Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Infoboxes | Review

Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page
Review clerk: Sphilbrick (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3

Proposed motions

edit

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), or 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. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

edit

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.

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.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

edit

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Infoboxes case.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Purpose of Wikipedia

edit

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among editors.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Decorum

edit

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Communication

edit

4) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of their position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate their concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness, attention to detail, or focus on the topic being discussed can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although I'm not too sure about the implementation listed in the last sentence, and i'm not too sure there are current venues to sufficiently support such a thing.-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Made some copyedits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus can change

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

edit

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

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Templates for Discussion

edit

7) Templates for Discussion is a Wikipedia process for determining and executing the community's decisions to keep, delete, or merge a template. If an editor is dissatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in a TFD discussion, the close may be brought to deletion review. As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate a template at TFD after a reasonable period of time has passed.

Support:
  1. Adapted from a prior principle on AFD. Courcelles (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Clarity of sanctions

edit

8) When there is a dispute about the scope or interpretation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, clarification should be sought at the clarification and amendment page. The Committee strives to write sanctions that are as clear and unambiguous as possible, but it is nearly impossible to create remedies that cover all possible situations in perpetuity. The Committee expects administrators considering enforcing remedies to use common sense in such situations; however, when the wording of a sanction is ambiguous and good-faith editors cannot agree on the correct or common-sense interpretation, the Committee should replace the wording of the remedy with clearer language.

Support:
  1. I had to write this one from scratch. SO it may be less polished than the usual boilerplates. Courcelles (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No issues with the wording change --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Minor ce. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

edit

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Original sanction on Pigsonthewing

edit

1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, Remedy 1.1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

2005 Arbitration sanction

edit

2) In the 2005 Pigsonthewing case, Remedy 1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."

Support:
  1. I'm dredging this old sanction up for a reason. I idly wonder how many 2005-era sanctions are actually still active like this one? Courcelles (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Interpretation of current remedy

edit

3) The current remedy has been the subject of four discussions about its scope and clarity. (March 2014 AE, July 2014 AE, July 2014 ARCA request, December 2014 AE, January 2015 AE)

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With c/e. From "frequent discussion" to "four discussions".  Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
"Frequent" is perhaps a bit ambiguous, but I think it's a reasonable term to qualify four discussions in less than a year. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that this issue has come up on out radar more often than most cases that have been decided in the last two terms. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to "four discussions".  Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing: Block log since Infoboxes case

edit

4) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice since the close of the Infoboxes case. On 27 May 2014, he was blocked for "edit warring"; the block was lifted two hours and thirty minutes later. On 8 December 2014, he was blocked for "Vandalism and breach of topic ban"; the block was lifted three hours and twenty minutes later. Pigsonthewing's block log

Support:
  1. Simple statement of the facts of the block log. Courcelles (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Minor c/e. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm not sure this should be given particular weight in the final decision, but as a statement of fact I support it. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing's discussion style (I)

edit

5) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." Some of this behaviour is still present. ([1], [2])

Support:
  1. I remember the 2013 case, and I honestly believe Andy's conduct is better than it was back then. Courcelles (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't remember the 2013 case, but I do see at least some comparatively recent instances of inflammatory behaviour, whether provoked or not. Yunshui 雲水 14:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IFF 5.1 doesn't pass. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. equal choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Equal choice.  Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice, prefer the more detailed 5.1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer 5.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Still thinking about this. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing's discussion style (II)

edit

5.1) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present. ([3], [4])

Support:
  1. Proposed to include Courcelles' comments above out better behavior since the case. We need to recognize attempts to work at issues, especially to pass remedies that may reduce sanction levels. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This works too (I even had a similar clause in one draft of the PD, but actually proving it proved more difficult than ti would seem, even though I was quite convinced of it. Courcelles (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. equal choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Equal choice.  Roger Davies talk 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

edit

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

edit

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.

Pigsonthewing restricted

edit

Pigsonthewing restricted (I)

edit

1.1) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.

Support:
  1. First choice. I think this and remedy 2 would be enough, and both are clearly written. (Remedy 4 would be an exception to this one) Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Iff 1.2 isn't amended/I support it, then this will be my first choice. Otherwise, count me for 1.2 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. equal choice --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Clean and simple. Though we may want to add language explicitly specifying that changing an infobox is not adding one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
C/E Stricken > rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing restricted (II)

edit

1.2) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding an infobox to an article; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments (in any 72 hour period) in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may (i) participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes and (ii) participate in discussions about infobox templates; with no restriction on number of comments.

Support:
Yunshui 雲水 09:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Disregard, changed my mind after some consideration. Yunshui 雲水 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. equal choice. I am open to most any changes to this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This seems arbitrarily complex. I'm not sure why it's needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I wrote it as a middle ground between 1.1 and what I knew someone would propose (1.3). As 1.1 is passing, oppose. Courcelles (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
C/E Stricken > rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed. Not entirely sure how I feel about it yet. Courcelles (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems too bureaucratic for my taste. Particularly the two comments/72 hours...I don't know where that comes from, and I'm not sure it would help. If we could nuke that, I could see supporting this, unless we can make an argument otherwise. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was based on a restriction passed on another editor in Infoboxes, that has attracted far less controversy over interpretation than the one placed on POTW. THe original remedy allowed an absolute 2 comments, not the 2 per three days. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing restricted (III)

edit

1.3) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from making any edits to or about infoboxes across all namespaces.

