121.72.165.111 (talk) →Standard channels: Wikipedia channels are not fit for purpose for victims of abuses |
|||
Line 785: | Line 785: | ||
::::::[[User:RebeccaSaid]] has a point: I cannot see that policy has been followed here. [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC) |
::::::[[User:RebeccaSaid]] has a point: I cannot see that policy has been followed here. [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::(Having said that: I have experienced user:NeilN as a ''very'' experienced and good admin. BUT,...in this case I don't understand him, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)) |
::::::(Having said that: I have experienced user:NeilN as a ''very'' experienced and good admin. BUT,...in this case I don't understand him, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)) |
||
The posts above by "outside looking in" {{u|RebeccaSaid}} are a good example of why we need to be cautious about strengthening BLP rights. Our policies, guidelines, and article content '''will''' be manipulated by those seeking to remove negative information about themselves or add negative information about their opponents in the name of "balance". Some attempts will be obvious, others less so. My actions have been mentioned twice up above. Let's see how the criticisms stack up: |
|||
*''A prominent Admin got involved with the edit warring there, however his response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts - whether they were "sock" accounts or not, did he even look at what was going on?'' If you follow the link on RebeccaSaid's talk page you'll go to a offsite webpage filled with details about this situation. It's clear this person is quite adept at gathering and displaying evidence yet the comments above, complete with innuendo and leading question, contains no diffs or actual evidence. Looking at the actual history of [[Tim Hayward (academic)]], you'll see that a number of accounts were blocked as socks by me. RebeccaSaid attempts to throw doubt on my reasons for blocking but fails to mention that all the registered accounts were later checkusered and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftworks1/Archive|confirmed as socks]]. This information is easy to find (e.g., [[User:Cint4198]]) but somehow RebeccaSaid, who is capable of uncovering small details, failed to do so. As for the reverts, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&diff=840421100&oldid=840420906], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&diff=840957218&oldid=840926732]) editors can check if the socks were removing any obvious BLP violations. If not, then it becomes a content dispute which admins do not adjudicate and socks are prohibited in participating in. There may be a question of balance, but that's basically the cry of every sock POV-pusher. |
|||
*''Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.'' Note that policy states "the subjects", not "claiming to be the subjects". There's a good reason for this - editors should monitor [[WP:UAA]] for a while and see how many editors we get claiming to be a famous person. I softblocked the account which is perfectly inline with policy and the block message even states, "If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia." Instructions are given on how to prove an identity and in Robinson's case, a simple tweet from his account would probably do. Editors who are against this blocking practice need to seriously think about what happens when the media catches wind of someone trying to whitewash their biography or attacking their opponents biographies. If we allow an impersonator to do so, that negative attention shifts to us (and deservedly so) for allowing the impersonation to occur. |
|||
Finally, as best as I can recall, I initially got involved in this situation by handling a standard [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive366#User:Leftworks1_reported_by_User:Philip_Cross_(Result:_Blocked_48_hours)|edit warring report]]. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=839182094&oldid=839180599 content] was unsourced and made reference to a legal document and made with some sort of "balance" in mind. I cannot stress strongly enough how we do not need any kind of BLP or [[WP:BLPGROUP]] rights that would allow for such editing. We already have our hands full with blatant and subtle COI editing, mixed in with offwiki campaigns, socking, and real-life threats to good-faith editors. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Off-wiki attacks==== |
====Off-wiki attacks==== |
Revision as of 09:53, 28 June 2018
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Remove KalHolmann as party to this case
1) At 14:25, 17 June 2018, User:KalHolmann was re-added as an involved party to this case, without specified charges. At 22:50, 17 June 2018, User:power~enwiki accused KalHolmann of acting in contempt of ArbCom.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Again, there are no charges, and this is not a criminal court. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- As has already been communicated to you, your addition as a party was based on your involvement in the underlying dispute (without comment on whether that involvement was in any way problematic) and your conduct during the case. ~ Rob13Talk 00:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Please remove me as an involved party to this case. I have done nothing wrong and deny the charges against me. KalHolmann (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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:
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
Proposals by User:power~enwiki
Proposed principles
Disruptive influences
1) The processes of the English-language Wikipedia attempt to minimize influence from external sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is a very vague admonishment against the off-wiki actions in this case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (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.
