Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Dougweller (Talk)

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

Case opened on 08:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by George Ho[edit]

When I looked at many protection requests on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, I fear that the dispute has been ongoing, which led to several full protections. I contacted Esoglou and Roscelese about the dispute, but neither party is willing to compromise. In fact, Esoglou has been accusatory in his talk, and Roscelese has been reluctant to contact Esoglou and considered him troublesome. I advised them to file a request for arbitration or mediation, but they have yet to do so. Actually, mediation would have been ineffective because of Roscelese and Esoglou's long-term animosities toward each other. I checked other articles that they have been working on. There have been edit warrings, but I can came up only "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" as a place of dispute. Roscelese mentioned some abortion-related article, but I guess she meant Catholics for Choice. My only concern is the "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" article, which has suffered from endless content disputes and is currently fully protected the fourth or fifth time. I don't know what is going on between two editors. However, when I contacted Esoglou, somehow I found him less trustworthy than I hoped for. Maybe I'm taking Roscelese's side, but there is yet to be an evidence of Esoglou's misconduct. Perhaps all parties involved should explain the whole dispute. I am filing this request in hopes for stability of the article (and other related articles). George Ho (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Responding to Esoglou's statement

Esoglou gave Roscelese a message with a picture of some model, which is now deleted in Commons. I can't say whether the model was naked or not, but Roscelese took it as an insult. Esoglou has denied that he hurt Roscelese, but Roscelese claimed that this started a long-term animosity. She told me in her talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gaijin42

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Roscelese and Esoglou's animosities might have gone way back. See Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Master of Puppets?

I almost forgot; Master of Puppets has been semi-inactive since December 2014. I wonder if his statement may impact an arbitrator's decision. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Esoglou[edit]

The dispute is about content. At present the precise point of dispute is Roscelese's insistence that the document "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons", known also by its incipit as Homosexualitatis problema, "said that, as homosexual sexual activity is the result of deliberate choice, it is not therefore made inculpable by natural orientation". Roscelese says that this claim is based on the document itself and on two secondary sources. I have explained here the baselessness of her interpretation of these sources. On the talk page of the article I have repeatedly tried to engage her in a conversation about her interpretation. Others too have tried to get her to see that she is mistaken, the most recent being User:Gaijin42 here.

George Ho speaks of "Roscelese and Esoglou's long-term animosities toward each other". I disagree with Roscelese's presentation of certain matters, and with her constant reverting (without discussion on the talk page) to her own text in spite of attempts to preserve more objective statements or to offer modifications aimed at meeting her objections. But I feel no animosity towards her. Unfortunately, her strong animosity towards me shows in her edit summaries and in various other places, most recently here. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have made a mistake, for which I apologize. Above, I copied exactly Roscelese's latest version, but I did not realize that it was different from the claim that she had repeatedly reverted to for so long, when her claim was that the document declared that homosexual tendency never attenuates culpability for homosexual activity (what the document denies is that the tendency "always and totally" removes culpability). This is what I was speaking against. Although the culpability of my mistake may perhaps be attenuated by the fact that the latest version seemed to me just another in the series of reverts, with no indication in the edit summary or on the talk page that it was different, I am confessedly at fault for not having noticed the change. It is good to have this evidence of some flexibility. If we discussed the matter together, we could surely agree that what the document says is that the tendency does not make homosexual activity totally inculpable and, moreover, that the document does not say, as claimed, that the activity is always the result of "deliberate choice", but only that some degree of freedom remains. It would be much simpler if Roscelese would only agree to have the article quote the primary source, instead of insisting on some interpretation of it. The cited secondary source's interpretation is that, the stronger the tendency, the greater the reduction of culpability. Again, I apologize for my mistake. Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho, User:Binksternet, User:Gaijin42, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Marauder40, I have commented here on the image that I saw as a humorous comment on attempts to tie me up from editing. Those who saw it as in no way humorous considered it grounds enough to actually tie me up. And some want me punished for it again. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful to those who have interacted with Roscelese on the talk page of the article and have, it seems, solved the three problems that I selected for attention, but that Roscelese refused to discuss. We now have an agreed text on Jeannine Deckers; the claim that Homosexualitatis problema, which was apparently drafted in English, was published first in that language and only later in other languages has been corrected; and now Gaijin42 seems to be on the verge of solving the remaining problem of the claim that the same document denies the possibility that there may be cases of reduction of culpability because of orientation. And yet there are those who blame me for not having accepted submissively whatever Roscelese kept reverting to without discussing it, and who say that ensuring accurate reporting of what the Catholic Church actually said is "pushing the official position", while distorting what it said is "appropriately representing" LGBT concerns, or who say that the document itself, as officially published by the Catholic Church itself and so a self-published source, is an unreliable source for what the document says. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese[edit]

I'm going to make my statement brief, since, as I've pointed out in diffs compiled on my talk, Esoglou has a history of creepy and homophobic behavior towards me and is evidently behaving the way he does in order to get me to talk to him, rather than respecting my stated intent not to do so, which he views as "playing hard to get." Esoglou has a long history of disruption in a range of topic areas where he feels his religious beliefs to be in conflict with some aspects of the topic, and is incapable of editing neutrally or respecting the sources in those areas. He has been topic-banned three times. A productive outcome would be his withdrawal, voluntary or not, from any potentially "controversial" areas relating to religion (as Dominus said, it's possible he could be productive were this temptation removed). If ArbCom taking the case is needed for this to happen, I'm all for it, but I'd also be content if it were enough of a wake-up call for him to leave both me and these articles alone without being forced to. Were that the case, I'm not sure sanctions would be necessary, as users other than Esoglou, including myself, have been perfectly capable of reaching compromise and consensus through discussion. I think the article talk page shows clearly that productive discussion both wrt what content to include and wrt how to phrase things is and has been going on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Elizium23[edit]

It is worth noting three things. First, contrary to what Esoglou claims above, the dispute is about POV and personalities. Second, when I say "the dispute" I mean the ongoing feud between Roscelese and Esoglou, not merely in the cited article today. This feud stretches back for years over many articles, mostly in the topics of Catholicism, homosexuality, and abortion. I feel that proposing sanctions for merely Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism will not succeed if the goal is to settle the matter between these two editors. Third, neither of these two are alone. They each have allies who agree with them and back up their edits. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am an ally of Esoglou. I routinely oppose Roscelese in articles touching these topics.

Now for Roscelese's view. Similar to Esoglou, she perceives systemic bias, in this instance the bias she opposes is that against the LGBT movement and individuals, as well as the pro-choice movement. I am not sure how much bias there can be against those things, except from a small minority of editors. I don't even think Esoglou shows unhealthy bias against these things, just that he happens to agree with the Catholic Church's position on them. Roscelese's mission seems to be to represent LGBT and pro-choice views as favorable, at the expense of WP:NPOV policies. Edit-warring tenaciously is a hallmark of her tactics. In any given article, you can count on Roscelese's POV to begin glistening in the text, because she routinely reverts Esoglou and he is more willing to discuss than to revert her reverts (of course he does do this as well, but when it's a matter of quantity and persistence, Roscelese always wins out.) She is exceedingly good at WP:Wikilawyering to prove her points. She routinely appeals to WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV when it suits her and she needs to delete or rework some section to her liking. Admittedly, she is often right, and because she is craftier and more tenacious than her opponents, almost always gets her way. Recently, I was introduced to an applicable term, "brinker". Roscelese's behavior matches this description well. Her cold, condescending attitude, toward people she does not like or agree with, makes for difficulty in resolving disputes.

In summary, this deadlock between them may be good for the project, or at least it is better than simply allowing only one of them to run roughshod over all these topic articles. Each of them provides the perfect counterbalance to the other's POV. If Roscelese's POV didn't constantly win out in article space, I would not be frustrated. If Esoglou's did, we might also have an NPOV problem, but for the aforementioned systemic bias that I contend exists against conservatism and against the Catholic Church. I feel that it is in the long run detrimental to both of these editors, who could be spending fruitful time improving articles, rather than locking horns in dispute. The dispute is detrimental to the morale of Wikipedia, which depends on collegial editing and cooperation. Roscelese has unilaterally disconnected herself from this goal, in refusing to discuss with Esoglou, but insisting on interacting with him in article space. I agree that sanctions need to be in place, but I implore you to apply them evenly on both sides, or these topics will begin to have even more serious NPOV problems if one faction is given free rein. Elizium23 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Black Kite[edit]

I think the dispute between Roscelese and Esoglou has been covered adequately by other editors. My bigger concern, as an admin active on this and other homosexuality-related articles, is the possibility/probability of tag-teaming and/or sockpuppetry. One editor, User:Padresfan94, became active on this article recently, and if their actions are not actually tag-teaming with Esoglou, they are indistinguishable from this behaviour.

I noted, at User_talk:Padresfan94#Just_to_make_things_clear... that I believed their action to be stalking, which is very clear from their edit-history. At that time, their edits shared 7 articles with Roscelese; they had directly followed her to four of them to revert her (having never edited them before), whilst on the others they exhibit simple reversion of her edits. I would point out that Padresfan94's account was created only 12 days before the (at that time inevitable) indefinite block of User:Badmintonhist for the harassment of Roscelese. There is of course no proof of a relationship between the two, and Checkuser would be useless now, but WP:DUCK is clearly indicated here; why would a "brand new" editor suddenly gravitate towards another and start reverting her edits? I think we can safely assume a link here - and even in the unlikely even there is none, WP:STALK is clearly being violated.

If nothing else comes fron this, User:Padresfan94 needs both a topic ban and a (one-way) interaction ban from following Roscelese. There are other problematic editors here, but this would at least be a start. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Master of Puppets[edit]

Statement by Padresfan94[edit]

Roscelese has been an ideologically driven edit warrior on this topic. She constantly toes the line on 3RR (occasionally crossing it) and has gotten herself blocked because of her actions on this article, and other similar ones. She reverts minor, sometimes grammatical corrections by editors she perceives to be of a different POV and then refuses to participate in talk page discussions.

Everyone else here, including the people that I have some times disagreed, is capable of compromise except her. She has been blocked 6 times already, if she keeps editing like this she will continue to be blocked. She needs to be backed off of Catholic articles for a while.Padresfan94 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Black Kite
  • If you had been following this discussion more closely you would have noted the times that Esoglau and I have disagreed with each other, calling out edits "indistinguishable" borders on irresponsible.
  • It is incredibly unfair to accuse me of sock puppetry and then say "of course, the evidence wouldn't prove that untrue, but trust me, it's true". If you think I'm a sock puppet of that guy then file an investigation and stop dragging my name through the mud. Put up or shut up.
  • I am more than happy to enter into some sort of an editing interaction ban with Rosclese, provided that the street goes both ways. You yourself admitted that he followed me to the Cordileone article. Why should that keep happening? I'd be happy never needing to put up with Roscelese again, but not at the cost of her following me around. Padresfan94 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CambridgeBayWeather[edit]

Given that I protected the article once back in August 2014 I'm not sure that I'm really involved. However, seeing it has been fully protected 8 times in 6 months something needs doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet[edit]

This is a behavior issue rather than a content one. Esoglou works to wear down his ideological opponents by continual argument, picked up again and again where previous discussion was unfruitful. Esoglou is here to push the official position of the Catholic Church hierarchy, meeting the WP:NOTHERE standard, while Roscelese is merely interested in bringing up LGBT concerns where they are not appropriately represented. Esoglou uses a variety of tactics to try and quote Catholic texts straight rather than describing them through the eyes of reliable observers. Roscelese tries to emphasize third party sources. Then, like a hound, Padresfan94 swings through with the obvious and sole intent to frustrate Roscelese. If Esoglou and Padresfan94 were removed from the equation, I disagree with the expressed concern that Roscelese would push the ideological pendulum so far left as to unbalance the articles involved, which is 109 of them. Her work elsewhere shows a strong understanding of what is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rope bondage image used by Esoglou in apparent humor, which was taken very differently by Roscelese, was deleted at Commons under one name, but uploaded again under another name. I saw the first version in Roscelese's talk page history after noticing her angry edit summary "get the fuck off my talk page" on my watchlist, so I can attest that this second version is the same; the model's name, Dani, has been taken out of the file name, but it's still Dani that is shown bound in ropes. When I saw that note from Esoglou I was affronted, and I understood Roscelese's reaction. I thought that it was demeaning, sexist, belittling and disrespectful. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Callanecc[edit]

