After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 16 active arbitrators. 9 support or oppose votes are a 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.
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 to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). 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.
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.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
Support:
I thank everyone who commented on my proposals on the workshop. Several paragraphs of the proposed decision, including this one, have benefitted from suggestions made there—some as here largely semantic or copy-editish, some more substantive. I have responded on the workshop to many of the comments, and will not repeat those responses on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank all who participated. We did have some heated sections, but people responded well to the request for calm, and in all, was much better then I expected. SirFozzie (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole.
3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.
4) Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view.
I see this as a particularly concerning pattern of behaviour that can be considered a form of tendentious editing when similar episodes are repeatedly identified. Risker (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, consistent editing with a partisan point of view after others have raised concerns. – iridescent 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated problems are especially troubling when the repeated requests to stop are ignored. Shellbabelfish 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Disruptive and tendentious editing
5) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.
6) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.
The rules are there for all articles, however some, which are more reason to cause ill will and problems, the rules are there ESPECIALLY for. SirFozzie (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously areas that are non-controversial don't ever need the more onerous rules applied. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.
While I agree with this principle and will support it, my impression is that there is evidence in this case that indicates similar editing behaviour over a range of topics that focus on specific groups, and not just a single topic area. Risker (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8) Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.
Reluctant. I'm afraid that this has the ability to shut out a lone moderate voice in a sea of extremes, but I understand the core behind this. SirFozzie (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We address behavior, not motivation. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I won't oppose this because I understand the thinking that underlies it, I am concerned this could be used as a lever to remove editors with entirely legitimate concerns about content in articles. We do not want to unintentionally create situations where editors wishing to bring problematic articles into line with policy must show up with a small army in order to counter the effects of a group of editors determined to keep an article tilted in a certain direction. Risker (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References to fellow editors
9) Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.
Support, but explicitly emphasizing the "unnecessary"—there are legitimate grounds on occasion for such comments. – iridescent 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) The principal issue in this case concerns editing by Noleander (talk·contribs). Noleander has been the subject of a series of divisive threads on the Administrators' noticeboard. These culminated in a lengthy subpaged discussion on March 25-29, 2011 of proposals that Noleander be banned from Wikipedia or topic-banned from his current area of interest. Because this discussion failed to reach a consensus, the allegations were extremely serious, the disagreement was polarizing the community, and other methods of dispute resolution did not appear likely to resolve the matter, the Arbitration Committee accepted the case for arbitration.
2) The underlying area of conflict is religious beliefs and cultural identity, and an intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.
Good enough for our purposes. We do not need to provide a scholarly delineation of the conflict, but merely one sufficient for administrators' use. Kirill[talk][prof] 03:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why this is being proposed, to set up the related remedy, but I'm thinking about the wording. Among other things, let's not get drawn into any dispute about whether Judaism or Jewishness constitutes an "ethnicity." Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is only intended as a succinct (perhaps too much so) one-liner to frame what follows. Now tweaked to define the issues better. Roger Daviestalk 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander
3) A substantial focus of Noleander's editing has been articles relating generally to Jewish people. The articles have ranged over a wide range of topics, ranging from lists of prominent Jews, to the role of Jewish people in economic and social history, to Jewish texts and traditions, to historical and cultural stereotypes of Jews, among many others.
4) Noleander's contributions to Wikipedia concerning individual Jews, lists of Jewish persons, Jewish history, and Jewish culture can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of Jewish individuals and the Jewish people. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual Jews and the Jewish people in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. For example, Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. Similarly, sources are sometimes used appropriately, but when they are misused, it is typically in a fashion that treats a Jewish subject as negatively as possible.
In reaching this finding, we do not rely on any single edit or group of edits, or even any single article or group of articles, but on considering Noleander's body of contributions taken as a whole. Our finding reflects our view of Noleander's editing on Wikipedia, not of his intentions or his actual beliefs.
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.
Noleander topic-banned
1) Noleander (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing any article relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, all interpreted broadly but reasonably. This topic ban applies to all pages in all namespaces.
Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.
This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.
Support:
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Second choice, the wording of 1.1 is probably better and appears to have more support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 'Noleander is topic-banned from editing any page relating to Judaism...' for clarity, but otherwise ok. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would generally prefer to "topic banned from making edits relating to Judaism".. to stop further issues and for clarity, but ok. SirFozzie (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC) **Seccond choice to 1.1** SirFozzie (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both PhilKnight and SirFozzie, that restrictions should be topical and not limited by the original subject of a page on which such an edit is made. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.1) Noleander (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.
Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.
This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.
Support
First choice. Alternative to 1), per comments made by others above, Roger Daviestalk 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
Support:
To provide other options for consideration at WP:AN and elsewhere in the event of similar future disputes involving other editors. (The link needs to be updated to the R&I case itself, once amended motion is enacted.) Roger Daviestalk 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminded to follow the principles we all should have been following all along? If it will help, I guess... Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably no harm in referencing this here, although I don't want to be drawn into a debate about to what extent Judaism and Jewishness is properly described as an "ethnicity." Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Should Noleander violate the topic-ban or restriction imposed in this decision, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
In this case, with such a significant topic ban, there are not a lot of opportunities for administrators to consider other forms of sanction or behavioural modification; however, should a similar pattern of behaviour be identified in other topic areas, an amendment to this case can certainly be considered. Risker (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I anticipate that finding 2 will also pass by closing time, perhaps after some more tweaking of the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: With Risker's vote, finding 2 has received 9 support votes and I've moved it to the passing findings section. SalvioLet's talk about it! 18:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Close, but in 48 hours instead of the usual 24. This will allow the rest of the weekend for the remaining arbitrators to vote if they wish, and to work out any remaining wording issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