Support:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. If we are noting in an FoF that the issues exhibited by the editor are calming down, this approach is counter-productive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not justified by the evidence. Courcelles (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 21:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While this is the easiest solution to the problem, it seems too harsh in light of the evidence. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The FoF above notes that the editor's behavior has improved since placement of the original restriction, so I don't see how we have any FoFs justifying a tightening of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Added as my favourite solution. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C/E Stricken > rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways I like this solution as well, although for the sake of rough consistency I somewhat doubt I'll support it. A full disengage might be the best solution here, although given the original decision, and the behavior post decision, the other proposed solutions address the problem in a very different (but I hope effective) way. NativeForeigner Talk 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing; infobox restrictions lifted

edit

1.4 (was 6)) Remedy 1.1 of the original infoboxes case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit infoboxes with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per 5. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would be a lot like pouring a large can of petrol on a small fire, and then wondering why the forest is in flames. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think this is a good idea at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Per remedy 5. Yunshui 雲水 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Renumbered from 6, as this and the 1's were mutually exclusive in function, if not text. Courcelles (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C/E Stricken > rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 1 of 2005 case

edit

Pigsonthewing; discussion

edit

2.1) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.

Support:
  1. This is a little less powerful than the old (but still active) 2005 restriction, but more limited to what I think is needed. Courcelles (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems a reasonable rewrite of the existing provision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 00:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Way too complicated. Just rescind the 2005 remedies altogether and entirely separately introduce new ones.  Roger Davies talk 07:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
C/E Stricken > rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does "is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review:" mean? Does it mean: "is rescinded and replaced by: "  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it also means it should be placed (and any enforcement logged) here, rather than back as an amendment to the 2005 case. Courcelles (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest is to rescind it altogether without x-reffing new remedies. (The clerks could add a note to the 2005 case linking to the subsequent one, and this review). It's worrying that we're still working on a ten-year-old problem  Roger Davies talk 07:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing; 2005 restrictions lifted

edit

2.2 (was 5)) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. Pigsonthewing is permitted to edit with no restrictions beyond those established in this review.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not ready to go this far yet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Way too complicated. Just rescind the 2005 remedies altogether and entirely separately introduce new ones.  Roger Davies talk 07:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 23:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Adding this at the eleventh hour as a possible alternative. Yunshui 雲水 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 4 of that case had an explicit one-year duration, so striking it makes little sense. I've removed it from the proposal. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Renumbered from 5 to 2.2. Passing this and 2.1 makes little sense -- they are essentially alts. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C/E Are stricken > is rescinded,  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing; article creation

edit

3) Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.

Support:
  1. This has never been a real point of contention, I consider the potential disruption of this exception to whatever of the remedies 1.x ultimately pass pretty much nil. Courcelles (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd slightly prefer it if "within a fortnight" was more along the lines of "and which have not been substantially edited by other users", but I can still support this as written. Yunshui 雲水 09:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While I like Yunshui's idea, I'd rather this stay as is per principle 8. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Logical --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NativeForeigner Talk 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. When we can avoid subjectivity, I prefer to. "Was created by PotW and less than a fortnight ago" is an easy to interpret, objective, factual standard, and I think that's what we need here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
@Yunshui:; the fortnight language is extremely easy to enforce; while I'd never advocate blocking if the infobox was added at 14 days and a few hours after creation or such, there is no need here for POTW to decide if other edits were "substantual" before making his own edit. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely reasonable and I don't really have a problem with it; I'm just conscious that I - personally - find myself going back and editing articles I've created quite some time after their creation, a process which does occasionally involve the addition of infoboxes. However, if this passes and POTW is aware of it, then he'll know there's a definite "window" in which he can add an infobox, so I don't see it becoming an issue. Yunshui 雲水 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor ce since 1.1 is what is going to pass, language is therefore simpler

Discretionary sanctions

edit

4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits that (i) add or remove an infobox, or (ii) are discussing infoboxes, including at templates for discussion.

Support:
  1. From a review of the evidence, I find this appropriate. It seems that TFD/Infoboxes is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and would benefit from having outside administrative involvement to help resolve the issues. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the authorising motion had not been limited, I think there would have been broader need for remedies, so this is appropriate. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per DQ the area is poised for Infoboxes III unless something happens --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Yunshui 雲水 09:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not have yet another topic added to DS,  Roger Davies talk 07:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Clerk note: Stricken per request on mailing list --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NativeForeigner Talk 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I thought a while about this, but I think it's overly broad. A lot of editors non-disruptively use infoboxes as a routine part of editing, and I'd rather not have notices slung at them because a few people can't behave when it comes to the things. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

edit

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

edit

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

edit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

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 --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
No undecided principles
5
1.2, 1.4, 2.2,
No undecided enforcement provisions}
Proposals which have passed
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1
1.1, 2.1, 3,
0
Proposals which cannot pass
No failing principles
No failing findings of fact
1.3, 4
No failing enforcement provisions

Vote

edit

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 needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Everything that will pass is currently passing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After GorillaWarfare's votes, this is done. Courcelles (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks like nothing else to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
I'm not going to have time to complete my voting on this as I'm wrapped up with the PD for the Christianity and Sexuality case (and I have a horrible cold). Can someone strike my votes please?  Roger Davies talk 10:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1087270313"