Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Robert McClenon

Purpose of Wikipedia

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 or furtherance of outside conflicts 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

2) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

3) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of case

1) The primary locus of this case is Historicity of Jesus. The more general locus of this case is articles concerning the early history of Christianity, defined as the first century CE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit Warring, Disruptive Editing, and History of Disputes

2) Articles concerning the early history of Christianity have a history of edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground editing. There have been two arbitration cases involving Ebionites. A moderated dispute resolution effort at Gospel of Matthew was closed without success.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to the three cases being referenced are as follows: Ebionites 1, Ebionites 3, and Gospel of Matthew. Without commenting on the merits (I was involved in all three), I note by way of background that the Ebionites 1 dispute happened 7 years ago, Ebionites 3 was a two-person dispute, and Gospel of Matthew was a content dispute at DRN that was resolved shortly afterward on the article talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal

1) User:Fearofreprisal has engaged in disruptive editing, battleground editing, accusations of bad faith editing, and tendentious editing on the article Historicity of Jesus, and has engaged in conduct that appears to be intended to maximize existing conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are you planning to provide any evidence for these charges? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I assume there's more to come. Allegations of this nature without diffs to support them are little more than personal attacks. Ignocrates (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Iseeewe

2) User:IseeEwe has engaged in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing on the article Historicity of Jesus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Iseeewe isn't a party to this arbitration. It seems rather poor form to mention him here, especially as it seems you haven't notified him on his talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree. You should consider requesting that IseeEwe be added as an involved party. Ignocrates (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

The topic of the historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Expansion of discretionary sanctions

2) In the event of disruption of any article or topic area concerning the history of Christianity in the first century CE, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, without a full case hearing, subject the topic area to standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would suggest making this less specific and ammending to the previous remedy. Something simple like "if these same issues should move to tother related areas any editor may request an expansion of the sanctions via WP:ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A good idea in general, but I think limiting it specifically to just the first century CE, or roughly the Apostolic Age, might be perhaps too limiting. I might suggest expanding it to Early Christianity or perhaps more particularly to include all aspects of Christianity up to the time that the available sources are considered sufficient to allow us to produce a reasonably complete and coherent article on any given topic. There are a lot of questions in academia, unfortunately, about whether certain documents and movements existed in the first century in a form recognizable to us today, and I think it would be to our advantage to be able to include some of those topics of perhaps dubious first century status in the range of possible discretionary sanctions. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is insufficient evidence presented in this case of systemic misconduct beyond this article. I may change my position if new evidence shows why discretionary sanctions are a better remedy than normal sanctions. Opinions abound; let's see the diffs. Ignocrates (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal

3) The community topic-ban of User:Fearofreprisal from the historicity of Jesus is affirmed and is converted to an Arbitration Committee ban. This ban may be appealed to the BASC in not less than twelve months, and thereafter once every twelve months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just pointing out that any sanction imposed by the full committee must be appealed to the full committee, not BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I support this change. There are too many complexities to this dispute to leave it as a community ban. Ignocrates (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

3.1) For continuing to use this arbitration proceeding disruptively, as a troll, User:Fearofreprisal is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3.2) Alternative to 3.1: User:FearofReprisal is declared to be a vexatious litigant, and is banned from all filings to noticeboards, with the sole exception of being allowed to defend himself or herself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Fearofreprisal

Proposed principles

Conduct during arbitration cases

1) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. Passed 9 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consistent Standards

2) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing. Passed 9 to 0 at 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior

3) 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. Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground. Passed 10 to 0 at 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Making allegations against other editors

5) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

6) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment, as is repeating accusations that have been shown to be incorrect. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute Resolution

7) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia. Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate canvassing

8) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. However, biased canvassing, on- or off-wiki, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Single-purpose accounts created for this purpose may be treated as "meatpuppets". Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC) [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material

9) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational. Passed 7 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

10) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Levels of consensus

11) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Local consensus cannot override site policy. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Review of community sanctions

12) As stated in §1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users subject to sanctions imposed by the community. In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. Passed 15 to 0, with 1 abstention 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

13) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual. Passed 8 to 0 on 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guiding the community in protracted disputes

14) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose. The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision. Passed 8 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC) [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vandalism

15) Policy defines Vandalism as... " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism. Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:John Carter

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Sanctions on Kww

1) Kww to be made subject to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

OK, so this is really really poorly formatted, but I didn't want to go into too much detail as I myself am less than certain regarding both which sanctions if any would be appropriate and whether sanctions are merited at all. I believe that the evidence of Kww's behavior on the talk page of the article in question and at various noticeboards and other discussions related to this topic indicates a rather obvious lack of competence in this particular field. I also believe that there may be significant other misconduct of this individual regarding topics dealing with the intersection of philosophy/science and religion. WP:CIR is not in any way a real guideline, but I think it is reasonable for people who currently have the honor of serving as administrators of the project, and thus as people whose judgment is considered by the community trustworthy, are obligated to demonstrate that their judgment is trustworthy, and the conduct here does not to my eyes indicate that such trust is merited in this editor on this topic range. Also, it is far from difficult to find comments here and elsewhere which indicate that Kww is perhaps not one of our best admins, although obviously those comments might themselves be far from neutral.

I basically am around 50-50 in thinking that Kww could/should be subject to one or more of the following:

Loss of admin privileges, based on questions of his competence in topics he seeks to involve himself in and judgment

A strong warning to Kww to become more familiar with a topic before engaging in such seriously questionable requests that sources on history be qualified or disqualified seemingly exclusively on religious or other philosophical bases

Topic ban of Kww from this topic area.

I would support each of the above in slightly descending order as presented, but that support is, like I said, based primarily on my own limited direct contact with Kww recently, not as strong as it might be in most other cases in which I have in the past offered support here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ignocrates

Proposed principles

Decisions are made on Wikipedia by WP:CONSENSUS.

1) In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. A broad consensus should be reached before an article page is deleted, redirected, or replaced by a new article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Consider this as an alternate statement of principle regarding consensus: [[16]] Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia should not be disrupted to make a WP:POINT.

2) Repeatedly claiming a policy has been violated after administrative review of an incident report has determined otherwise (in this case by WP:AIV) is disruptive and detrimental to the progress of building the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What do you mean by "administrative review?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WP doesn't have "administrative review." Possibly you should rewrite your proposed statement of principle so that it matches WP policy? My proposed principle 7 (at [17]) covers this issue, and has already been accepted by ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I included the link to AIV to make this clearer. Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I added more specificity to my statement; otherwise, I'm satisfied with it. This is a workshop after all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors should treat each other with respect and WP:CIVILITY.

3) Argue facts, not personalities, per WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. ... Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Deletion policy

1) Implementation of a disambiguation article did not properly follow WP:Deletion policy. Once blanking of the original article and replacement by a disambiguation article was challenged, the original article should have been restored (see Redirection). The RfC proposal to replace the original article with a disambiguation article should have taken place before replacement and implemented only after it became clear there was a broad consensus to do so. A formal mediation would have been acceptable as an alternative to an RfC if all the parties to the content dispute were in agreement. However, filing a request for formal mediation while the RfC was in progress and without the consensus agreement of other editors was an abuse of process that interfered with the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vandalism

2) The repeated claims of vandalism are a disruption of Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. The restoration of the disambiguation article by an undo after it had been challenged was a procedural mistake and a violation of deletion policy but it was not vandalism. WP:AIV determined it was not vandalism, and continuing to claim otherwise is disruptive conduct. diff That said, there is no contingency in deletion policy for creating a disambiguation article, as this talk page discussion makes clear (see Evading WP article deletion policy).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

3) Repeated assertions that Fearofreprisal is a troll are gross violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Although an editor's behavior may be perceived to be disruptive, it doesn't mean their motives are malevolent. Claiming that an editor is a troll (i.e. that they are motivated by malice) is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Example: "FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll." diff

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think it's good form to assume that my behavior is disruptive, or in bad faith, in this finding of fact. That needs to be a separate finding of fact. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, and I softened my statement accordingly. It was intended to be a general statement contrasting behavior with motives, and not a finding that Fearofreprisal's behavior is disruptive. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the dispute resolution process

4) A series of tit-for-tat filings of incident reports at ANI prolonged and escalated a dispute over user conduct. The purpose of ANI is to settle disputes, not to satisfy personal grudges or punish the perceived transgressions of other editors. link1, link2, link3, link4, link5

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 5

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: