Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

Support

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my support until we resolve the Vivaldi issue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) restoring support now the Vivaldi case has been removed from this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. LFaraone 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I agree with all but the last bullet, and that one is enough to oppose this. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @Courcelles: My understanding of the last bullet is that it is simply saying that all current sanctions issued under authorisations we are retiring continue as if the authorisation was still in force - i.e. the sanction is still valid and it may be appealed in the exact same way as it would be if the authorisation was still active. The only other thing it does is note that our retiring the authorisation is not grounds for appeal of an active sanction. What is it you disagree with about this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Thryduulf:, my vote made a lot more sense before the Vivaldi bullet was removed. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I posted while the Vivaldi bullet was still in place. If you meant "penultimate" rather than "last" (referring to Vivaldi) your vote comment would make sense - if you really do mean last then I am still confused. Thryduulf (talk)

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (overlap of sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Having re-read the results of the Vivaldi case I'm inclined to agree. I think the simplest way to transition from article probation to a more modern remedy here would be to authorise standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to

Hyles-Anderson College? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed Vialdi from this list and transferred it to the remove pile. They haven't been used in a decade and 50 edits ago is 2012. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (overlap of sanctions)

• I'm not sure that the sanctions in the Vivaldi case are redundant to the BLP ones. Although the articles in question do have material that falls under BLP there is plenty of material that doesn't. For instance Jack Hyles has been dead for well over a decade, it would be hard to argue that BLP applies to most of the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

Support

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (removal of unused sanctions)

• Noting Courcelles' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)

Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Due to how closely related the topic areas of several of the existing sanctions are,

1. Remedy 3 of the Brahma Kumaris case is rescinded;
2. The 23 October 2014 Motion to the Falun Gong case is rescinded;
3. The 20 December 2012 Motion the Prem Rawat case is rescinded;
4. The 1 June 2012 Motion to the Scientology case is rescinded;
5. Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case is rescinded;
6. In place of these sanctions, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to post-1929
   high-quality, reliable, independent sources
   describe it as such;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

Support

Oppose

1. Two major flaws in this one, it extends coverage to things that have not been problems, and then picks an arbitrary (and too recent) initial date to define NRM's, as well as a definition that makes admins at AE make content decisions in order to use the sanctions. This is just an all-around bad idea.. Courcelles (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casts the net too wide for my liking. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. It is impossible to cast this net without it being way too wide. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (new religious movements)

This was proposed as an alternative to removing the

Bahá'í Faith, Apostolic Church, Opus Dei and Conservative Judaism are not placed under DS without any problems. I'm still not 100% happy with this setup because Rastafari is covered by this setup. At the same time, I know that this will solve future problems. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I was the one who proposed this, but I'd like to see community comments before deciding whether this was one of my better ideas or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (new religious movements)

• Can it be more clearly stated that all the subjects for which individual sanctions are being removed are explicitly included in "post-1929 New Religious Movements"? This is to prevent Wikilawyering on the order of "my faith is not part of the New Religious Movement". BMK (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's a good idea. NE Ent 02:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will try to do this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken and NE Ent: How does this look? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me, thanks. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. NE Ent 09:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not knowing the reason for the cut-off date, this looks at first glance good to me, although I might welcome some clarification whether the sometimes smallish base groups which prompt further spinout groups would be grandfathered in or not. Some of those parent groups might be older than 1929, but, at least sometimes, not much older. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. Basically, because I just like making life harder for you all ;) Speaking unofficially, meaning without citations, it seems to me that there are some topics of a broadly NRM or New Age (which is itself counted as an NRM) type which are perhaps not considered by all individuals as "religious." I am thinking specifically about the recent popularity of the Christ myth theory, and the questioning of the Historicity of Jesus associated with it. So far as I can tell, this is most strongly associated with the more recent agnostic/atheist movement, which probably broadly qualifies in the NRM field, and has peer-reviewed academic journals, just like virtually every major denomination or faith tradition. However, in the broader field of what might be called "academic history," the idea has as little weight as some of the historically nonsupportable beliefs of some older faith traditions. Would "alternative"/fringe beliefs associated primarily with NRMs, and which purport in some cases to fall within the areas of sciences or some other area of academia, but have little support outside of that group, qualify under these sanctions? And, again, sorry for the question, but I think it might apply to the various proposals of von Daniken and other fringey New Age thoughts. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • If
              the sources consider a religion to be a NRM then the DS would cover it. I am not prepared to stretch this so far as to encompass the Historicity of Jesus, which is under its own DS. This is not a junk drawer to throw any tangelty related topic that might spark a controversy.

              The post-1929 date is to keep Opus Dei, a fairly-mainstream Catholic movement from being encompassed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

