Case comes to a close after 3 weeks – what does the decision tell us?
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases but closed one case. One case is currently open.
Open cases
Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling (AEsh) (Week 6)
During the week, several arbitrators submitted proposals, some of which will form part of the final decision. Other proposals are likely to be submitted in the coming week.
Closed case
Noleander (Week 3)
This case was opened after a number of divisive noticeboard discussions involving allegations of misrepresentation of sources, as well as tendentious and antisemitic editing. 19 editors submitted on-wiki evidence, and several users submitted proposals in the workshop. Drafter Newyorkbrad also submitted a full proposed decision in the workshop which attracted input from arbitrators, parties and others. A total of 14 arbitrators voted in the case before the case came to a close today.
- What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
- Users are reminded that the terms which were recently adopted in the Race and intelligence case (see motion below) are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this case.
- Noleander (talk · contribs) is indefinitely 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, anywhere on Wikipedia.
- Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. 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 result in further sanctions.
- 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 as evincing bias in favor of or against the members of the group. Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view and the contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. 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.
- 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.
Motion
- Race and intelligence case - a motion drafted by arbitrator Roger Davies was passed to replace one of the case remedies. Consequently, "standard" discretionary sanctions from the case were broadened to be applicable to: any edit relating to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. All contributors to articles in the newly defined area of conflict were reminded of the contentious nature of this subject and were cautioned that to avoid disruption, they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies.
Discuss this story