Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 18 January 2008 (→‎Motion #2: vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

On this page, Arbitrators propose motions in prior (already-closed) cases, or motions in lieu of full cases. The majority (i.e., the number required to pass the motion) is the number of active Arbitrators listed as active, less those who recused themselves from the relevant case. Only Arbitrators may vote on such motions.


Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan

The remedies and enforcement provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 are replaced with the following:

Motion #1

Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.
Appeal of discretionary sanctions
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Other provisions
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Clerk note: there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for this motion to pass. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Kirill 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. However the administrators' noticeboard includes the main board, the incidents board and arbitration enforcement. I suggest that appeals are restricted to the latter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support the measures and agree with Sam regarding the appeal process. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, but second choice (per motion 2 below), so the Clerk will kindly not mark the motion as passed until both motions have finished voting. As I am now active on this motion I have updated the number of participating arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (with slight copyedit) The Committee seems to have decided on an improved wording to this elsewhere. See motion #2 below.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with the approach, but the wording of this remedy has been considered at WP:RFAR/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision, and two sets of improvements found: 1/ The wording above has been slightly edited as per this diff to reduce loopholes. Hopefully no objections to these clarifications. 2/ An alternative wording seems to have traction in the above case (subject to copyediting). It would make sense to use the same "best wording we have" here as well, whatever that may be. Will support same wording in both cases to aide future enforcement. See above.[reply]

Motion #2

Noting that the wording of the above draft seems to be superseded

The remedies and enforcement provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 are replaced with the following:

Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
Appeal of discretionary sanctions (same as #1)
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Uninvolved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.
Other provisions (same as #1)
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) First choice. This wording has achieved significant traction as a first choice at Palestine-Israel articles in place of the original wording. Also imported definition of "uninvolved".[reply]
  2. Kirill 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice, per development of the wording in the Palestine-Israel case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice because the procedure is clearer for all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=185234535"