              ]
              • Understood about the historicity of Jesus, my apologies for the bad example, and thanks for the clarification. But, well, there are a lot groups within the NRM field, like several groups like the Raelians and others who believe that we are bred by aliens, for instance. I am going to assume that the theories of anyone who is a self-declared Raelian would be covered by the sanctions, but would for instance pages in the Category:Ancient astronaut speculation which reflect in substance the fringey beliefs of the Raelians and similar NRMs, and the Raelians are in fact the subject of the only subcat of that specific category, qualify in the "broadly construed" section or not, even if the proponents aren't necessarily explicitly tied to a group that qualifies? John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Topics such as
                  Star people (New Age belief) or The Law of One (The Ra Material) would be covered because of their religious component; since the sources to not tie Jungfrau Park to a NRM it would not be covered. The DS are guided by the sources and not by original research or categorization --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • I would very STRONGLY support such a move. It is neither the community’s nor admins fault to be ignorant on issues regarding the specific new religious movements. The issue is highly contentious and when dealing with the group’s adherents it is just like fighting windmills and nerve racking as I experienced on the articles regarding Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I did some wordsmithing to hopefully resolve some of the potential conflicts. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to @Courcelles:, I have gathered together a page at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements which I hope in time, as I do other things, to add to the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Prospectus, and I think the sources used in the first list are at least of sufficient quality and respect that they can serve as at least a partial list of what qualifies as an NRM. There are other such sources, of course, but I have trouble seeing that there will be many new groups, other than those started since those works were published, which will not be covered. There is a question regarding the date, and, personally, I'm not sure I would want to exclude Opus Dei myself (I dunno - I don't think I've ever really dealt with that content) but unless some sort of dividing line is established, then we will have the group of NRMs going back to some established centuries earlier. I suppose one other option might be to allow all NRMs, described as such in the relevant reference sources, qualify for discretionary sanctions by simple motion. That might work. If such were to be done, I think a real case would that Soka Gakkai related content should be considered by motion. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I guess I should add that, much like seems to be true regarding most pseudoscience content, there is an inherent problem with the terms new religious movement, and the closely related term
  Dougweller:, who has been at least peripherally involved with several related topics as an editor. John Carter (talk
  )

• I should add as a qualifier that Cirt has expressed reservations here regarding whether it would be permissable for him to comment here. I guess I can understand that, but, as one of the editors who has been most involved with this topic, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow the restriction to not apply to comments here, and request clarification if he can edit here according to the restrictions and/or that the restrictions be waived for this discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And I guess I should add that the Landmark Education Corporation now Landmark Worldwide in its previous incarnations is also described as an NRM, and, on that basis, might be reasonably included in the group of subtopics included in the list above. Maybe others too, I haven't checked actually. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• needs more clarity(as to the parameters of its enforcement)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ozzie10aaaa: Please can you be more specific about what you feel lacks clarity? Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • by clarity(quality of coherence) I would echo the opinion it extends coverage to things that have not been problems[1] ... Rastafari [2] would be covered by this motion, but where is the evidence it should be?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The evidence for the scope of this coverage, more or less as per the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:John Carter#FYI, in my conversation with Cirt, which he suggested I link to here. The terms new religious movement and cult are, basically, inherently problematic in and of themselves, much like the word "pseudoscience". There are already two existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions on the broad topics of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Certainly in the case of the first of those two, the term "pseudoscience" itself can be one of the more controversial aspects of the topic. And, of course, the study of the sociology of many of the NRMs, particularly that from the most active era of the anti-cult movement, is almost always controversial. I don't see any particular difference between the rationality of the existing decisions regarding the fields of pseudoscience and alternative medicine and the rationality of this one. There are, and will be, in all of them some aspects which are no longer at this point at all controversial, but that can and often will change over time, and the existing controversy about the terms themselves will, not surprisingly, possibly extend to many or most of the individual articles or topics involved. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Would groups like
  WP:ARBIPA (3HO wouldn't though). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If that an organisation would be considered a NRM if either they self-describe as such or if there are independent reliable sources that call them that. If it is unclear then a consensus of uninvolved editors could be sought, or if that fails then we could consider it at ARCA (assuming that there is a need for discretionary sanctions - if there ins't then it's not worth risking importing drama imho). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that in a lot of these dozens of articles there's a need for DS as most of these topics don't get taken to ANI etc simply because hardly anyone cares enough (but a history of some of the articles in the 3HO group would show the pendulum switch between the two extremes) or on the off chance they do go there, they are left unattended. In such a situation a sledgehammer to crack a nut would appear to be the only solution, therefore my question: could hitherto unattended topics be brought under the purview of this, and it appears that the answer is "yes, if the circumstances require it." Please correct me if I'm wrong. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, as long as they are new religious movements and the standard DS requirements are met (e.g. awareness) then it wouldn't matter whether the article had previously been discussed at ANI or not. This is the same as in existing authorisations, for example
        Delaware gubernatorial election, 2012 became within the scope even though it doesn't seem like there has been any significant dispute regarding that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• I'd oppose for now. For some of these there have been motions to put under standard discretionary sanctions replacing an initial remedy before. Why make the process even more convoluted? I don't really see a rationale being given for that.

Also, in general, with the replacing remedy I see more borderline issues. Don't think it a good idea. Would

ISIS fall under it? I mean, I like the clean sweep idea, but seems to have more downsides than advantages in this area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually this would make placing discretionary sanctions easier rather than more convoluted - there would not need to be a request to place the topic area under sanctions first as this motions would already have done that. ISIS is not a religious movement (they are a militant group) and so would not fall under these sanctions. A Course in Miracles would seem to be about a book describing a new religious/spiritual philopsophy rather than a movement or organisation and so would not be covered. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it might be worth, A Course of Miracles is, in and of itself, a book, but it has inspired a large number of other books and speeches and tapes and god knows what all else, and that broader field is, more or less, counted as being an NRM given its unique teachings according to at least some of the relevant reference works. And, in response to Spaceman above, I have seen where 3HO is described in the relevant reference sources as an NRM, but I haven't that I know of seen Dera Sacha Sauda described as such to my knowledge, although I admit I haven't looked completely.

I can and, I guess, do see some basis for saying that not all NRMs are inherently controversial. Some have died out completely, for instance, and at this point are at best subjects of apathy among most, including a lot of academia. Having said that, I tthink that there still remains at least a bit of controversy around most of those groups which were broadly included as targets of the anticult movement. If there were some way to limit the scope of these sanctions to those groups, or similar groups which would have been counted as such if they were active at the time, given similar reception by the general public, that might limit it a little. Having said that, I don't know of any specific sources off the top of my head which could easily identify only those groups called "cults" and those which would have been called that had they been active at the time. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]