Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:17, 10 July 2018

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. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

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.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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 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.

Support:

As standard opening. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually not fond of this opening, but in this case it is very relevant. Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@Alex Shih: Agree. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historiographies. Significant historiographies, in this case, refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Reliable sources

4) Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral or biased sources are the best possible sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. In many cases, recent academic sources when available are the most reliable sources. Reliable popular sources can also be used, and should be added when possible to increase the ability of readers to find accessible information. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Not a fan of the second-last sentence. Wikipedia articles should be written in a manner accessible to the general reader. That does not require the privileging of "popular" sources, especially in specialist fields where these popular sources may be simplified to the point of inaccuracy. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Courtesy ping to DGG, any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and casting aspersions

5) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

User contributions and harassment

6) While following user contributions may be used for legitimate purposes, if following another user's contributions is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Support:

Agree with the principle but suggest removing "may become a very serious matter" and just leave it to read "may result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Seriousness is relative, and implied in the reference to the behaviours listed in the sentence. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Shih (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Removed the mention of "may become a very serious matter". Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was only a minor point, but appreciate the quick action. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Function of WikiProjects

7) WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. WikiProjects may have a role in making suggestions, but whether their suggestions amount to a guideline is a matter for the general community. For coordinators of these projects, their roles are strictly informal and should be given no special privileges nor be treated as an umpire to judge content disputes.

Support:

Oppose:

Understand the intent, but disagree with most of the wording. First, Wikiproject consensus doesn't override the general community but any decently-functioning Wikiproject will likely include multiple editors with detailed knowledge and engagement with the topic, and their collective views should not be so lightly discarded. Second, Milhist co-ordinators do in fact have a role in mediating some disputes - they don't get to be judge and jury; they don't get to override community consensus, but they are accorded respect in these matters by virtue of their elected position. I appreciate the point of this Principle, but it's out of place here - we can consider findings and remedies relating to the conduct of individual editors who happen to be Wikiproject co-ordinators without dismissing the entire Milhist co-ordinator role. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Featured Articles

8) Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Featurered articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles, although they should be done with care. Featured articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review.

5) K.e.coffman has edited persistently to remove materials at times that are non-contentious but are either non-verifiable or based primarily on biased and questionable sources. While their editing has been within the policies and guidelines, their interpretation of reliable sources are not always consistent with the norms of the topic area. Their approach to criticisms on their editing has been noted as not always being helpful. ([15] [16] [17])

Support:

Oppose:

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that only principles were being posted this morning, and I was out when this was posted. There are sufficient diffs for this and the last one is coffman's userpage.

Abstain:

Comments:

Doug Weller, I agree there are insufficient (I think that's a typo?) diffs. The last diff is incorporated from evidence submitted by Cinderella157 ([18]). Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Cinderella157

6) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in personal attacks against K.e.coffman and casted aspersions on their editing. ([19] [20])

Support:

Oppose:

Meh. Not entirely helpful as comments, but not to the level of personal attacks. Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct of Auntieruth55

7) Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have expressed comments that are contradictory to the principles of WikiProjects and featured articles. (WikiProjects: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]; Featured articles: [26])

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The principles in question here are 1) Project coordinators should not be treated as an umpire to judge content disputes for WikiProjects, and 2) Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles. To suggest editing them with care would be perfectly fine, but to suggest that featured articles should be left out of discussion in a content dispute would be against this principle. Alex Shih (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1) Topics related to the German participation in the Second World War, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Support:

Oppose:

Per Alex Shih. Happy to change this vote if there's a clearer indication of how DS would actually be useful in resolving this dispute, or evidence that there's admins willing and able to engage themelves with the issue who are otherwise restrained by the absence of DS. But not presently seeing it. Also, as a general point we are reaching critical mass on the number of articles under DS, with its labyrinthine machinery and obscure notification procedures. If we're going to keep applying it at this rate, we need to streamline its operation and/or comprehenisvely review old DS remedies to determine if they can be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below. Alex Shih (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

To briefly reiterate what I have expressed in drafting discussions: I am opposed to discretionary sanction (DS) as a remedy, because it does not seem proportionate to the findings of facts that we have so far. I am inclined to agree with comment by Peacemaker67 in the workshop page that there simply isn't that kind of level of disruption in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LargelyRecyclable banned

2) For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cinderella157 admonished

3) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for personal attacks against K.e.coffman and casting aspersions on their editing and character.

Support:

Oppose:

Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

K.e.coffman reminded

4) K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that the use of biased and questionable sources are not prohibited by policy, especially when the content is verifiable, non-controversial and has been included by editorial consensus. They are encouraged to continue to identify unreliable sourcing and bring them to wider community attention.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Auntieruth55 reminded

5) Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.

Support:

Oppose:

Per comments on the Principle. There's no ironclad adjudication role for project co-ordinators, but let's make allowance for a good faith attempt to use informal authority as an elected co-ordinator to resolve a protracted dispute. Not necessarily the approach I would have taken, but not something requiring an Arbcom reminder to do differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

All editors reminded

6) All editors are reminded that consensus building is key to the purpose of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.

Support:

Well yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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 10:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC) by Alex Shih.

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

@@ Line 260: / Line 260: @@
 :Comments:
+:::{{u|Doug Weller}}, I agree there are insufficient (I think that's a typo?) diffs. The last diff is incorporated from evidence submitted by {{noping|Cinderella157}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Evidence#Allegation_of_personal_attack_against_KEC_at_Talk:Werner_Mölders_Revision_as_of_02:56,_11_November_2017by_KEC_and_Bishonen]). [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 10:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 === Conduct of Cinderella157 ===