Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Christianity and Sexuality
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Dougweller (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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.

Majority reference
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 comments on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Purpose of Wikipedia

edit

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, 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.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutral point of view

edit

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Standards of conduct

edit

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across multiple forums.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ce'd "all available" to "multiple". Courcelles (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Recidivism

edit

4) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopaedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changed " occasional lapses of judgement from time to time" to just " occasional lapses of judgement". Occasional means "from time to time", after all. Revert if desired. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Edit warring

edit

5) Edit warring is undesirable as it disrupts the editing process and inflames rather than resolves content disputes. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Three reverts are not an entitlement. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Locus of the dispute

edit

1) Although this longstanding dispute is mostly focused on articles at the intersection of Catholicism and aspects of human sexuality and reproduction, in particular homosexuality and abortion, it has spilled over into other related areas, including associated organisations and associated biographies. Eg:

Support:
  1. Roger Davies version. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Esoglou

edit

2) Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since December 2009 and has made about 32,000 edits, mostly to articles about Christianity. Esoglou previously edited as Lima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Soidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which were seemingly good hand/bad hand accounts editing within the same broad topic area. ("Top edits": Esoglou, Lima, Soidi).

Esoglou has:

Esoglou's previous remedies include:

Support:
  1. Roger Davies version. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Longer than usual, but warranted. Courcelles (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Its a wall of text but it seems warranted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't agree with everything presented in here, but the majority is correct. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Roscelese

edit

3) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

Roscelese has been blocked on several occasions in the past, mostly for edit-warring. [73]

Support:
  1. Roger Davies version. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't agree with all the diffs being mentioned (or Padresfan's evidence for that matter) but there are some problems here. Courcelles (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm not a fan of Padresfan's evidence and some of the diffs are quite weak; however, there is a definite problem here. No matter how right you think you are, you don't get a license to edit war. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. On balance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Still looking at this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padresfan94

edit

4) Padresfan94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created on 8 August 2014 and has made about 200 edits, mostly within the locus of this dispute. Despite the relatively short time they have edited, and their relatively low edit count, they are no stranger to controversy and disruptive conduct. Padresfan94 has:

Padresfan94 has previously been blocked for edit-warring: [87].

Support:
  1. Roger Davies version. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Dominus Vobisdu

edit

5) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring: [88] [89]. Dominus Vobisdu has previously been blocked for "disruptive editing" and "3RR": [90].

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At least one more instance of this in the block log not mentioned here. Courcelles (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added second sentence, setting out previous block history,  Roger Davies talk 09:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. While true, it's short compared to the other FoFs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

edit

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.

Esoglou site banned

edit

1) Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) After examination of the new Fof, I've changed my mind about this editor and think a site ban is appropriate.
  2. The only thing that will work. Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. this is my only choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This seems necessary, given the extent of the behavior in the FoF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Roscelese restricted

edit

2) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. She is:

  • indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
  • indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
  • indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

Support:
  1. However good an editor Roscelese may be, and I've certainly seen constructive work from her she has let her emotions take over too often, in these articles and others. I note her good intentions and comments at the workshop, but because of the areas she works in she will always face provocation and as of yet has not learned how to deal with it properly. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed "is not civil, or" from #2 above, which avoids the civility issue altogether.  Roger Davies talk 10:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And replaced rollback prov with "indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert"  Roger Davies talk 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Supporting now that the rollback provision has been tweaked. It makes a lot of sense to use the "prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert" wording and not worry too much about the actual rollback permission, given the existence of Twinkle, undo, etc. That said, I think the rollback permission might as well also be removed if this passes, given that Roscelese will have been restricted from using it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moving to support now that he proposal has been reworded. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Also moving to support. Acceptable compromise, DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. works for me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too complicated. If she's misusing rollback, just remove the tool. Bullet two is too similar to the long (and rightfully) abandoned civility parole. The first clause is useful, and I would support it on its own. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    honestly, I would like this broken up into three parts; I can't support all of them. (I share GW's and Courcelles's concerns about the rollback part of this) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) moving to support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much per Courcelles. I would support actually removing rollback (with no prejudice towards a successful re-application for the right at a later date) and a 1RR restriction, but the second clause is a deal-breaker for me; I therefore oppose the proposal as a whole. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    per Courcelles with respect to rollback, uncertain with respect to clause 2 (excessively vague --there will be borderline behavior here)) DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Also moving to support. [Moved misplaced comment to right place. Revert if wrong,  Roger Davies talk 19:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)][reply]
  2. With Courcelles on this. 2 & 3 are hard to interpret, will just end right back up at ARCA, I would support 1 on it's own. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Kind of unusual wording on the rollback provision, and I agree with Courcelles that it seems like it would make sense to just remove access to the tool if Roscelese can't be trusted with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and it would have been best if Rollback had gone at the time, but this was three months ago, so it's a bit stale for action now.  Roger Davies talk 18:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely everyone is prohibited from misusing rollback by default - or did I miss the memo saying that some editors are allowed to misuse it? Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is a rather superfluous tool. Everything you can do with rollback you can do with Twinkle or with two clicks of your mouse; so, revoking rollback is a useless sanction. What's really needed is the first restriction, i.e. the one limiting the number of times Roscelese's allowed to undo the edits of another and requiring her to discuss her reversions. Incidentally, I also like the prohibition from casting aspersions and personalising disputes and think we should use it more often, in which case, assuming the good admins at AE were to unfailingly enforce it, such a restriction would IMHO improve the editing atmosphere in a lot of areas of conflict. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: If it's stale to remove rollback now, it would seem to follow that it's also stale to restrict it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Yes. I've tweaked it a bit to switch the emphasis away from the tool and onto the type of edit, which probably fixes it.  Roger Davies talk 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: I thought that at first too, but I think the "stating the obvious" restrictions such as the one about rollback, and the one above it about civility, seem to be intended to explicitly say that violations are enforceable by standard enforcement provisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padresfan94 site banned

edit

3) Padresfan94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Pretty obvious. Whether or not she is a sock, her editing has been unacceptable and I've seen no indication of any insight into this by her or the ability to change. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Really surprised some admin hasn't just indeffed, actually. Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This could have been solved with a simple indef --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Because of the very short edit count and extent of the problems. I could definitely see an appeal down the road with several restrictions. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Dominus Vobisdu restricted

edit

4.1) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction from the date of enactment of this remedy. Dominus Vobisdu is limited to one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dominus Vobisdu exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, they may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below. This restriction may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See comments below, admonishment and this can and in this case should coexist. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweakage in the light of the block log. Upped to "indefinite" and added an appeal provision. (Last sentence).  Roger Davies talk 18:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. having this as an arb com restriction adds weight to the sanction, tho I would prefer indefinite. and I'm satisfied that it is changed to indefinite. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ultimately this has hit Arbcom, and the 1rr is a standard way of dealing with this repeat edit warring. The community could deal with it but seeing as it's part of a larger case, and this isn't a one-time issue, support. NativeForeigner Talk 11:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm still not utterly convinced this is necessary, but it has been a problem. The edit-warring needs to stop, and what this remedy says really should just be best practice anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per the new evidence from Roger --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Three month restrictions are, in my mind, worthless. Just admonish and be done with it, this isn't such a serial problem that the usual ANEW process can't deal with any more edit-warring. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admonishments are worthless as they're ordinarily unenforceable,  Roger Davies talk 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As are fixed-duration restrictions this short. If someone can't avoid edit-warring for three months, this won't fix the underlying problem. If they can, then the restriction was unnecessary in the first place. I could consider supporting this being indefinite; though nothing is also fine, but not this. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite restriction is disproportionate for something which would normally only attract a 48-hour block. I'd support a 48-hour ban though as a remedy.  Roger Davies talk 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, bans that short went out of style in 2006 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does not rise to the level of an arbitration restriction. I would rather admonish or warn. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The community is capable of dealing with edit-warriing; this does not require ArbCom sanctions. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I like the idea of this, though it is true community proceses could likely address same issue, although I'm not sure with the same level of efficacy. (one way or the other) NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

For the benefit of those opposing, who clearly think this is an isolated instance, in addition to the fresh edit-warring in the FOF (which are 3RR/16hrs and and 4RR/26hrs respectively) and the edit-warring (7rv/44hrs) that led to the Aug 2013 block, Dominus Vobisdu has a 1wk t-ban for edit-warring from WP:ANEW.

Even cursory due diligence reveals plenty of other edit-warring in his last 500 article edits. Examples include: 4rv/12hrs, 3rv/40mins, 4rv/36hrs, 3rv/4hrs.

From this, it follows that this editor prefers to revert than discuss and thus contributes to the toxicity of topics. Given the engrained nature of the misconduct across a range of topics, it also follows that an 1RR restriction is the only rational response. There's nothing cruel or unusual or revolutionary about 1RR restrictions; nor are we stepping on anyone's toes. 1RR has been used by ArbCom, by AE, and by the community, for nearly a decade.

 Roger Davies talk 10:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobisdu admonished

edit

4.2) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for edit warring, and is strongly reminded to use discussion and dispute resolution rather than engage in future edit wars.

Support:
  1. I agree an indef 1RR is overkill, but a 3 month restriction is useless. This is, IMO, the appropriate response to match the level of misconduct here. The edit warring doesn't rise to the level of much more than this, and any future incidents can already be handled at ANEW, remembering that even not crossing 3RR there can still be grounds for an edit warring block. Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not a huge fan of admonishments, but as Courcelles points out, in this case it's a happy medium. We already have systems in place to cope with edit-warring should it re-occur in the future. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we're all aware that this is only enforceable by ArbCom, sure  Roger Davies talk 10:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Switched to oppose.[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. only choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now ok with both passing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree that the community can and should deal with the edit warring situation in this instance. Striking my vote for restriction. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, senior moment. Of course the admonishment and the restriction can coexist. And looking more closely, they should. Apologies. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, in addition to the 1RR restriction,  Roger Davies talk 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. On reflection, and in the light of the block log, the IRR restriction (now increased from three months to indefinite) is much better suited to purpose.  Roger Davies talk 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Switch to support.[reply]
  2. I agree, this is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

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 by sanctioned editors

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

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) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
None, currently
Proposals which have passed
P 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
FoF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
R 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2
Standard enforcement and appeal/modification provisions
Proposals which cannot pass
None, currently

Vote

edit

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.

Support
  1. Seems to be done. Courcelles (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep,  Roger Davies talk 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Closing a case before the PD date, this has to be a record --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 11:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 11:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079519204"