Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | International Churches of Christ

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 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

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 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.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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:

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Editorial process

edit

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process, including requests for comment, is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit-warring considered harmful

edit

2) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

edit

3) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and without bias, and must not contain advocacy for any organization, cause, or belief. Assertions of fact, particularly controversial ones, should be supported by citation to reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest

edit

4) Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the conflict of interest policy. The conflicts policy does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges that editors be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organization or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles concerning that organization or those beliefs. However, such an editor should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to NPOV and other policies.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry and IP editing

edit

5) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as editing the same article from more than one account, is prohibited. A registered user's editing the same article from the user's registered account and from IP addresses has the same ill-effects as editing from a main and a sockpuppet account, and therefore is also prohibited.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assuming good faith

edit

6) Editors, including members of the Arbitration Committee, should assume good faith concerning the editing of other contributors, even where those contributors have made mistakes or violated policies, until there is cogent evidence to the contrary.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Non-native speakers

edit

7) Appropriate allowance should be made for editors whose native language is not English, so long as their overall contributions are of benefit to the project, and extra efforts should be made to explain our policies and procedures to such editors.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive editing

edit

8) The editing of users who disrupt editing by edit-warring or aggressive sustained point-of-view editing may be restricted through measures such as topic bans or revert limitations. Where unavoidable, such measures will be imposed even where a user appears to be acting in good faith, for the benefit of other contributors and the project as a whole.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Locus of dispute

edit

1) The locus of dispute is the article International Churches of Christ, and in particular the editing of this article by TransylvanianKarl (talk · contribs).

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

TransylvanianKarl

edit

2) TransylvanianKarl has edited Wikipedia since March 2006. He has never been blocked or otherwise sanctioned. A majority of TransylvanianKarl's contributions to Wikipedia are to International Churches of Christ and closely related pages. TransylvanianKarl self-identifies on-wiki as a member of that church. He has also stated on-wiki that he is not a native speaker of English, that his English skills are limited, and that his native language is Hungarian.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Problematic editing

edit

3) Over a sustained period of time, TransylvanianKarl has edited International Churches of Christ disruptively, including edits reflecting a biased point of view and advocacy, repeated reversions without discussion, replacement of reliable sources with less reliable ones, failure to seek consensus in the face of disagreements, and unexplained removal of cited material and citations.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

IP editing

edit

4) As suggested from the article history and confirmed as likely by CheckUser, TransylvanianKarl appears to have edited International Churches of Christ from a number of IP addresses as well as from his registered account.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Additional findings

edit

5) TransylvanianKarl has explained that because of his limited English, he is having difficulty participating in the arbitration proceedings. His statement in the case reflects some understanding of core policies such as NPOV and a desire to follow them, but the record suggests that he would benefit from further review and better understanding of the relevant policies and norms.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conclusions

edit

6) We conclude that the case is best resolved through flexible remedies designed to maximize the possibility of useful editing from this contributor, who has not previously been sanctioned, while protecting the best interests of the encyclopedia and other users. We have considered suspending the case pending TransylvanianKarl's receiving language assistance, but conclude that his and other editors' time would be more fruitfully spent in trying to improve his editing skills, rather than in mastering the nuances of participating in an arbitration case.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

TransylvanianKarl urged and instructed

edit

1) TransylvanianKarl is urged to refrain from editing International Churches of Christ and any related pages until he has fully familiarized himself with the English Wikipedia core policies mentioned in this decision, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. TransylvanianKarl is instructed to comply with these and other applicable policies in his future editing. TransylvanianKarl is also urged to raise issues and suggestions on the talkpage before making potentially controversial edits to articles, including deletion of cited material and citations.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

TransylvanianKarl restricted

edit

2) TransylvanianKarl is instructed to edit International Churches of Christ and related articles only through his registered account and not from a not-logged-in IP address.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Future disruptive editing

edit

3) Should TransylvanianKarl continue to edit International Churches of Christ or related pages disruptively despite the guidance provided by this decision, any uninvolved administrator may, after a warning, impose a reasonable restriction upon him such as a revert restriction or temporary page ban. Should chronic problems continue, a request may be filed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration after 30 days requesting that this committee reopen this decision and impose more restrictive remedies.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assistance invited

edit

4) Editors fluent in Hungarian are encouraged to assist TransylvanianKarl in complying with these remedies and to answer any questions he may have concerning Wikipedia policies, his editing, or this decision.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Enforcement

edit

1) Should TransylvanianKarl violate any restriction imposed by an administrator under authority of this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time of up to one week. After five blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. See also remedy 3 providing for reopening of this decision if necessary.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Vote

edit

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.

  1. I move to close - everything passing. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yah. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/International_Churches_of_Christ/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136070326"