Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

One-revert rule
1) Rather than further full protections, one-revert rule should be enabled. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Describing points of view
1) Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. NPOV does not require, but rather prohibits, that a Wikipedia article documenting a biased point of view be written from that point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * perhaps you could explain what limits you would set, then. If there's nothing wrong with saying, in WP's voice, that homosexuality broadly threatens people's lives, that same-sex civil marriage isn't really marriage, or that people's religious identification isn't valid, because that's someone's religious belief, what about stating in WP's voice that Palestinians or Israelis have a right to certain land, that black people or women are innately inferior, that it's not terrorism because it's justified? These likewise are sincere religious beliefs held by many people, but WP's normal standards for NPOV and describing disputes are not completely waived just because someone can say, of their opinion, "it's my religion". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * assuming you're commenting in good faith, you've wildly misinterpreted me. No one is suggesting that religious views be uniquely disadvantaged, only that subjective and/or counterfactual views - like "LGBT-accepting Catholics aren't real Catholics", "homosexuality is a threat to public health", or "there's no such thing as same-sex marriage" (or "it's not terrorism", etc.) - which under WP's normal standards are attributed to those who hold them instead of stated in WP's voice, not be uniquely privileged and exempt from those standards simply because people who hold these views may attach them to their religion. Nor is this a question of, eg., "parts of the article on the Last Supper are written under the tacit assumption that the events occurred as written in the Bible"; I think it's clear that this isn't a question of faith. I know you know all this, so I have to assume, as I said, that there's some outlandish misinterpretation going on. I ask you again to suggest your own version of text that precludes the disruption of which I've provided evidence and of which I've provided other hypothetical examples that would be admissible under the same standards. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent. For instance, what you wouldn't allow to be reported was that, at the height of the AIDS crisis, a Church document said that homosexual behaviour 'might seriously endanger health.  That wasn't in Wikipedia's voice.  It didn't state that the Church document said homosexual behaviour does seriously endanger health.  And, more important in Wikipedia, you reacted by strongly denying that homosexual behaviour presents any health danger, an irrelevant argument, since what was in question was the reporting of what the document did say (and reporting it accurately, not distortedly), even if what it said was mistaken.  Likewise, you can't seriously deny that the Church says that same-sex civil marriage isn't really marriage.  You disagree with the Church, but the article is supposed to recount objectively what the Church says, without endorsing it, and to report also reactions to what the Church says.  Reporting what the Church says is not the same as propounding it in Wikipedia's voice.  These, you say, are sincere religious beliefs held by many people.  Wikipedia then should be allowed to report those religious belief objectively.  Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A not-so-clever attempt to institutionalize what would otherwise be an NPOV violation. Trivializing/reducing religious beliefs to "bias" is certainly controversial (see Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief for a well-reasoned analysis), and there are many who believe that the trivialization itself is a biased point of view. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , it is evident that your comments have no genuine relationship to my post. You want Wikipedia to say, in its own voice, that certain religious beliefs that you reject are no more than "bias". Casting such aspersions on those you disagree with is clearly inappropriate, and amounts to exactly the same sort of NPOV viiolation that you claim to oppose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , there you go again. Nothing you write corresponds to my position. It is both inappropriate, in terms of Wikipedia policy, and inaccurate as a basic matter to trivialize religious doctrines as no more than "bias". I've never suggested the positions you're trying to put into my mouth, and I haven't seen any evidence that any other good faith editor has, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am horrified by the idea that one's Christianity would preclude someone from editing pages related to Christianity/Homosexuality. For what it's worth, I would be equally horrified if someone were proposing that someone's Homosexuality precluded them from editing pages related to Christianity/Homosexuality Padresfan94 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since no one has suggested either of those ideas, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to refute them. MastCell Talk 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased editing
2) Biased editing to promote or favor a third-party institution or entity may exist even in the absence of any financial conflict of interest.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As a random suggestion, could this be combined with the proposed principle above? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Religions
3) Wikipedia content relating to religion is not exempt from policies such as WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. A primary source issued by a third party may be usable in an article relating to that third party, but does not trump reliable secondary sources - this is true even when the third party is a religious institution. Quotations from primary sources are not inherently more likely to be the best way of conveying their content - this is true even when the primary source is issued by a religious institution. Sources affiliated with third parties are not inherently more reliable because of this affiliation and may be subject to bias - this is true even when the third party is a religious institution. Articles on religion are written in the same way as other articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * , the problem with this is it comes too close to being about the content dispute, which is outside the remit of Arbcom. I get what point you're making but not sure it's going to fly as a principle. Other arbitrators might have different views, so I'm not asking you to abandon this proposal - just noting what I see as a challenge it faces in being considered for inclusion. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , don't know, will have a think about it. :) - Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps trimming this to just the first sentence (with the addition of WP:PRIMARY to the list) will work. That simply states that the usual content policies apply to articles about religion in the same way they apply to other topics. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Euryalus that it may not necessary to be this specific. The general rules cover the situation.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The last remark is in response to some of the behavior I've identified in my evidence section re: use of RCC language rather than normal WP or style guide language (editors not wanting to use "same-sex marriage" because the RCC doesn't believe in it or "gay" because the RCC prefers "homosexual") or adding falsifiable scientific claims that are promulgated by a religious institution (the idea that homosexuality causes AIDS). I'm iffy on the phrasing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure and thanks. Do you see any way of altering it that would make it work, or is it fundamentally not Arbcom's purview? (I'll clarify in this comment that I'm not trying to state as a principle that in any given instance, a source or wording was better or worse - just responding to the stated or implied premise that primary religious sources, quotations, and affiliated sources were better.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this is affirming that the general rules apply when others have disagreed :) But, same question I asked Euryalus - any changes that might make it suitable for inclusion? Thryduulf's suggestion of trimming? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to need special subject statements of this sort, they have to be in detail and with exceptions and qualifications. That's why RS is a guideline, and why the true state of things is not even the guideline, but the extensive history of interpretations at WP:RSN. Religious scholars differ widely about the weight to give particular primary sources in particular instances.  "A primary source issued by a third party may be usable in an article relating to that third party," -- yes, but for certain types of statements in certain types of articles. " but does not trump reliable secondary sources " sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Subjects (religion, politics, etc. ) where there are official doctrinal statements are different from others. There is always a question of whether the ostensible meaning of a source is what it is actually intended to mean to those initiated in a particular community--whether statements are to be read as true beliefs, or as mere propaganda.  (eg. the USSR constitution had unimpeachable sections on freedom of the speech, fair trials, and so on.)   Sometimes (as was one of the issues in this dispute) there can be a question about just what language or version is the true primary source. Sometimes we need secondary sources to establish that. Sometimes scholars even in otherwise reliable secondary sources misstate the primary material--even deliberately.  Wars have been started over such distinctions, and I don't just mean edit wars in WP.  Su   DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh believe me, I know from "the law is the history of the law's interpretation" on several counts, including religious :D As I said, this is basically aimed at affirming that the usual rules apply, even in articles about religion where users may be arguing (and indeed are arguing in this workshop) that those usual rules do not apply. Given this, would you agree or disagree that such a principle is a) necessary, b) Arbcom's purview, and/or c) able to be articulated usefully here? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * DGG;s analysis is quite accurate. In a context like this, it is often preferred to document the doctrine from official statements of it, with appropriate, balanced commentary and analysis as supplementary material. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics of editors
4) The religious affiliation, ethnic identity, gender, or sexual orientation of an editor is not per se a bias. The assertion of bias on these bases may constitute a personal attack. An accusation of biased editing should be provable without reference to these characteristics of any editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I wasn't sure how many things it was relevant to add in this list for applicability to this case alone vs. general application. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of topic area
5) The topic area of Christianity and sexuality is considered to include the intersection of any denomination of Christianity, including religious texts and their interpretation, denominational statements and activities, and actions of religiously affiliated entities, with issues of sexual orientation, marriage, or sexual behavior.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It occurs to me that this may be a useful principle, especially given the potential for overlap with another arbcom case - abortion. I have not included birth control, abortion, or human reproduction in this text, but I think that it would be good to a) explicitly define those as in the topic area, b) explicitly define those as out of the topic area, or c) explicitly state that their inclusion may be taken on a case-by-case basis by arbs or admins. Please do make suggestions for changes. I'm also interested in figuring out how we can phrase the scope of the topic in a way that covers the disruption that went on in the Singing Nun article without stating that it covers any relationship of any Christian. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 is a sockpuppet
1) Per evidence here and here, the behavior of Padresfan94 indicates that the user is a sockpuppet.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Isn't that for WP:SPI to decide? Padresfan94 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been through this already, and frankly, your comment smacks of "Of course I'm a sock but I know you can't prove it within SPI's normal parameters." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And your comment smacks of "I know she isn't a sock puppet but I dont like her so I'm going to keep insisting that she is guilty" Padresfan94 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll let the copious evidence presented against you and the opinions of pretty much everyone who has observed your behavior speak for themselves. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * if you really did have "copious evidence" you would have submitted it at the appropriate forum Padresfan94 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruption by Esoglou
2) Per evidence here, here, here, and here, Esoglou has edited disruptively over a period of several years in order to advance an agenda about Christianity and sexuality, contrary to WP:NPOV. This disruption has included, but not been limited to, misrepresentation of sources, original research, and POV writing, and is consistent with behavior that led to previous sanctions related to Christianity and, sometimes, sexuality.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Without commenting on the substance just yet, I think this would read better as "Disruption by Esoglou," as you are not suggesting that Esoglou has become disrupted. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Done, thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese
3) Roscelese does not edit to further an agenda.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * - welcome other views but personally unlikely to support a Finding affirming that someone does not do something inappropriate. Otherwise we would be here all day listing everyone's virtues. You're all great people - let's focus on alleged misconduct and how to fix it, not what anyone is doing right. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Might put in a more detailed or specific FOF on my own behavior later on, but certainly no evidence presented would support the claim; in fact only one user, Padresfan94, is even claiming this, and that without any diffs to support it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the time you off-site canvassed a bunch of activists to edit a Christianity/homosexuality discussion was not done to advance an agenda? Padresfan94 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm claiming that an offsite post to a non-activist venue four and a half years ago, which I retracted as soon as I learned about the canvassing rule and have publicly disclosed on my user page for four years, wasn't done to advance an agenda and moreover is not evidence. Is this supposed to be dirt you're digging up on me? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-activist, aye? Which off-site venue did you canvass and what did you ask them to do with regard to the Christianity/homosexuality dispute? Padresfan94 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Padresfan94, the tone of this question is not appropriate and I would ask you to stop and review the section on the behaviour expected of participants at the top of the page before resuming. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
 * I am very serious in trying to give Roscelese a chance to explain herself on this matter. She canvasses off-site activists to take her side in a Christianity/Homosexuality dispute. Now she is saying that they were not activists. If that's true I will be more than happy to strike everything that I have written Padresfan94 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It is some time since I bothered to interest myself in any of Roscelese's editing behaviour but when I did it was transparently obvious to me that much of it represented a personal agenda as well as a bias against Roman Catholicism. Roscelese has a long history as an activist editor.  Any denial of this is quite risible. Afterwriting (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Roscelese does edit to further an agenda: she believes that Wikipedia should treat certain religious doctrines related to sexuality as no more than modes of invidious bias. This is certainly a controversial position and amounts, in practice, to a severe violation of NPOV policies and principles. Esoglou also edits to further an agenda: they believe that Wikipedia's exposition of such religious doctrines should be based on the statements/official texts of the religion and its leaders, with independent secondary sources used for commentary, analysis and criticism. This may or may not be the best way to treat such subjects, but it is a reasonable position consistent with NPOV policies and principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou's inappropriate conduct towards Roscelese
4) Per evidence here, here, and here, Esoglou's past and ongoing behavior towards Roscelese has been inappropriately sexual, included homophobic personal attacks, and focused on the contributor over the content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * MastCell has submitted a FOF about Esoglou's personal conduct below, but I wanted to add one that referred to 1) my evidence of ongoing troublesome behavior related to the pornographic image and 2) Esoglou's homophobic remarks as well. I'll defer to MastCell on the legal implications of using the word "harassment", although I do think this was obviously the intent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Padresfan94 indefinitely blocked
