Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

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.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus can change

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mission

6) Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case is the most recent in a long series of disputes about infoboxes. The committee has attempted in the past to address these disputes, recommending community discussion which did not occur. The committee has previously noted that these disputes are sometimes resolved as they should be, by collaborative discussion and by civil dispute resolution processes, but that these processes have sometimes broken down, and have been demoralizing.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Infoboxes

2) An infobox, providing readers with a capsule description of the subject, is frequently an element of a Wikipedia article. Expectation of an infobox at a given article varies from high to low, depending on subject area, level of article development and detail, and the utility or relevance of the infobox content. The feature is well-accepted by the community in general.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Infobox discussions have been difficult

3) Discussions regarding the addition of an infobox to an article are often lengthy and do not necessarily reach consensus.[1] [2] Many of the points raised can be applied to multiple articles, or even across all articles, making the discussions repetitive.[3] This in turn has lead to frustration and poor behaviour from some users, making it difficult to reach consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto

4) Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of edit warring to remove infoboxes from articles. He often exhibits battleground behavior on talk pages in discussions about the addition or deletion of an infobox, and has frequently been uncivil in their interactions with other editors. These conflicts have resulted in repeated ANI threads and blocks for personal attacks and incivility. ([4],[5],[6], [7], block log)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat

5) SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly exhibited battleground behavior around the addition of infoboxes. [8], [9], [10]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Baiting behavior

6) Multiple editors, including IPs, have engaged in baiting and goading behavior surrounding the addition of infoboxes. ([11], [12], [13], Oversighted content)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto did not participate

7) Cassianto did not participate in this arbitration case, and requested a block shortly after the case was requested. (statement, block log)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Infobox probation

1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation to any user as a discretionary sanction. That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox; or making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. This restriction does not apply when they create a new article; convert an article from a redirect; or are constructively adding or removing 50% of the article prose in the same edit as the change to the infobox. They may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standard discretionary sanctions

2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto and infoboxes (I)

3) Cassianto is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes. This includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox, or removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox, at any article he has not created or converted from a redirect. Cassianto is permitted to comment on his choice to include or exclude an infobox in articles he has created or converted if another editor wishes to include one. He is limited to one comment and must restrict himself to commenting on his own reasoning and not the behavior or motives of other editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto and infoboxes (II)

4) Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat and infoboxes (I)

5) SchroCat is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes. This includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox, or removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox, at any article he has not created or converted from a redirect. SchroCat is permitted to comment on his choice to include or exclude an infobox in articles he has created or converted if another editor wishes to include one. He is limited to one comment and must restrict himself to commenting on his own reasoning and not the behavior or motives of other editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat and infoboxes (II)

6) SchroCat is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1RR imposed

7) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per 24 hours that adds, removes, collapses, or removes verifiable information from an infobox from any article.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat and SMcCandlish interaction ban

8) SchroCat and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban (IBAN).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Community discussion recommended

9) The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors reminded

10) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC) by KrakatoaKatie.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments