Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

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

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 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

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.

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]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:
  1. This well-settled principle is relevant to the issues raised in the case and discussed by the parties. Including it in the decision does not represent a finding that the principle has been violated by the parties here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view and undue weight[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:
  1. Same comment as 1. Note that the NPOV principle is slightly reworded from our standard, as here the issues raised are slightly different from the types of sourcing issues raised by some of our prior cases involving allegations of POV editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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. Same comment as 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus[edit]

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and the Reliable sources noticeboard for source-reliability discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This case involves allegations of improper editing on articles relating to the Chabad movement of Judaism. The case was accepted for arbitration based on numerous allegations of misconduct by editors with differing views on editing issues surrounding these articles.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This seems to fit the general trend of acceptance comments Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changed to passive voice to eliminate potential connection between supporting and having voted to accept the case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although I think this case ought not to have been accepted. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I can't comment on why the case was accepted. Steve Smith (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but note that no subjective knowledge is required to support the finding, just reading the arbitrator comments at the acceptance stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes[edit]

2) Upon review of the evidence, it appears that most of the parties' disputes concern disagreements over article content, rather than user misconduct. In many instances, available content-dispute resolution mechanisms, ranging from AfD to Requests for comment, have not been used.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (minor copy edit)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. None of the evidence showed behavior that would rise to the level of sanction. Shell babelfish 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

User conduct[edit]

3) There have been instances of problematic user conduct by certain parties to this case, including uncivil remarks, unsupported assertions of bad faith, and instances of edit-warring. While we do not find sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding against any of the parties, all conduct of this nature should cease immediately.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (minor copyedit) Steve Smith (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (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.

Editors reminded[edit]

1) With respect to topics related to the Chabad movement, all editors are reminded to edit these articles, and to collaborate with other editors, in full compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies, including those mentioned in this decision.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reorganised the sentence to improve flow, please feel free to revert. Risker (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors encouraged[edit]

2) Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (minor copyedits) Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Future proceedings[edit]

3) It is hoped that good-faith efforts as described above will be sufficient to address disputes on the Chabad-related articles. However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed. Editors are requested to allow at least 60 days from the date of this decision before filing any such request, to give renewed efforts at collaboration in light of this decision a reasonable chance to succeed.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KnightLago (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Note: None proposed at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposals which pass
Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Findings of fact: 1, 2, 3
Remedies: 1, 2, 3
Proposals which do not pass
All proposals pass

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's passing. This is not controversial. Perhaps others can vote, but I'm happy to at least set the 24-hour clock. Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makes sense, seems unanimous so far. Shell babelfish 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337547"