1) The indefinite block customarily imposed on sockpuppet accounts is imposed on Padresfan94.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This seems like something that can be dealt with at SPI and not here The committee normally does not deal with blocks, only bans. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think I've covered why this seems like the better venue (obvious sock behavior but no obvious sockmaster among the many possibles), and proposed a block more because it's what sockpuppets generally get than because I think it is preferable to a ban. Should the proposal be changed to "Padresfan94 is banned"? As I've said before, I reckon existing as a single-purpose account to hound and edit-war is sanctionable on its own, but I do think the obvious sock behavior is relevant. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This should be done as a matter of course, despite the difficulty in identifying the sockmaster. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou topic-banned 1
2) Esoglou is indefinitely restricted from editing LGBT-related topics, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces and includes references to the sexual orientation of any user.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The narrow version. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This would solve a lot of the current problems. It leaves Esoglou able to work on other controversial religion topics. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou topic-banned 2
3) Esoglou is indefinitely restricted from topics involving the intersection of Christianity with sexuality, human reproduction, and/or marriage, and from topics involving conflicts between Christianity and other religions, all broadly construed. If Esoglou disrupts any other area related to Christianity, he may be further restricted from that area by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces and includes references to the religion or sexual orientation of any user.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * - Without commenting on the substance of the proposed remedy, or whether there is any need for it: the inclusion of "controversial" will cause too much controversy, as its definition is both subjective and dependent on the edit content, rather than the article subject. Also too broad - there may be religious controversies in Christian church architecture, in Hindu iconography, in Aztec social organisation. These are outside this dispute, and no likely Finding of Fact could give rise to a remedy covering these topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to consider a broad topic ban, but unless there is some evidence I've overlooked I see nothing to support anything broader than "Christianity" rather than "religion". I also agree with Euryalus about the inclusion of "controversial". Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Esoglou is indefinitely restricted from the intersection of "Christianity" with any of "sexuality", "human reproduction" or "marriage", and from "conflicts between Christianity and other religions", all broadly construed." would be a more concrete way of phrasing that restriction I think. Homosexuality is related to sexuality, birth control and abortion are related to human reproduction, and divorce is related to marriage. Possibly some language like "If Esoglou disrupts any other area related to Christianity, he may be further restricted from that area by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement" would prevent the dispute sprawling. I need to reread the evidence before supporting the listed topics though (I wont have time to do that for few hours). Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A broader version, per evidence showing that when Esoglou is banned from one topic area, he finds another to continue the same behavior in. Off Dominus's suggestion in the case request. I'm not sure about "controversial" because it's very subjective, but I also don't like trying to predict and enumerate all the places he might go next. What do other people think? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Religion" replaced with "Christianity". How would you and Euryalus suggest handling the "controversial" issue without attempting to foresee all possible areas of disruption and/or overbroadly banning constructive edits that may or may not happen? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea - a few enumerated but broad areas where there's been demonstrable disruption, and an explicit statement that further disruption is in Arbcom's remit due to the editor's past disruption (without having to go through lower steps). I will edit the remedy, with some minor changes to phrasing that IMO do not change the meaning of your suggestion. What is your opinion of adding "any other area related to Christianity, sexuality, human reproduction, marriage, or other religions" and of removing "conflicts between" (resulting in "the intersection of Christianity...with other religions")? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all religion articles are controversial. If Esoglou sees every religion article as a battleground, that doesn't speak well for his ability to edit Wikipedia even with a topic ban, but I truly don't believe that's the case. The issue of editing big articles like Catholic Church will be up to arbitrators to decide, presumably, but I think it's been practice in the past that editing that sort of article was allowed if the user stayed far away from the subject they were banned from. Re "conflicts between Christianity and other religions", he's under a topic ban that continues to this day and that has been linked in the evidence stage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a suggestion for another way we could word the broad topic ban that would prevent him from engaging in further disruption of the kind he has engaged in without, as you worry, preventing him from making non-controversial edits? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This ban proposal is way to large. In effect it would prohibit him from ever editing any article related to religion. Even removing the "controversial" portion would still prohibit him from even editing the Catholic Church page because somewhere in the article gay marriage and/or abortion is mentioned.  If you look at the thousands of pages he has edited, only a few articles end up containing "controversial" edits.  In addition I believe the section saying "and from topics involving conflicts between Christianity and other religions, all broadly construed." is just being punitive.  This entire article is addressing a narrow area, all edits were specifically limited to that area. Making it this large should require permitting evidence around "conflicts between Christianity and other religions."  Honestly as someone who watches where he edits, I rarely ever see him edit in that arena, except in explicitly Catholic articles. Marauder40 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I say that Esoglou "sees every religion article as a battleground." Also to say that "not all religion articles are controversial" is pretty simplistic.  All religion articles on WP are constantly being "attacked" both from vandals and from people that push particular POVs.  The only articles that don't see that type of stuff are low profile articles.  Even low profile articles can see it at times.  The line "and from topics involving conflicts between Christianity and other religions, all broadly construed" is way to broad.  Even the Catholic Church page itself talks about conflicts with other religions, gay marriage and/or abortion. Like I said before, I feel adding this line is punitive, and beyond the scope of this case.  I have watched numerous people brought back to Arbcom because they touched an article that mentioned something they were topic banned from and didn't edit anything about that topic, but since it said broadly construed, they were warned or received more sanctions.Marauder40 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Remedy for Esoglou's personal conduct
4) Sexualized remarks or other inappropriate sexual behavior by Esoglou towards any user, or references by Esoglou to the sexual orientation of any user, are indefinitely fast-tracked to Arbitration Enforcement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Without opposing MastCell's proposal of a yearlong ban or going back on anyone's proposal for a topic ban, I also propose this. Thought about adding "if not promptly and sincerely apologized for", not sure whether that's assuming too much good faith and giving too many second chances under the demonstrated circumstances. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 topic-banned
5) Padresfan94 is indefinitely restricted from editing LGBT-related topics, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all pages and namespaces.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I very much think that a FOF for sockpuppetry and an indefinite block or ban are preferable, but I wanted to put this on the table in case arbitrators decide that a sockpuppet finding or block is not their remit. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. Courcelles 06:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard, again. Courcelles 06:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Standards of conduct
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 all available forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Bias and prejudice
4) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group or sexual orientation which can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes or as demonstrating prejudice against the members of the group.

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * , included "sexual orientation" as suggested, for the sake of discussion at least. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first sentence, but it needs a complete rewrite to be somewhat clearer than red clay. Courcelles 06:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be worth mentioning that such criticism should be constructive. I also think "evincing invidious bias and prejudice" could be rewritten into plainer language for ease of interpretation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Under the circumstances, it would seem to make sense to add "sexual orientation." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The phrase "evincing invidious bias" in the first sentence appears to be very high-brow and as such acts to make this page less accesible to those having English as a second language or for the majority of people who do not have tertiary level English comprehension. I ran the first sentence of 4) through the Flesch readability score and it scored a woeful 2.5 out of a possible 100 for reading ease.


 * I suggest changing "or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice" to "demonstrating prejudice", as this much simpler phrase implies and encompasses the former while keeping to the principle of plain English. Savlonn (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Recidivism
5} Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think IAR needs to be mentioned here. We're talking about actually disruptive conduct, and a good application of IAR is not disruptive. Courcelles 06:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, IAR does't need to be included here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and I agree. sometimes IAR is relevant, but not here.
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of the dispute
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou
2) has engaged in edit warring, eg.   and tendentious and pov editing eg.. He has had three topic bans in related areas..


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't see how it was "tendentious and pov" to restore the mention of reliable sources that contradicted an idea (now removed from the article) expressed by just one source (which I did not remove) about supposedly prior publication of a document in English ahead of Italian; to restore an accurate account of what a document said (that culpability can be diminished) in place of an insistent claim (now withdrawn) that the document said on the contrary that homosexual orientation does not diminish culpability for homosexual behaviour; to restore the reason John Paul II explicitly gave for deploring the scheduling of the WorldPride event to coincide with the 2000 Holy Year celebration in Rome (now included in the article); and to make other restorations that the difficulty of having these first ones accepted has until now prevented me from reaching them in line with the policy I later adopted of discussing problems only one by one or a very few at a time.
 * As for my edit-warring, the instance given of my reverting twice in reaction to Roscelese's threefold labelling as "minor" of her threefold revert was something I suppose I should not have done. I find it harder to see as evidence of edit-warring the other instance, in which I reverted once, on the grounds of the lack of a specific explanation, an edit by Dominus vobisdu (who promptly undid my reverting). But I suppose more convincing instances can be discovered, although not so easily in the more recent period in which I limited myself to trying to get attention paid to one or two matters at a time, leaving the rest until later.
 * And as for my topic bans, two were secured by Roscelese, who is now trying for a third. I hold no rancour against her for that, any more than I hold against Contaldo80 for what nearly resulted in my condemnation for sock puppetry.  As for the other topic ban, that was something I welcomed as a means of getting a mirror topic ban accepted by an editor who has since (not because of any request by me) been indefinitely banned.  Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

2.1 Esoglou has hounded and harassed Roscelese.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese
2) has violated our standards of conduct by edit-warring, incivility, personalising disputes and displaying ownership of articles. (see Callanecc's evidence and examples given by Padresfan94.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * it is good to hear that your standards will improve going forward, but any mention and/or taking into account of provocation would be the form of findings of fact against those doing the provoking and more lenient remedy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not in a position to deny it, but, without going "waaah, I was provoked", I think I can nonetheless state that will be somewhat reduced, to say the least, if the agenda-motivated and harassing users are removed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure - I've put in some FOF and remedies for that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Could we all please just take a moment and step back to be blown away that |Roselese is edit warring on the page Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism |right now, while an arbitration case about her edit warring on the page Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is still in progress. I don't think chutzpah is a strong enough word. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see what you're outraged about. You're citing one edit from a week ago, and one from today. Is that your evidence of edit-warring&mdash;1RR/week? Or am I missing something more dramatic? MastCell Talk 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Roscelese could wait 1 day, only 1 day, after the page had been locked for a month to jump back in right where she left off and on this very day she is asserting her ownership over the article Padresfan94 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Padsresfan94
2) has engaged in sockpuppetry (see evidence presented by Binksternet and  Mastcell).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It's obvious that Padresfan94 is someone's alternate account, and not a new user (I'm not the only admin to have picked up on this). It's equally obvious that this account has been used to follow and hound Roscelese by reverting her edits: in addition to targeting Roscelese's edits at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, shortly after this account was established s/he followed Roscelese to a number of other articles to revert her edits, including Care Net, crisis pregnancy center , Norma McCorvey , and Noel Treanor , among others. There is no other credible explanation for this pattern of edits besides intentionally tracking and reverting Roscelese's edits. I don't know who the master account is&mdash;my guess would be , an indefinitely blocked hardcore ideologue, edit-warrior, and sockpuppeteer fixated on the intersection of Christianity and sexuality. But it doesn't really matter who is operating this account, since it's categorically inappropriate to use an alternate account to hound another user. It makes no difference whether the sockmaster is Belchfire, or me, or Newyorkbrad&mdash;this is an inappropriate use of an alternate account regardless of the sockmaster, and should be blocked as such. In fact, I would have already blocked this account if it were not being used to participate in this ongoing ArbCom case (see User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/February). MastCell Talk 08:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Padresfan94 has violated our standards of conduct by edit-warring, incivility, pov editing and personalising disputes (see evidence from MastCell).


 * if you think that's true, file a SPI? Padresfan94 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 has hounded and harassed Roscelese (see evidence from Binkersternet).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * it's worth noting that Roscelese has been following me around. I would be all in favor of an interaction ban. I don't want to have to put up with her anymore Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dominus Vobisdu
2) has engaged in edit-warring (see evidence from Callanecc).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Discretionary sanctions
1) Discretionary sanctions are authorised for...


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't see the need. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an American Politics-style 'if this doesn't settle down, we'll authorize DS' is in order. Though I'm not actually opposed to authorising them in this case. Courcelles 06:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Yeah, I mentioned it on the talk page rather than proposing it here because I wasn't sure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of standard topic ban
2) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to Christianity and sexuality, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou site banned
1)  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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I won't support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * If this is justified, it's justified by the repeated use and defense of the image, not because of the topic dispute.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Absolutely, per my comment on MastCell's proposal below. Kurtis (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou topic banned
2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou admonished
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese site banned
1)  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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I won't support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * No. Courcelles 06:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not proportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite out of proportion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese topic banned
2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese admonished
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 site banned
1)  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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 topic banned
2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Padresfan94 admonished
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Dominus Vobisdu site banned
1)  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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I won't support this. (forgot to sign Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Don't see this one following. Courcelles 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Altogether out of proportion.  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Dominus Vobisdu topic banned
2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Dominus Vobisdu admonished
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Interpreting sources
1) Interpretations of sources must not violate WP:No original research policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutrality and viewpoints
2) Related articles must not be one-sided, which may violate WP:neutral point of view policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is teamwork, not a battleground
3) Wikipedia is not a battleground. In fact, although neither a policy nor a guideline, Wikipedia is teamwork. Even if the topic is controversial, editors must trust each other, not fight till the bitter end.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not advocacy
3) Wikipedia is not an advocacy. Neither religion nor sexuality should or shall be exploit for any means of tolerance or intolerance. Wikipedia must be educational, not propagandized.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou fails to remedy his own wrongs
1) Administrators who protected the article did their best to ease the tension amongst editors involved, like Esoglou and Roscelese. However, Esoglou has failed to take responsibility and remedy his own wrongs. Moreover, he has made Roscelese feel harassed by, annoyed by, and resentful toward him. When I discussed things with him, I found him either inconsistent or passive aggressive. He tends to make Roscelese as if she is "trouble". When I had a discussion with Roscelese, I see her as honest although somewhat biased.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * George Ho "found me either inconsistent or passive aggressive" for not accepting as true Ho's baseless accusation, with a strong presumption of guilt from the start ("I hope you can explain why an inaccessible French dictionary is cited. I wonder if you really have a possession of the French edition"), that I was putting in Wikipedia a quotation in French of my own invention. As far as I can see, the book is accessible on the Internet (or at least was then) on many sites, to which I gave links.  Ho couldn't access them, Ho said.  I accepted Ho's  good faith, but Ho perhaps still has not accepted mine. Ho then proceeded to interrogate me on where I (presumed perhaps to be a Frenchman) learnt English and what is my country of origin and residence, and further accused me of sockpuppetry.  As a result, Ho found me either inconsistent or passive aggressive.  Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editors with different viewpoints on homosexuality
2) One sides against sexuality; other sides for it. The way to communicate each other is not well-taught. Our schools have barely or rarely taught homosexuality, especially in the United States. Discussing it appears bothersome to them. Moreover, such poor communication between those with different viewpoints on this has extended to Wikipedia. This troubles me.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I dont care about homosexuality and I would be so bold as to suggest that you don't know my opinions on it. I care about how we describe the policies of a massive, well publicized institution. That is the core of the disagreement. Padresfan94 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples? --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most f these disputes have been over the interpretation of primary sources Padresfan94 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia, Standards of conduct, recidivism, etc
1) Per above.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Esoglou's history
1) has a long history of tendentious editing on topics related to Roman Catholicism and sexuality, as evidenced by several topic bans related to the subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, as relevant background. Evidence is here. MastCell Talk 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate post
2) In the context of a conflict with, who identifies as a gay woman, Esoglou posted an inappropriately sexualized image of two women to Roscelese's talk page. Despite Roscelese's clear indications that she viewed this image as unwelcome and a form of harassment, Esoglou chose to prominently display it on his talk page for nearly two years as an example of his "sense of humor".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * , fair to say there's some strength in this as a Finding, but I'm keen to hear more from you on this, before considering it further. In passing I'm not seeing the relevance of your point in Evidence that others found it funny - they found it funny as a general image, not as an allusion to a particular editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply, will consider further. I agree it was some time ago. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , to the extent that the image posting is relevant to the case, the question is why it was subsequently poster on 's talkpage. Was it as described, to continue the inappropriate message to but in a different venue? Or because he coincidentally liked or was amused by the image and wanted to show a copy of it regardless of what meaning he had previously ascribed to it in sending it to someone else? Or in less convoluted terms - what's at issue is motivation. Edits viewed in isolation may seem perfectly fine but have an entirely different complexion when viewed in context. One function of this workshop is to consider what, if any, context applied.  -- Euryalus (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You continuing defense of the appropriateness of this image seems to me evidence either that you truly do not understand, in which case your standards may be not be compatible with expected behavior here, or, alternately, that you are for some reason continuing to stoutly defend the indefensible. It may be in some sense a metaphor, but it is a highly sexualized metaphor.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are in my opinion right that it would have been almost equally inappropriate addressed to anyone, especially to someone with whom one is having dispute regarding any aspect of sexuality.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree if Esoglou had promptly and sincerely apologized then this wouldn't be coming up, but I do also want to re-state, as I stated in the evidence phase, that while my sexual orientation may have been a part of the motivation behind Esoglou's action, it is not the reason, or not the sole reason, it was over the line; it would have also been over the line if I were straight. Note that I submitted a longer and more detailed sequence of events in my evidence. (Moreover, as for the inappropriateness of the image, I think when the person who posted it is splitting hairs in his arbcom evidence over how well the model's underwear fits her, the point's basically been conceded.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that even in the workshop stage of arbitration and after years of people telling him to stop, Esoglou thinks it's appropriate to make jokes about female editors putting him in bondage is really, really telling. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Euryalus. The particular editor that it was an allusion to was myself, the one who was being tied up.  If I remember right, my comment was "Is this how you want to tie me up?"  I didn't foresee that it would be taken as the deciding factor in having me tied up from editing in an area for six months.  Nor that in 2015 the same ill-judged joke would again be advanced as grounds for demanding that I be tied up in yet another area - or indeed from Wikipedia in its entirety, as MastCell proposes below - perhaps in perpetuity.  Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If this was such a huge deal, why didn't Roscelese bring it up at the time? Why is she waiting until years later to become so offended? Padresfan94 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than by immediately reporting it to AE, where it resulted in six months' sanction? Exactly what standard are you suggesting I meet in order to prove that I didn't secretly like it? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That not what I said, and you're smart enough to know that.
 * You had no problem discussing topics with Esoglau and interacting with him in other ways, and then suddenly when the Talk Page discussion wasn't going your way then you became so offended that you could be on the same talk page as him. And because you were not part of the discussion any consensus reached was clearly illegitimate. Revert. Revert. Revert. Padresfan94 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Sequence of events is detailed here in evidence. In context, I think the image was well over the line of inappropriate harassment, but I recognize that these sorts of lines are culturally determined and, to some extent, variant. I'm actually more appalled by Esoglou's reaction after it was made clear to him that the image was deeply offensive to Roscelese. Assuming this was an honest misunderstanding, the decent response would be to apologize for having inadvertently offended. A minimally acceptable response would have been to do nothing. Esoglou's reaction was to go out of his way to prominently enshrine the image, which (aside from just being obnoxious) should make clear that his intent was to offend and provoke. I'm not sure whether I would use the term "sexual harassment" here, since that is a legally fraught phrase, but this is grossly inappropriate behavior on any reasonable level and needs to be called out formally as such. MastCell Talk 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally think the picture that was posted two years ago was inappropriate. They apologized and were punished for the offense two years ago. I find it very interesting that in one breath an editor is saying they want to be treated no differently then anyone else.  In the other breath they are saying that because they are a gay woman they SHOULD be treated differently.  This sounds very close to having protected classes of editors on WP.  I also find it interesting that Roscelese in effect created a self imposed discussion ban with Esoglou, but continued to edit, revert, and roll-back the person that they refused to have a discussion with.  Usually when there is a interaction ban the people are stopped from editing common articles, if a one sided interaction ban the person that is banned stops.  You would think a person that refuses to discuss with an editor, shouldn't be reverting that editor. Doesn't that in effect violate one of the primary pillars of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about giving Roscelese "special privileges". We're talking about making sure she has the same privilege that you and I enjoy by default&mdash;the privilege of not having personal characteristics like our gender or sexual orientation used to attack us in a Wikipedia content dispute. MastCell Talk 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So now you are saying that Roscelese should have approval authority on what Esoglou posts on HIS talk page. Just because she is offended he needs to remove it.  Sounds like a special privilege to me.  There is not right to not be offended by things on WP.  The picture itself posted on Roscelese's page can be seen as inappropriate.  Not being allowed to post a picture that is in Commons on his own talk page is censorship.  If she had a problem with it should could easily have approached an admin at that time, but I doubt they would have done anything about it other then tell her to stay off his talk page.  If he had posted something directly referring to her, that would inappropriate.  At some point after dealing with Roscelese I posted a quote on my user page that is still there.  If she is offended by my posting of that quote do I now have to remove it?  No way for you to even know which one it is without going through tons of history. Marauder40 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the comments on his page when he had it posted, it was because the picture itself amused him, I quote "WARNING THIS EDITOR HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE I am keeping this image, which still amuses me, although in 2012 others interpreted it as a laugh not at myself but at another editor who, precisely on its account, got me tied up for a while." Reading into it farther is not assuming good faith. As I said before, if she was offended by the picture, she always had the option of staying off his talk page.  It didn't directly reference her. Marauder40 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my evidence, it was obvious in context that Esoglou was being intentionally provocative by retaining the image, and even editors sympathetic to him recognized what he was doing and tried to talk him out of it. Esolgou himself recognized that the image was viewed as inappropriate and grounds for a topic ban but chose to retain it. This isn't about his "sense of humor". It's a continuation of a personal dispute, and was recognized as such by everyone at the time. MastCell Talk 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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 banned
1) Esoglou is banned from Wikipedia for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Dealing with Esoglau on the H&RC page I was very impressed with his willingness to put in long hours finding new scholarly sources to expand Wikipedia. He has created over 500 new articles and found sourcing for many more. This is a pretty big leap for a user who has only been blocked for 6 minutes 3 years ago and has contributed so much to Wikipedia. Padresfan94 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think that the behavior described here, along with the total lack of insight or self-awareness about how his behavior is problematic, is more than serious enough to justify this. MastCell Talk 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually think that an indefinite site ban with the option of appealing after one year is more appropriate in this case. His behaviour towards Roscelese shows a disturbingly cavalier attitude that I find incompatible with continued participation on Wikipedia. He should not be allowed to edit until he agrees to change his approach. Kurtis (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou topic-banned
2) Esoglou is indefinitely banned from making any edit related to Christianity and sexuality, broadly construed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is unproductively broad. Esoglau clearly knows a lot about the topic and has shown himself willing to do the hard work of scouring through academic sources to do the hard work of content-creation. Wikipedia would be losing a lot. Padresfan94 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, either in addition to or in place of the time-limited siteban. Between the numerous topic bans and the inappropriate behavior, I don't see how Esoglou could demonstrate any more clearly that he is not capable of editing neutrally and productively in this topic area. MastCell Talk 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear about the grounds for this proposal: it's based primarily on the long-term pattern of recidivist POV-pushing and tendentious editing, which I think is pretty much beyond dispute. The offensive post on Roscelese's talkpage is a major aggravating factor. I understand that the post was in 2012 (and frankly, it should have been handled more effectively back then), but recall that Esoglou displayed the offending image on his page for the ensuing two years, until early 2014. So this isn't exactly ancient history either. MastCell Talk 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The usual
1) The usual.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * "We hoped for the best, but it turned out like always." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say so -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. MastCell Talk 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that ArbCom's official motto? :P MastCell Talk 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for collegial disagreement and discussion
1) Discussion can only work if all parties are open to respectful discussion with all other parties. Parties cannot be precluded from discussion because of their beliefs.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * How are you defining "beliefs" here? You're clearly alluding to my decision not to speak to Esoglou due to his harassment, but I don't think you can reasonably classify "you're a worse editor because you're gay" as a WP-protected belief. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are willfully misreading what others are writing. No one has ever said "you're a worse editor because you're gay". Stop trying so hard to play the victim.
 * I'm eluding to you decision to A: refuse to participate in the discussion process, B: claim the discussion process is illegitimate because you were not there, C: keep reverting. Padresfan94 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese has abused tools during her edit warring
1) Per evidence from Callanecc and evidence from myself Roscelese has abused Rollback at least twice and Twinkle at least fifteen times while edit-warring on this H&RC alone.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TE
2) Per the preponderance of diffs on the evidence page: Roscelese believes that she owns the page H&RC. She has not participated honestly in the discussion process, and at times she has refused to participate in the discussion process at all, while still continuing to edit-war on the page. After each protection of the page, she returned to revert it to her preferred version, usually as the first person to edit the page again.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese has edit-warred for year across social-topics
3) Roscelese has been blocked 6 times now, almost entirely on social-topics. She has also been the subject of a marathon-number of ANI/3RR reports again, mostly on social-topics. She also attempted to canvass social-issues activists off-site to influence Wikipedia discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This FOF should be based on stuff submitted in the evidence phase, and it's not a great idea to submit, past the deadline and as evidence, a search of admin boards that largely brings up times I successfully reported other people for edit warring, participated in community discussions about other users, or where people were found to be harassing me. Be specific, please. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Without looking into every mention of you on ANI you are the subject of 26 different complaints. This has led to you being warned and admonished dozens of times, and it has led to you being blocked on 6 different occasions. You don't see a problem with that pattern of behavior? Padresfan94 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Roscelese should be relieved of her Rollback and Twinkle privileges
1) After abusing each of these function multiple times in edit-wars, Roscelese should be relieved of the use of these tools, as is proscribed on the introduction pages for these tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Roscelese should be topic-banned from H&RC, narrowly construed
2) This is clearly a very emotional topic for her. It has been a repeated problem area and will continue to get her in trouble.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Emotional? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think Rosclese is any more "emotional" or incapable of self-control than her (male) counterparts in this topic area. It's interesting (but, sadly, not surprising) that you've chosen to single her out in those terms. . MastCell Talk 07:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You know that I'm a woman too, right....
 * Either this is a topic that she is emotional invested in or she is a hard-core ideologue who came here to edit war, rack up blocks and then canvass off-site to recruit other activists to come push her POV on wiki regarding this topic. You take your pick, I was just trying to assume the best. Padresfan94 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, now. When you see a female editor dismissed as "bitchy", and as too "emotional" to contribute to a challenging topic area, and as the recipient of clearly unwanted sexualized imagery on her talkpage, then I would hope you'd see a problem regardless of your gender. That's a level of bullshit that the male editors in this topic area haven't had to put up with. I don't know what the "right" response should be on Roscelese's part&mdash;certainly there's evidence of edit-warring and other unacceptable behavior on her part, but frankly, if I were in her place, I don't know that I'd stay as calm as she has in light of this sort of nonsense. MastCell Talk 17:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Atleast we can agree that her behavior has been unacceptable.
 * I am genuinely sorry that someone described Roscelese's comments as "bitchy". That was uncollegial, uncaring, and I hope that the editor responsible was disciplined. At the same time, in the edit immediately above it, Roscelese should not have told that editor "I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously" and "please don't mistake your sulking ... for a legitimate behavioral issue." That was also uncollegial and uncaring and I also hope that Roscelese was diciplined for that. I will go out on a limb and guess that she was not.
 * Sexism and discrimination are real, I have seen plenty of them. Having ones comments described as "bitchy" IMMEDIATELY AFTER dismissing another editor's humanity does not the height of sexism make. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a really odd habit of self-righteously rebutting things that no one has actually said. First of all, I don't see how telling someone they're unlikely to be taken seriously, or that they're sulking, is "dismissing another editor's humanity". Really, that's just a ridiculous exaggeration for effect on your part (after all, what could be more quintessentially human than sulking)? Secondly, I didn't suggest that being called "bitchy" was "the height of sexism"&mdash;again, that's a ridiculous exaggeration on your part, presumably to avoid engaging what I actually wrote. What I am saying is that the "bitchy" comment was one example of an ongoing pattern of petty (and, yes, sexist) commentary which Roscelese has had to put up with&mdash;up to and including you singling her out as excessively "emotional". MastCell Talk 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * She did not say that they were "unlikely to be taken seriously", her response to legitimate criticism was to say to the other editor "I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously" and to again denigrate someone's work and opinions as mere "skulking".
 * I've already said that Afterwriting should not have said "bitchy". Are you prepared to say that Roacelese should not deal with criticism by telling other editors that no one takes them seriously and by denigrating their work? Padresfan94 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese should be topic-banned from Christianity/Homosexuality articles, broadly construed for 1 year
3) Roscelese was a skilled editor who created many new pages but her present involvement in this topic has led to an inexcusable amount of drama and to 6 different blocks being filed against her. That will just keep going unless corrected from the outside.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is verifiably untrue that my involvement in this topic has led to 6 blocks, and as such, not a great basis for a proposal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't see how this pattern of edit warring and subsequent blocking because of your involvement in religiously-sensitive topics might be problematic? Padresfan94 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 48 hours for Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
 * 72 hours for Secular Islam Summit
 * 24 hours for Stop Islamization of America
 * 72 hours for Catholics for Choice
 * and 27 hours for other blocks that I am going to go out on a limb and guess were relate to behavior during religiously oriented disputes.


 * Comment by others:

Topic-bans all around
4) I would rather not deal with Roscelese ever again. I think it would be for the best for both of us and for our work on the Encyclopedia if we never crossed paths again.

I would also like to suggest that Roscelese, Esoglau and Dominus Vobisdu all have 1-year interaction-bans logged against each other.

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Comment by Esoglou
Much of the above sounds like a lynching party in full cry. Out to string me up this time, not just tie me up.

Even Euryalus, who I am not saying is part of a lynching gang, seems to have decided that my posting of the link to an image that I found amusing and that I associated with efforts underway to tie me up was in reality meant as a reference to the sexuality of the addressee. I was and am unaware of any such intention, but I must suppose that Euryalus knows my mind better than I do. My previous punishment is therefore not enough, and I must now be punished more severely.

I'd love to know what are the jokes that Roscelese sees me as cracking about a "list of editors", including a supposedly female MastCell. They might tickle my offensive sense of humour. I don't even see which of the two persons in the linked image is supposed to refer to her. The one tied up represents me, and it was in relation to me that I found it funny. There is no suggestion that the one holding the mobile phone was in any way involved in tying the other up.

Roscelese is another person who knows my mind better than I do, interpreting as references to her sexuality – as if that were something to be ashamed of – statements that were more generic, such as my remark that English speakers in general do use the word "homosexual", which she wanted to ban in favour of "gay".

So it is proposed to exclude me indefinitely from LGBT-related topics, broadly construed – and everybody else free to cover religion-related topics, in which I am to be banned from a broad area of those related to Christianity, not limited to those that intersect with another field of interest.

I on the other hand make no attempt to counter with a set of proposed principles and remedies. I am inferior on lawyer's skills. I am perhaps too naively trusting that those in charge of Wikipedia will not declare it right to delete repeatedly the mention of four books and several newspapers that had the "defect" of contradicting one book whose author later admitted that, if he were to write it again, "it would be more balanced, better informed, and less prone to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis"; nor will they declare it right to block out, by dint of reverting, all mention of an ex-nun's stating, truly or falsely, that after she left the convent she was not in a homosexual relationship (later research showed that only after 14 years did the relationship begin); nor will they declare it right to insistently report a document's denial that "the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable", a denial that a cited reliable secondary source interprets as meaning that "the more compulsive is the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions", as if the document said on the contrary that, "as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation" (Roscelese's personal interpretation).

Surely, an encyclopedia that claims neutrality should not lean so strongly to one view that it excludes all mention of a contradictory view. It should not adopt the policy advocated by Roscelese of excluding quotations of the actual texts of Catholic Church documents on the topic of "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" and admitting only self-invented summaries of them that in her view, but not in that of other editors, indicate their true meaning. She says above that Wikipedia prohibits that an article documenting a "biased point of view" be written from that point of view. In this concrete case, "biased point of view" is a petitio principii condemnation of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and homosexual persons (two different matters, which Roscelese does not always distinguish) and, accordingly, documenting or illustrating or explaining the Church's point of view is admitted from dissident and hostile sources, but not from any that agree with the Church.

Roscelese, above, suggests objections have been raised against using terms such as "same-sex marriage" and "gay" in the article. There is no objection in principle. What is questionable is insistence on substituting them for more precise terms used in an official declaration that is being reported. An example concerns the 1997 USCCB statement that spoke of parents discovering that an adolescent or adult child of theirs experiences same-sex attraction, adding that "having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activity". The article has through undiscussing persistence been made to represent this statement as addressed to "parents of gay and bisexual children" – the word "bisexual" appears nowhere in the document, and I cannot even find the concept there – rather than to parents of a son or daughter "found to be of homosexual orientation". This is one of the points in the "wrong version" that Roscelese has succeeded in establishing as the text to work on and that I have now been endeavouring to fix only one step at a time.

It is well known that a certain comic said he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would accept people like him. If Wikipedia will accept only people who want it to present the Catholic Church's teaching as "a biased point of view", who else would want to join?

I propose no sanctions against Roscelese. I have no personal animosity against her. I would just like her to amend her editing ways.

I see she has now returned to unilaterally, on matters on which we disagree, making edits, including one about which MSGJ told her: "This is not a clear consensus." She will presumably claim, as before, that her edits, being in possession, cannot be disturbed without complete consensus on an alternative.

I would have liked to spend more time on this writing, so as to make it clearer but, now that I have at last got down to the distasteful task, I had better upload it and not wait till the last moment. Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: