Case clerk: Liz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Thryduulf ( 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 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 7 |
2–3 | 6 |
4–5 | 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 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). 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) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
3.1) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
3.2) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
4) Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.
5) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
6) The BLP policy applies only in relation to subjects who are living or recently deceased. There is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply. In exceptional cases, and normally only in relation to material that is especially contentious and/or has relevance to surviving relatives, this is sometimes extended for up to two years.
Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
7) Restoring unsourced material that is uncontroversial and non-negative to a BLP article in one edit is not a violation of BLP as long as subsequent edits provide adequate sourcing. Those restoring should indicate that they will be providing sources and should add sources in a reasonably short period of time, such as the same day's editing session. Controversial or negative material should only be restored if it is sourced when reintroduced.
8) Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community ( Wikipedia:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions.
1) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to retain information on List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman ( timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman ( timeline) in advance of citing it.
2) The Rambling Man was admonished by the community at WP:AN/I [1] and has accepted that admonishment. [2]
3) Kww ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to remove uncited, but uncontroversial, material from List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman ( timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman ( timeline)
4) A small fraction of the general editor population have the technical skills and desire to operate the edit filter. Kww used the edit filter in a way that reduced scrutiny on his actions, such as using filter 616, rather than a usual block, to prevent an IP user from editing articles. He used a MediaWiki message in such a manner to give the IP the impression that only he could review and lift the action. In February 2015 he created filter 661 to prevent any user from attempting to add unsourced content to any article whose title began with "List of awards and nominations received..."
5) All reliable sources agree that Philip Seymour Hoffman died on 2 February 2014. Therefore, he was not a living or recently deceased person when Kww used BLP to justify edit warring on 24 June 2015. [3] The content about Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hugh Jackman that was the subject of this dispute was not libelous, biased, or contentious, and therefore did not qualify for the BLP exception to the edit-warring policy.
6) Kww blocked The Rambling Man, citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy, despite being involved in the same dispute. ( [4] [5]) Writ Keeper ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed the block 51 minutes later, with the summary "clearly involved block; unblocking (see ANI)".
Oppose:
7) In 2012, Kww placed an indefinite block on Colonel Warden ( talk · contribs). This was quickly reversed by the community as a bad block, and Kww was given significant feedback that his actions were not appropriate.
8) In 2014 Kww was admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again."
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) Kww's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.
2) Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysoped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysoped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
3) Kww is prohibited from making more than one revert to any page in any 24-hour period, excluding pages in his own userspace. The usual exceptions do not apply.
4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's admonishment of The Rambling Man.
5) The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.
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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by User: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 (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 clerk: Liz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Thryduulf ( 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 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0–1 | 7 |
2–3 | 6 |
4–5 | 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 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). 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) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
3.1) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
3.2) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
4) Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.
5) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
6) The BLP policy applies only in relation to subjects who are living or recently deceased. There is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply. In exceptional cases, and normally only in relation to material that is especially contentious and/or has relevance to surviving relatives, this is sometimes extended for up to two years.
Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
7) Restoring unsourced material that is uncontroversial and non-negative to a BLP article in one edit is not a violation of BLP as long as subsequent edits provide adequate sourcing. Those restoring should indicate that they will be providing sources and should add sources in a reasonably short period of time, such as the same day's editing session. Controversial or negative material should only be restored if it is sourced when reintroduced.
8) Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community ( Wikipedia:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions.
1) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to retain information on List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman ( timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman ( timeline) in advance of citing it.
2) The Rambling Man was admonished by the community at WP:AN/I [1] and has accepted that admonishment. [2]
3) Kww ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to remove uncited, but uncontroversial, material from List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman ( timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman ( timeline)
4) A small fraction of the general editor population have the technical skills and desire to operate the edit filter. Kww used the edit filter in a way that reduced scrutiny on his actions, such as using filter 616, rather than a usual block, to prevent an IP user from editing articles. He used a MediaWiki message in such a manner to give the IP the impression that only he could review and lift the action. In February 2015 he created filter 661 to prevent any user from attempting to add unsourced content to any article whose title began with "List of awards and nominations received..."
5) All reliable sources agree that Philip Seymour Hoffman died on 2 February 2014. Therefore, he was not a living or recently deceased person when Kww used BLP to justify edit warring on 24 June 2015. [3] The content about Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hugh Jackman that was the subject of this dispute was not libelous, biased, or contentious, and therefore did not qualify for the BLP exception to the edit-warring policy.
6) Kww blocked The Rambling Man, citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy, despite being involved in the same dispute. ( [4] [5]) Writ Keeper ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed the block 51 minutes later, with the summary "clearly involved block; unblocking (see ANI)".
Oppose:
7) In 2012, Kww placed an indefinite block on Colonel Warden ( talk · contribs). This was quickly reversed by the community as a bad block, and Kww was given significant feedback that his actions were not appropriate.
8) In 2014 Kww was admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again."
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) Kww's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.
2) Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysoped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysoped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
3) Kww is prohibited from making more than one revert to any page in any 24-hour period, excluding pages in his own userspace. The usual exceptions do not apply.
4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's admonishment of The Rambling Man.
5) The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.
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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by User: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 (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.