Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Ks0stm ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Kelapstick ( Talk) & Drmies ( 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, not counting 1 recused. 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 or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
5) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement. Editors are neither required nor expected to be perfect. However, repeated disruption to process, and failure to heed sound advice when given may become disruptive even when done in good faith.
1) The " Did you know" and " In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content. Determining how the content of the main page is selected is outside the mandate of the Arbitration Committee.
2) The main page of Wikipedia is subject to higher scrutiny than many other Wikipedia pages because it is the face of the project, and receives considerably more traffic than other pages.( [1]) Discussions about changes to the main page are often more heated than those on the rest of the project due to concerns about inaccuracies on such a heavily-trafficked page, as well as time-sensitivity concerns surrounding portions of the page such as In the news and Did you know.
3) In January 2016 the Arbitration Committee noted that that " The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this [Future Perfect at Sunrise Arbitration Case Request] dispute". Additionally, he was "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions".
4) In the 2009 Date delinking arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee found that "The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles" [2] and admonished him for "not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.". [3]
5) Since January 2016, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) has continued to engage in uncivil and inflammatory behavior and make personal attacks towards other editors (such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).
6) George Ho ( talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) have a hostile relationship. ( December 2015, April 2016, May 2016, June 2016, June 2016, July 2016)
7) George Ho ( talk · contribs) has been an active editor since 2005, and has amassed approximately 80,000 live edits.( [9])
8) George Ho ( talk · contribs) has been disruptive by repeatedly beginning discussions on trivial changes even after consensus has been decided, and escalating issues much more quickly than is appropriate.
9) George Ho ( talk · contribs) canvassed no fewer than twelve people to this case ( [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). When told to stop he failed to see the issue with what he was doing [25], and sought out other users who could do it on his behalf [26].
10) After remedy 1 in this case (reading "For conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is desysopped.") was passing, but before this case closed, The Rambling Man resigned the administrator tools.( [28])
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 conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
2) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
3) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
4) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
5) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) and George Ho ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
6) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing. This block may be appealed by any of the standard means available to request unblocking (user talk page request or UTRS). This unblock request does not have to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
7) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
7.1) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefnitely prohibited from performing actions on:
and all their talk pages, subpages, and discussions of them regardless of venue.
For the purposes of this restriction, "actions" refers to all logged actions and edits. He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
7.2) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
8) The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.
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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by 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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.
Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Ks0stm ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Kelapstick ( Talk) & Drmies ( 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, not counting 1 recused. 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 or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
5) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement. Editors are neither required nor expected to be perfect. However, repeated disruption to process, and failure to heed sound advice when given may become disruptive even when done in good faith.
1) The " Did you know" and " In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content. Determining how the content of the main page is selected is outside the mandate of the Arbitration Committee.
2) The main page of Wikipedia is subject to higher scrutiny than many other Wikipedia pages because it is the face of the project, and receives considerably more traffic than other pages.( [1]) Discussions about changes to the main page are often more heated than those on the rest of the project due to concerns about inaccuracies on such a heavily-trafficked page, as well as time-sensitivity concerns surrounding portions of the page such as In the news and Did you know.
3) In January 2016 the Arbitration Committee noted that that " The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this [Future Perfect at Sunrise Arbitration Case Request] dispute". Additionally, he was "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions".
4) In the 2009 Date delinking arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee found that "The Rambling Man has edit-warred extensively to remove the linking of dates on the tennis articles" [2] and admonished him for "not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.". [3]
5) Since January 2016, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) has continued to engage in uncivil and inflammatory behavior and make personal attacks towards other editors (such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).
6) George Ho ( talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) have a hostile relationship. ( December 2015, April 2016, May 2016, June 2016, June 2016, July 2016)
7) George Ho ( talk · contribs) has been an active editor since 2005, and has amassed approximately 80,000 live edits.( [9])
8) George Ho ( talk · contribs) has been disruptive by repeatedly beginning discussions on trivial changes even after consensus has been decided, and escalating issues much more quickly than is appropriate.
9) George Ho ( talk · contribs) canvassed no fewer than twelve people to this case ( [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). When told to stop he failed to see the issue with what he was doing [25], and sought out other users who could do it on his behalf [26].
10) After remedy 1 in this case (reading "For conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is desysopped.") was passing, but before this case closed, The Rambling Man resigned the administrator tools.( [28])
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 conduct unbecoming an administrator, The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
2) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
3) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
4) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
5) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) and George Ho ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
6) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing. This block may be appealed by any of the standard means available to request unblocking (user talk page request or UTRS). This unblock request does not have to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
7) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the main page, templates transcluding to the main page, processes related to determining main page content, and all associated talk pages. He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
7.1) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefnitely prohibited from performing actions on:
and all their talk pages, subpages, and discussions of them regardless of venue.
For the purposes of this restriction, "actions" refers to all logged actions and edits. He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
7.2) George Ho ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
8) The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.
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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by 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 (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.