I'll say more later on when I have some more time to look at the possibility of other DR methods, but given the number of times the article has been fully protected it would seem that regular admin intervention hasn't been successful in managing this issue, so an arbitration case might be helpful in trying to resolve the issue. I'm also of the opinion that discretionary sanctions will be helpful in this area (and wished I had them when I protected the article), possibly even more broadly in the Roman Catholicism or Christianity area (see also this AE request, which is only related through Christianity). As I said, more later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

  • @Thryduulf: I think something like imposing discretionary sanction on this and closely related articles for 6 months to see if that solves the problem and if not a full case can be heard then might work. I'd be hesitant to impose broad DS in a completely new area (unlike Acupuncture) in a summary proceeding. I don't think an IBAN would work by itself and would need to be accompanied by an article or topic ban of some sort. However I don't think removing only these two editors will have the desired effect given that there are other parties involved in the edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Black Kite has shown that at least one other editor likely requires sanctions against them to resolve this issue (and the sort of thing Black Kite is talking is what's sometimes difficult to pin down at AE) I think a full case is likely needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu[edit]

Actually, I was going to keep out of this until I read User:Esoglou's "apology" above, specifically the line "It would be much simpler if User:Roscelese would only agree to have the article quote the primary source, instead of insisting on some interpretation of it."

I bump into User:Esoglou once every six months or so, and the problem is always the same: a penchant for propagating religious apologetics and whitewashing issues related to his church based on appeal to extremely and intentionally ambiguous primary church documents without the benefit of secondary independent scholarly sources.

I have warned him repeatedly that WP is not the place to practice apologetics and PR spinning, and, though he seems to agree for a short while, he quickly falls back into his old habits.

Furthermore, I have begun to have serious doubts about his good faith, especially when he tried to "enlist" me on his side of this pissing contest without my permission, which I also warned him against on the article talk page.

Based on a strong element of WP:NOTHERE (because he is primarily here to practice religious apologetics), as well as his battlefield approach to editing religious articles, his persistent reliance on primary sources and his persistent uncivil behavior towards his fellow editors (which is getting worse, not better), I believe that a topic ban is in order pertaining to all religious subjects and subjects controversial in religion, particularly abortion, birth control, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, broadly construed. I believe that User:Esoglou is capable of editing productively in areas that do not touch upon his personal religious beliefs.

As for User:Roscelese, I also encounter her from time to time. Though we have had our disagreements, and still do, they are resolved civilly and with appeal to and in accordance with out policies and guidelines. She is always willing to listen and discuss, and goes far beyond the call of duty in this area, and even sometimes beyond the call of reason, in my opinion. I understand her frustration with User:Esoglou, especially since they appear to have more frequent interaction with each other than I do with either.

Also, agree with User:Black Kite about User:Padresfan94. I also suspect that this user is a sock of a banned user that has a vendetta against User:Roscelese. This should be investigated.
I am deeply troubled and disappointed by the photo User:Esoglou left on User:Roscelese's talk page. At best, it was in exceedingly poor taste and grossly uncivil. Whatever possessed him to leave a picture of a lesbian bondage scene on the page of a lesbian editor with whom he cannot be said to be on cordial terms is beyond my power of comprehension. It is too serious to dismiss as an awkward attempt at humor, and, in spite of AGF, I have great difficulty viewing this as anything other than a sign of overt antipathy toward a fellow editor, and a gross breach of WP:NPA. How would User:Esoglou respond if someone left a picture of a Catholic priest fondling a pre-teen altar boy on his talk page? I, for one, would be highly offended, and would fail to see any "humor" in it.
It also bothers me that he has been previously banned for tendentious editing in an area that he was too personally involved in. This points to a long-term problem with this editor, and decreases my faith in his ability to edit neutrally on topics related to his personal religious beliefs.
In response to User:Marauder40's comment below about how "User:Esoglou asks that the equivalent of the official Vatican newspaper source be used", that is precisely the problem. We should be using reliable INDEPENDENT secondary sources, not self-serving self-published sources. Church documents are written in a opaque, vague and intentionally ambiguous "secret code" which makes them impossible to interpret at face value. Independent scholarly analysis is required, not self-serving spin doctoring. As for simply using quotes from church documents without any commentary by reliable independent secondary sources, that would violate WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. That would also turn the article into a non-encyclopedic quote farm.


Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (13/0/0/0)[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • waiting for statements --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept I strongly oppose doing a motion here. I think that i-bans or t-bans require a full case --Guerillero | My Talk 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting more statements. Courcelles 08:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and explicitly reject disposing of the matter by motion. There's enough issues here to merit a full case's evidentiary process. Courcelles 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting more statements, but from what is here so far it does look like some form of action is likely to be required from us - whether that is a full case or not I'm not yet certain. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am now convinced that we need to do something here, but I'm still not certain whether that is a full case or not. I'd particularly like to hear from Master of Puppets, who has been trying to mediate this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like opinions on whether a motion enacting (a) discretionary sanctions related to the intersection of religion and sexuality [broad]; (b) discretionary sanctions related to Catholicism and Homosexuality [narrow]; (c) a mutual interaction ban between the Roscelese and Esoglou; and/or (d) broad or narrow topic bans for Roscelese and Esoglou, would likely resolve this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept per my colleagues and the traditional issues that have been brought up since my last comment this needs a case I think. I would not be opposed to discretionary sanctions on Homosexuality and Catholicism and related articles as a temporary injunction for the duration of the case though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Gender/sexuality is becoming an increasingly hot topic on Wikipedia and a case is useful way to help explore some of the issues. I don't think this one should be a motion either. DS seems way too heavy a hammer for now, and i-bans and t-bans usually need a case.  Roger Davies talk
  • Accept as a full case, would not support doing a motion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. LFaraone 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept NativeForeigner Talk 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept It's clear that while the content disputes may actually come to a resolve, that the underlying factors of behavior are still an issue whether it's one content dispute or another. With the amount of full protections also, I feel it's time we pick this one up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. LFaraone 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research 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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Neutral point of view[edit]

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 in article content. 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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Standards of conduct[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across multiple forums.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

4) Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopaedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Passed 9 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

5) Edit warring is undesirable as it disrupts the editing process and inflames rather than resolves content disputes. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) Although this longstanding dispute is mostly focused on articles at the intersection of Catholicism and aspects of human sexuality and reproduction, in particular homosexuality and abortion, it has spilled over into other related areas, including associated organisations and associated biographies. Eg:

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou[edit]

2) Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since December 2009 and has made about 32,000 edits, mostly to articles about Christianity. Esoglou previously edited as Lima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Soidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which were seemingly good hand/bad hand accounts editing within the same broad topic area. ("Top edits": Esoglou, Lima, Soidi).

Esoglou has:

Esoglou's previous remedies include:

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese[edit]

3) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

Roscelese has been blocked on several occasions in the past, mostly for edit-warring. [73]

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Padresfan94[edit]

4) Padresfan94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created on 8 August 2014 and has made about 200 edits, mostly within the locus of this dispute. Despite the relatively short time they have edited, and their relatively low edit count, they are no stranger to controversy and disruptive conduct. Padresfan94 has:

Padresfan94 has previously been blocked for edit-warring: [87].

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu[edit]

5) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring: [88] [89]. Dominus Vobisdu has previously been blocked for "disruptive editing" and "3RR": [90].

Passed 9 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Esoglou site banned[edit]

1) Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese restricted[edit]

2) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. She is:

  • indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
  • indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
  • indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

Passed 8 to 2 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Padresfan94 site banned[edit]

3) Padresfan94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu restricted[edit]

4.1) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction from the date of enactment of this remedy. Dominus Vobisdu is limited to one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Dominus Vobisdu exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, they may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below. This restriction may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 1 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu admonished[edit]

4.2) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for edit warring, and is strongly reminded to use discussion and dispute resolution rather than engage in future edit wars.

Passed 9 to 1 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Amendments[edit]

Motion: Roscelese restricted (September 2015)[edit]

Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following:

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:
  • making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
  • making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
  • Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.
These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 03:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or other sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy in this case must be logged in this section. Sanctions issued pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below. For sanctions the required information is the user or page the sanction is being applied to, enforcing administrator, date, nature of sanction, including expiry date (if applicable), and basis or context.

Individual sanctions[edit]

Page-level sanctions[edit]

Also include sanctions against individuals which are enforcing a page sanction in this section, below the recorded page sanction.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality&oldid=1088498638"