrators considering enforcing remedies to use common sense in such situations; however, when the wording of a sanction is ambiguous and good-faith editors cannot agree on the correct or common-sense interpretation, the Committee should replace the wording of the remedy with clearer language.
9) {text of proposed principle}
1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, Remedy 1.1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."
2) In the 2005 Pigsonthewing case, Remedy 1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."
3) The current remedy has been the subject of four discussions about its scope and clarity. ( March 2014 AE, July 2014 AE, July 2014 ARCA request, December 2014 AE, January 2015 AE)
4) Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been blocked twice since the close of the Infoboxes case. On 27 May 2014, he was blocked for "edit warring"; the block was lifted two hours and thirty minutes later. On 8 December 2014, he was blocked for "Vandalism and breach of topic ban"; the block was lifted three hours and twenty minutes later. Pigsonthewing's block log
5) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." Some of this behaviour is still present. ( [1], [2])
5.1) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present. ( [3], [4])
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.
1.2) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding an infobox to an article; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments (in any 72 hour period) in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may (i) participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes and (ii) participate in discussions about infobox templates; with no restriction on number of comments.
1.3) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from making any edits to or about infoboxes across all namespaces.
1.4 (was 6)) Remedy 1.1 of the original infoboxes case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit infoboxes with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.
2.1) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.
2.2 (was 5)) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.
3) Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.
4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits that (i) add or remove an infobox, or (ii) are discussing infoboxes, including at templates for discussion.
7) {text of proposed remedy}
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}
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 -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 10:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.
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.