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, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of editor behaviour

2) 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions

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 forum.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behaviour 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:

Expectation of participation

5) Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, the Committee may, at its discretion: suspend the case; continue the case regardless; or close the case by motion.

Remove options at the end depending on what we do.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Personally, I do not believe anyone has an expectation of doing anything on Wikipedia. There is an exception carved out for admin accountability, but other than that, we can't "require" that an editor participate in a case. I'd rather leave this out or radically change it. Most importantly, we do not want to give the impression that whatever action we take is being taken because Joe did not participate rather than due to Joe's behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the section of our procedures which say this (it's just a restatement of that). Callanecc (arbwp talk ~ enwp talk) 10:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated behaviour

6) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Determining sanctions

7) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) and any other editors who may have been goading him into poor conduct.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

2) Joefromrandb has been the subject of a number of previous attempts at dispute resolution including on the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents (Oct 2013, Jul 2017, Oct 2017), the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, a request for comment on user conduct, and an arbitration case request which was declined to give Joefromrandb a final chance to try and avoid the necessity of an arbitration case.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring

3) Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred across several topic areas over the past year (evidence) resulting in numerous reports to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

History of blocks

4) Joefromrandb has been repeatedly blocked for a range of issues including edit warring, making personal attacks, and incivility.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

History of battleground conduct and incivility

5) Joefromrandb has engaged in battleground conduct, made personal attacks and engaged in incivility on a regular basis (evidence).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Misconduct by other editors

6) No formal submissions of evidence have demonstrated that there has been misconduct by other editors with respect to Joefromrandb.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Joefromrandb refused to participate

7) Joefromrandb refused to participate in this arbitration case [1] [2].

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:

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.

Admonishment

1) For a persistent failure to meet Wikipedia's standards of behaviour, Joefromrandb is admonished. He is warned that any further conduct which does not adhere to expected standard of behaviour will likely result in severe sanctions. In particular, Joefromrandb is warned to avoid battleground conduct, edit warring, making personal attacks or engaging in incivil conduct.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

One-revert restriction

2) Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Prohibition

3) Should Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) engage in conduct which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, demonstrates a battleground approach, casts aspersions or is a personal attack, he may be blocked initially for one month, with escalating block lengths thereafter in accordance with the standard enforcement provision. Should a third block under this remedy prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a request for clarification.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Banned indefinitely

4) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {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:

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 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC) by Callanecc.

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