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 11 active arbitrators. 6 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, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks.
Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.
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.
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.
2) 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.
This is one of those that makes me wonder why we vote on boilerplate principles every single case, it is that obvious. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The implication is that when the disputes between editors are not good faith disputes, we will rule on the. even to the extent of deciding on content if some of the content is introduced in bad faith. Or do we mean that even in bad faith disputes, we will never rule on content? Perhaps we need to say which explicitly.
Neutrality and sources
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
prefer my alternate, which I think necessary in this instance. This has been quite specifically a cause of problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
suggested supplementary sentence: Wikipedia covers events from a world-wide point of view. Any possible undue emphasis of courses from one particular country or region should not over-influence the presentation fron more diverse sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)(proposed below)Reply[reply]
Neutrality and sources (alternate)
4.1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Since Wikipedia covers events from a world-wide point of view, any possible undue emphasis of courses from one particular country or region should not over-influence the presentation fron more diverse sources. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
5) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.
Per my standard, if somewhat quixotic, opposition to the assumption that SPA's are a problem simply because they're SPAs. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Euryalus, and indeed enshrining by "expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda", Roger Daviestalk 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Sockpuppetry
6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
8) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
2) In the Palestine-Israel articles case, the topic area was placed under an early form of Discretionary Sanctions. Those sanctions were superseded by a 2011 motion that placed "all Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, [..] under discretionary sanctions". While these sanctions are routinely used (log), they have been ineffective in controlling the disruption (Ivanvector's Evidence).
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.
Modified 1 Revert Rule
1.1) The General 1RR restriction is rescinded. In place of it, the following is enacted. An editor may not insert the same new material twice, or delete the same material twice, in any 24-hour period. The only exceptions to this rule are as follows:
Vandalism and BLP violations may be removed without penalty.
Editors may revert themselves without penalty.
Material added or removed by anonymous IP editors or by accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure is exempt from this restriction but is subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Support:
Oppose:
I think this is just setting things up for arguments about what constitutes "the same (new) material", which will not resolve the problems. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If R2 passes, the next to last sentence here makes no sense, as reverting IP's and newer accounts would be enforcing a topic ban, it should not be subject to the usual rules on edit-warring, just as the enforcement of any other ban. Also, "An editor may not insert the same new material twice, or delete the same material twice" is subject to so much gaming, that this should just be one-revert only per day. I may propose an alt to this. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General Prohibition
2) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
Support:
I would regard Guerillero's concerns below very seriously if we were proposing this as a general rule, but this is simply an ad hoc rule for one particularly difficult situation were othe measures have failed. If we find we need it elsewhere, then we will need a more general discussion --and have a basis for one from our experience here. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're at the point of trying something drastic, and this could work. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the conventional remedies have failed to resolve the disruption in this topic area, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. While this remedy is unfair to some users, our goal has to be what is good for the encyclopaedia rather than what is good for individual editors, so something like this is worth trying. If this passes, I would support a mandatory review after 9 (or maybe 12) months to see if it is working as intended. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is certainly an "at wit's end" remedy I'd hope never to need to use again, and I've given it a lot of thought. In this case, nothing else has worked, and not for lack of trying. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Past time for me to make a decision. This is my preference as we are indeed "at wits end" in this area and from my personal observations in this area best matches the extent of the problem. I also would like to see a review in a year. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Because I don't like the idea of imposing such a restriction on an indefinite number of articles. SalvioLet's talk about it! 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Reasonably construed" is too vague and covers articles where there is no issue to be addressed. This needs a DS-style notification system as outlined below. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have never done this before. The closest we have ever come is banning the entirety of the church of scientology. However, in the words of one evidence section "Anyone can't edit" due to the socks. This would cut down on that problem but we trade our openness for supporting the collaboration and encyclopedia portions of our mission. I haven't run the numbers yet but my initial guess is that less than 1% of accounts make 500 edits. Aaron Swartz's research suggests that our project was built by low edit count IPs and accounts that this propsal would keep out. It is a nuclear option, and one that has worked very well in the GamerGate area to stop disruption.
The idea of doing this has kept me up at night. Is this the same folly as ACTRIAL and will it have the same results? Will this become a common sanction in future arbcom's tool boxes? Is this the beginning of a slippery slope towards us ending IP editing in controversial areas? I feel very conflicted by proposing this and I would like to hear the community's opinion on this before I vote. I would especially like to hear from former arbs who have faced ideas like this, WMF board members, Jimmy, and AE admins that will be tasked in enforcing this thing.
If you want to know what has held up this PD it has been this remedy. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we enact this I think we should take Brad's concerns to heart. I have no problem, given the scale of disruption, with imposing such requirements on a limited basis, but such usage of broadly construed will doubtlessly lead to tremendous discussion. I hope productive discussion, but fear this will become another battleground. NativeForeignerTalk 10:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discretionary Prohibition
2.2)
At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict may be placed under the general prohibition set forth in the following sections for up to two years. This prohibition can be renewed an indefinite number of times.
(i) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing pages that have been placed under this prohibition.
(ii) Pages placed under this sanction regime should be marked in an appropriate way to signal to editors that they are subject to this prohibition and should be logged in the enforcement log.
(iii) This sanction may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
(iv) This prohibition will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee a year after it is passed for its effectiveness in controlling the disruption in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
Preferred to the option above. if adopted, can also be imposed en masse to the hotspot articles, as proposed below, if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Passes the buck back to an already strained AE system, and is a halfmeasure that virtually guarantees ARBPIA4 will be on the plate of the 2016 committee. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not strong enough for the core dispute. See comments. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to take the responsibility ourselves, and take it now. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AE hasn't worked here. That's certainly not to fault the AE admins, as they've absolutely made every effort to curb disruption when it comes up. But it never stops coming up. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what we actually need is to impose this directly on the core articles (I'm not sure yet how to define them though), and have this option available for the wider group of articles (perhaps only after semi-protection has been tried as suggested on the talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanctions available
3)
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
(iv) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
(v) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
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.
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;
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.
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.
Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
Principles: 4.1
Findings: None
Remedies: 2.2
Enforcement provisions: Pass by default
Proposals which have passed
Principles: All (except 4.1)
Findings: All
Remedies: 2, 3
Enforcement provisions: Pass by default
Proposals which cannot pass
Principles: None
Findings: None
Remedies: 1.1
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 needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.
with hope that this is what finally breaks the back of this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but without much hope that this will break the back of the dispute here until the Real World dispute is settled. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