Dismissal
1) The case is dismissed without any sanctions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- As suggested by Collect, the existence of a case does not require sanctions be imposed. As the community has imposed a TBAN on Philip Cross editing George Galloway (and strongly implied that he should not edit other articles on topics that he has discussed on external sites), action by the arbitration committee may not be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- This would be probably the best idea. We shouldn't really be giving into the Moonbat Response Force's conspiracy theorising, even if the BBC did. Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Normally this would be in the form of "the community topic ban is endorsed" or some such, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is not only edits of George Galloway which are bad, virtually all the other BLPs relating to British politicks were rotten, too. Philip Cross need a ban on all of those BLPs, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions
2) The Arbitration Committee authorizes Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to post-1979 British Politics.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- 2010 is the year that
Theresa MayDavid Cameron defeated Gordon Brown in a general election. The intention is to impose this on contemporary issues, particularly those involving Jeremy Corbyn. British politics has been historically less controversial than American politics, but the various temptations to influence current events and/or the the perceptions of partisan/NPOV editing remain for contemporaneous topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)- I've changed this from 2010 to 1979 (Thatcher's election). As Galloway was most prominent in the Iraq War (2003) timeframe, 2010 obviously won't work. The committee may prefer 1945 (end of WWII and Attlee election) as a cut-off. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- 2010 is the year that
- I don't see enough evidence of wide ongoing disruption in British politics to justify this drastic action, and there certainly hasn't been nearly enough evidence in the instant arb case. Admittedly I don't pay much attention to the topic, so closer observers might be better attuned than I am to problems in it. But it seems to me, editing in US politics is much crazier, so we have and need the AMPOL sanctions. In other places, we don't need them. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Philip Cross TBAN
3) Philip Cross is indefinitely topic-banned, broadly construed, from the subject of British Politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- To ensure the avoidance of doubt, per the various off-wiki accusations, and per evidence suggesting that his edits may give a conflict of interest, Philip Cross is topic-banned from this well-defined area. The TBAN may be appealed in the standard manner after 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Are you saying you want your first proposal (dismiss the case w/o sanctions) and the current one (topic ban someone, which is a sanction) to both pass? They are contradictory so you should pick one. As of a few days ago I didn't see enough evidence presented to justify a topic ban. Some more has been posted that I haven't looked at closely: it still might not be enough. Obviously I haven't seen what arbcom has been sent privately. It did seem until the recent posts that the case had fizzled, that this was foreseeable, and that arbcom therefore shouldn't have accepted it in the first place. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am suggesting both may be reasonable actions here; the off-wiki evidence will be relevant to the committee's votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Are you saying you want your first proposal (dismiss the case w/o sanctions) and the current one (topic ban someone, which is a sanction) to both pass? They are contradictory so you should pick one. As of a few days ago I didn't see enough evidence presented to justify a topic ban. Some more has been posted that I haven't looked at closely: it still might not be enough. Obviously I haven't seen what arbcom has been sent privately. It did seem until the recent posts that the case had fizzled, that this was foreseeable, and that arbcom therefore shouldn't have accepted it in the first place. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not a good idea. He clearly is a net-positive to the topic area. Yes, he is "biased" in the way that he added material critical of Corbyn or other named people, but you are under heavy illusions if you think that's problematic alone. That's how political articles have always worked in Wikipedia: for example pro-Democratic editors add their own content, pro-Republican editors add their own content and then they BRD and reach some kind of a balance. This is a volunteer project. You can't force someone to find pro-Trump or pro-Galloway references and write text about them just because it would be good for WP:WEIGHT. Philip Cross didn't push for fringe or undue ideas, the antisemitism controversy is well-covered in reliable sources. You'll just have to deal with the fact that people who politically disagree with you edit Wikipedia and that they will use most of their time editing in a manner which fits with their point-of-view. Everyone has a POV. --Pudeo (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Huldra
Proposed principles
Template
1) Some people with WP:BLP have been treated with less respect on Wikipedia, than they would have been treated in newspapers, ie, their refutation of allegations have been censored out.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is a terrible idea. We already have a problem with people who do not understand the difference between refutation, rebuttal and repudiation, but much more importantly, we are not a newspaper. Most newspapers tend to give the last word to the person discussed, but we have no such obligation. We have many articles on frauds, charlatans and other unsavoury types where giving them the last word is an absolute failure of WP:UNDUE. Imagine iif we had to give Donald Trump the last word every time, despite his long and extensively documented history of saying stuff that is both self-serving and absolutely objectively false. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Huldra was referring to the Tim Hayward edit she wrote up in her evidence section. And if Trump responds to something and the response is written up in RS, then WP:NPOV requires us to use it whether we agree with it or not. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Template
1) The WP:BLP policy shall be expanded with some of points, similar to NYT social media guidelines for their reporters, eg:
•In social media posts, Wikipedia editors must not make offensive comments or disparage WP:BLPs they are writing about.
As to be unenforceable: it is clearly enforced in most newspapers I know of (not only NYT). Of course, as an anon editor, I could make a twitter account under another nick, but when a wikipedia editor connects his/her , say twitter account with their wikipedia account (as was done in this case), and treat his subject (or rather, his victims) in a way which would have gotten him blocked for violating NPA on WP....then our rules are missing vital parts. Huldra (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The WP:BLP policy already has included that it: "should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." At the same time we have the WP:NPA policy, regulating our interactions internally on wp. I do not think it is overreaching if we expect editors to treat the WP:BLPs with a similar respect. (If you feel too strongly about a subject, then you shouldn't edit in that area. (Personally, there are lots of articles which I would never, ever edit on wp, as I feel too strongly about them) Huldra (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Our jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia, and we can impose restrictions only on activity here. On the other hand, we can certainly note that certain off-wiki activity can be incompatible with either editing related topics on the English Wikipedia or editing on the English Wikipedia at all. ~ Rob13Talk 00:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- And in any case we can't rewrite policy. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Our jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia, and we can impose restrictions only on activity here. On the other hand, we can certainly note that certain off-wiki activity can be incompatible with either editing related topics on the English Wikipedia or editing on the English Wikipedia at all. ~ Rob13Talk 00:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- This is unenforceable. We could, however, expand COI to mention off-wiki disputes with article subjects, in a way that does not give subjects the option to blacklist editors just by attacking them off-wiki. But the committee will not make that happen, it would be a matter for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Except in a high profile case like this, where the user has declared their social media accounts, this is unenforcable. We don't expect users to declare their real world identity, nor declare social media accounts. Besides, this can be wrapped up with COI. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is way off, especially when the BLP subjects are high visibility public figures. I don't mind if someone tweets something terrible about Donald Trump or Barack Obama, and also edits Wikipedia about them, as long as their editing is up to snuff. There's more of a COI issue when the subject is less visible, like Tim Hayward. George Galloway (a former politician but a comparatively minor one) is somewhere in between, I suppose. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2018 (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.
Philip Cross topic banned
4)
Philip Cross is topic-banned for one year, broadly construed, from all WP:BLPs relating to British politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 3 months thereafter.
4) Philip Cross is topic-banned indefinitely, broadly construed, from all WP:BLPs relating to British politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
4) Philip Cross is indefinitely topic-banned, broadly construed, from the subject of British Politics. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- If a topic ban were to be imposed, what is the value in making it fixed length versus indefinite? I believe the appeals process is sometimes (not always) helpful in ensuring an editor is on the right track before allowing them to return to the areas in which they previously caused issues. ~ Rob13Talk 00:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- User:BU Rob13, actually, I would have liked to see the topic ban indefinite, but I misread the template above, thinking that a remedy had to be of a certain length(!)....My bad. I have fixed that now. Also, I agree with 173.228.123.166 below, but I would claim that Media Lens, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party comes under the "broadly constructed" term. (I normally edit Israel/Palestine area, which is under general sanctions "broadly constructed"...and no-one "survives" in this area believing "broadly constructed" doesn't mean very broadly, indeed,Huldra (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC))
- To 173.228.123.166: Well, IMO, WP:BLPs deservers special protection, which non BLPs does not. Though I agree with you, that Philip Cross edits regarding anything relating to British politics seem problematic. Perhaps User:power~enwiki suggestion: that Philip Cross is banned from editing anything relating to British politics is a better suggestion than my suggestion. I consider my suggestion a mere minimum. (E.g. I haven't looked through all of Philip Cross edits, but if he has, eg, removed references to Media Lens, then that is problematic, as the only time Media Lens was discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, there seem to have been a consensus that it could be used with attribution). If anyone could points to diffs where Philip Cross have removed references to Media Lens, it would be useful.) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, 185.152.35.250, that was very useful. So Philip Cross removes any mention of Media Lens, with diffs like this, with edit line "rm fringe site, fails WP:IRS", this "fringe site, fails WP:IRS", this, again referring to WP:IRS. However, the only place what is a WP:RS can be decided (if it is disputed, like in this case), is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That noticeboard is linked from WP:IRS, still Philip Cross constantly ignores the one time Media Lens was discussed there, namely back in 2010, when the consensus, as far as I read it, was that Media Lens could be used with attribution. These removals are clearly against policy. If these removals are done by ignorance, stupidity or malice; I have no idea and I will not speculate. In any case, they indicate to me that Philip Cross shouldn't be let near anywhere close to subjects pertaining to British policies. I was tempted to just strike my proposal, and support User:power~enwiki proposal ...but in view of how long this has been going on, I think 6 months is too short a time for first appeal: I would go for 12 months. Huldra (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Huldra, here are some examples of Cross removing (mostly) or changing references to Media Lens:
- Iraq Body Count: [1], [2], [3]
- UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday
- Self-censorship
- Muamar family detention incident
- Sense about Science
- ORB survey of Iraq War casualties
- Donald Macintyre (journalist): [4], [5], [6], [7]
- Noam Chomsky: [8] (Edwards is co-editor of Media Lens), [9]
- Propaganda model: [10], [11], [12]
- The Boy's Own Paper: [13]
- Atlantic Free Press: [14]
- A little more about the dispute and examples of Cross' Twitter trolling of Media Lens and Clark can be found on the Five Filters articles. 185.152.35.250 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding similar examples but removal of refs to Neil Clark. Diffs of his Clark edits and removals are interesting because Clark has articles in mainstream sources, so not as easy to cite RS, so edit notes become a little confusing and I would say deceptive in some cases:
- Cross calls Clark a 'stalinist sh1t' in edit note
- Claims Clark is 'controversial' and 'a defender of mass-murderers' in article body but adds no sources
- Deleting references to Clark's work published by mainstream sources from Wikipedia pages
- Noam Chomsky
- Anarchism in the United States (New Statesmen article, says it's "duplicate citation" but can only see one ref to it, which he removes)
- James Beck
- Erich Fromm (interesting way to "reduce link farm": only removing Clark's articles, the only links to mainstream sources)
- The Little Prince
- Morning Star (British newspaper)
- George Soros
- List of people considered a founder in a Humanities field
- Saki (again, "duplicate source" but can only see one ref)
- Media Lens "rearrangement" but Neil Clark's name has now disappeared from the body of the article. Same here [15]
- Zoran Ðindic
- Tony Hancock
- Hancock's Half Hour
- Arthur Lowe
- Sputnik (television programme)
- 185.152.35.250 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the affected topic area is exactly BLP's, though those are the articles we're most sensitive about because of their impact on subjects. Edits to non-BLP articles like Media Lens, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, etc. should also be examined. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Huldra, I don't see how to construe Media Lens as a BLP, even broadly. It's an organization, as is Socialist Workers Party (UK), to which PC has made 379 edits that I haven't looked at. Greville Janner (344 edits) was a UK politician who died in 2015, etc. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Sceptre
Proposed principles
No legal threats
1) No legal threats should be posted on Wikipedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Unless Galloway posted that intention on Wikipedia, NLT doesn't sound relevant. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NLT doesn't apply to off-wiki legal threats by people who don't edit Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Intimidation of editors
2) Editors should not be intimidated from contributing to the encyclopaedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Cross's editing has been the subject of angry criticism off-wiki, some of which is overblown (or even literally a conspiracy theory, in the case of Craig Murray's article) and some of which is valid. IMHO the central claims have not been checked out very carefully so far. KalHolmann and Five Filters backed out of posting in the evidence section and I don't think
eitherFive Filters submitted anything privately. Five Filters posted some diffs off-wiki and those *did* check out, but there weren't very many. Five Filters said in /Evidence they were going to post some more stuff on their site, but as of a couple days ago they hadn't done so. It seems like everyone wants someone else to do the work. My take is that arbcom accepted this case too early, since the level of investigation that it takes to reach a reasonable conclusion wasn't happening.In particular your proposal seems to reach a negative conclusion that I don't think is justified. Yes people do engage in long periods of voluminous bad editing without being noticed (remember Jagged 85 or Darius Dhlomo). We do sometimes have to be called out in the press before we do anything (remember Seigenthaler). Has that been going on here? I don't feel any more assured now than I did when the case opened. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cross's editing has been the subject of angry criticism off-wiki, some of which is overblown (or even literally a conspiracy theory, in the case of Craig Murray's article) and some of which is valid. IMHO the central claims have not been checked out very carefully so far. KalHolmann and Five Filters backed out of posting in the evidence section and I don't think
- Added: K.H. informs me that he in fact did submit something privately.[16] I'm glad to hear this and I've updated my post above. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Five Filters said in /Evidence they were going to post some more stuff on their site, but as of a couple days ago they hadn't done so." Check again please. 213.114.92.59 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see that the Five Filters (FF) page says it has a June 21 update but it's not obvious what the recent changes are. Particularly, I don't see any new diffs of Philip Cross's edits. Is there some chance FF could label new additions to their page with the dates? The FF page still uses that stupid time card that Craig Murray wove his conspiracy theory about, and that detracts from its credibility. I see a dude who feeds the cat every day, and also checks their email, reads the newspaper, and makes a few Wikipedia edits. Taken by itself, that is a yawner. FF's page would be much more usable as evidence if it had more concrete documentation of actual problems. Huldra's diffs about Tim Hayward are the kind of thing I have in mind. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, FF has a separate evidence page that has also been updated. I trust arbcom has seen it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Five Filters said in /Evidence they were going to post some more stuff on their site, but as of a couple days ago they hadn't done so." Check again please. 213.114.92.59 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally identifiable information
3) Personally identifiable information must not be provided by any third party about a contributor without their consent.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Restatement of the privacy policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there have been any serious on-wiki outing attempts related to this case. We can't control what happens off-wiki. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Galloway is offering ~£1k for anyone willing to give him Cross's details. Given that Cross and Galloway are both British and, therefore, are subject to GDPR, any editor who does so would be arguably breaching it. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Meh, it's shitty of Galloway to punch down like that, but completely outside our control, unless something like Wikipedia checkuser data is involved. I don't see the GDPR as applying to individuals or to inferences from public data, or to info collected offline (e.g. one of Cross's drinking buddies hypothetically ratting him out to Galloway), but I'm not in EU and IANAL etc. I'm presuming Galloway isn't personally trying to edit Wikipedia. Under NLT we should not allow that, since he is supposedly trying to sue Cross. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Galloway is offering ~£1k for anyone willing to give him Cross's details. Given that Cross and Galloway are both British and, therefore, are subject to GDPR, any editor who does so would be arguably breaching it. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there have been any serious on-wiki outing attempts related to this case. We can't control what happens off-wiki. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons
4) Wikipedia has both a legal and a moral obligation to ensure that all biographies of living persons are written conservatively with respect to the subject. Material about living persons must be verifiable, not original research, and written from the neutral point of view.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I don't think this resembles WP policy or real-world fact even slightly, and it's even something of a contradiction in terms (writing conservatively means being more careful than it takes to merely meet our obligations, and being obliged to exceed our obligations sounds paradoxical). We don't have any legal or (arguably) any moral obligation to adhere to anything like BLP: we could publish a tabloid without getting in trouble with the law, or we could put up a vehemently pro-Galloway or anti-Galloway site etc, as long as its contents meet some very low standards (see actual malice), nowhere near our BLP requirements. We instead chose to write a neutral encyclopedia and BLP is one of many internal policies that we use to maintain its quality. That is, we have it by choice rather than obligation. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral point of view and BLP
5) The intersection of the BLP and NPOV policies does not imply that material about living persons should be hagiographic. Material about living persons should be neutral with regards to treatment of that living person in reliable sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
Standard channels
6) For subjects of biographies of living persons, standard channels exist for subjects to discuss articles pertaining to them, including talk pages, the dispute resolution process, and in serious cases, the oversight team and the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Where are you going with this? You're referring to a bunch of policies about on-wiki editing, but it sounds like you're trying to apply them to off-wiki publications by non-editors, which isn't going to fly. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- No Wikipedia editor should be giving any assistance or credence to Galloway et al. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why exactly do you think arbcom accepted this case, if it wasn't to check out the claims being made by Galloway et al? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- That (further) hostile comment against the victims in the case by Sceptre, suggesting that they be dismissed with prejudice, exemplifies why this line of reasoning is a non-starter.
- Wikipedia standard channels may be well adapted to forming consensus about edits among Wikipedia editors, but they are woefully unsuited to resolving in a just and humane way cases where Wikipedia abuses have harmed others, in particular because there is no protection for the victims and their interests.
- Any person who has been harmed by Wikipedia and who then attempts to use Wikipedia standard channels to resolve the issue can expect to enter a process like this one, where third-party Wikipedia insiders who sympathise with the denigrations complained of can pile in to abuse the victims, to prejudge, trivialise and over-particularise the issues and then to work to minimise or prevent remedies and sanctions even for egregious abuses. All those failures of proper process have marked the present case, and it's clear that even many of the more neutral participants have been less focused on righting editorial wrongdoing than on protecting Wikipedia from its consequences.
- The opportunity for victims to defend themselves within Wikipedia standard processes is provided without confidentiality, assistance or advocacy support. The victim will enter an unfamiliar, unfriendly and conspicuously macho discursive culture that is riddled with special markup techniques, procedural rules and sanctions and insider jargon (WP:THIS and WP:THAT), a hostile setting for them in which they will be marginalised but the accused perpetrator will be fully at home and enjoying the partisan backing of fellow-insider friends.
- It is surely no accident that not one of the numerous victims in this case has joined the process. Apparently one of the academics whose biography Mr Cross turned into an attack page tried to complain, but the account he created to do so was instantly banned. Mr Galloway raised the matter with Wikipedia supremo Jimmy Wales on Twitter but his complaint was immediately dismissed out of hand and mocked by Mr Wales, and this was followed up with further abuse from the anonymous Wikipedia UK sock account.
- Any victim of Wikipedia abuses would be better advised to pursue their grievance in a different forum where more attention is given to questions of justice, fairness and victim safety, such as a court of law or the court of public opinion. It's noteworthy that until that was done in this case, the Wikipedia standard channels had done precisely nothing to resolve what is a long-running and previously reported pattern of abuse.
- To sum up: Wikipedia needs a new, accessible, fair, just and safe complaints process for victims of abusive editing. The processes designed for resolving conflicts between editors are not fit for that purpose.
- Disclosure: I made the earlier complaint from 2017, originally regarding Mr Cross's protective censorship of the Luke Harding page (that was never addressed and where the information remains unjustifiably suppressed). I have never personally been a victim of Wikipedia abuses by Philip Cross or anyone else. 121.72.165.111 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- No Wikipedia editor should be giving any assistance or credence to Galloway et al. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Where are you going with this? You're referring to a bunch of policies about on-wiki editing, but it sounds like you're trying to apply them to off-wiki publications by non-editors, which isn't going to fly. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't bite back
7) Editors should remain cordial in all interactions on the encyclopaedia. This principle is especially important when dealing with subjects of biographies.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard policy interpretation. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your proposal is probably good advice, but it looks far from a standard policy interpretation. Again I have trouble understanding what you're getting at here. Generally a principle should be connected with a factfinding showing that the principle was breached, and the factfinding should be supported by evidence from the evidence page. Following that pattern can make your proposals easier to understand.
Also, this is supposed to be dispute resolution, and the dispute regarding Cross and Galloway was already resolved by Cross's tban before the arb case started. So anything still needing resolution should be about something other than Cross's conflict with Galloway: for example, Cross's edits of the articles about Craig Murray, Tim Hayward, and possibly others. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Conduct unbecoming
8) Editors must refrain from behaviour which may disparage the encyclopaedia or otherwise bring it into disrepute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- What policy is that? I mean I'll come out and say it: Wikipedia (edit filter blocked word) and I think we all know that (though it has some redeeming qualities that keep us editing). In fact we even have a page WP:SUCKS expanding on the idea. So I've just disparaged the project but I think it's fine to do that. The philosophy of the neutral point of view suggests that if we act disreputably, that should bring us into disrepute. If we want to be in good repute we should act reputably. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Intimidation campaign
1) User:Philip Cross ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been the subject of an off-wiki intimidation campaign in relation to his editing of political articles on the encyclopaedia, especially in relation to editing of the article pertaining to the former British Member of Parliament George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I'm not convinced, and even if it's true, it's not remotely the crux of the case, which is Philip Cross's editing, not off-wiki responses to it. I would say Galloway and Murray criticized Cross off-wiki in response to Cross's editing Wikipedia's biographies of them. Nobody has undertaken a diff-by-diff examination of Cross's edits to those biographies but a quick glance at the edit summaries doesn't look good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The question is: Who started it? It wasn't off wiki, it started here. I didn't bother going through diff-by-diff examination of all Cross's edits to various BLP, as that has been done off wiki, and I assume arb.com reads those diffs, too. I just looked at some of the shorter ones, like Tim Hayward (academic) and Piers Robinson, and Cross turned them into attack bios. There is no other word for it. This is exactly the same behaviour which Daniel Brandt was subject to, 10 years ago. When we treat the subjects of our BLPs with open distain, even openly mock them on social media...then you can expect nothing good. You deserve nothing good, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I trust your judgment about the Hayward and Robinson bios, which I haven't looked at myself. As of last week the off-wiki pages had a little bit of diff evidence and a lot of dumb rhetoric. One of them added some more evidence a few days ago, which looks useful, though still not all that thorough. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I offer my opinion as an outsider and this is what it looks like: Cross has been engaged in the manipulation of Wikipedia to attack his "targets" for at least 12 years. Thousands of "good" edits partially disguise a pattern of malicious editing. What he's experienced over the past few weeks is a consequence of his long term actions, both on & off Wikipedia. From the outside looking in, the harassment & intimidation is actually what he's been engaged in via Wikipedia, via blogs & various social media platforms - all while openly identifying as the Wikipedia Editor, who is responsible for the bulk of edits to articles of those he is trolling. Evidence to demonstrate this has been emailed to ArbCom. With regard to being "outed", he did that himself via Twitter (12 May) while engaged in threatening Tim Hayward, who is one of those he targeted. Evidence also sent via email. I ask those who still maintain that this is all about George Galloway & a recent dispute to view the updated FiveFilters article, which contains clear evidence & diffs of the long term abuse his targets have been on the receiving end of. Media Lens, Neil Clark, Piers Robinson, Tim Hayward, Craig Murray, Seumas Milne & they are just a tiny sample. RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Philip Cross
2) In relation with intimidation campaign, Philip Cross has engaged in uncivil behaviour in response.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Has he been uncivil to someone on-wiki? If you mean off-wiki, you should say so. Also you should specify whether the subject was George Galloway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2018 (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.
Dispute resolution
1) Editors are reminded of the dispute resolution processes, which exist to harmoniously resolve disputes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard remedy.
Philip Cross admonished
2a) Philip Cross is admonished for his uncivil behaviour, and is reminded to act more courteously in future interactions, both off-wiki and on-wiki.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Was he uncivil to someone on-wiki? We don't control what he does off-wiki. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Philip Cross civility restriction
2b) Philip Cross is indefinitely prohibited from conduct both off-wiki and on-wiki which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, is uncivil towards any living person for which a biography exists on Wikipedia. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 6 months thereafter.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- We don't control what people do off-wiki, even slightly. We can at best disallow some combinations of off-wiki and on-wiki behaviour. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Philip Cross topic banned
3) Philip Cross is topic-banned for one year, broadly construed, from the subject of George Galloway. This may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after the imposition of this remedy, and every 3 months thereafter.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Not needed: endorsing the community tban per JzG's suggestion is fine. This isn't about Galloway's biography though (the tban has already handled that). There are many other articles involved. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) The standard provision on enforcement of restrictions applies.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
Template
2) The standard provision on appeals and modifications applies.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Bellezzasolo
Proposed principles
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over interactions on en.wikipedia.org. The arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over off-wiki interactions, however The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is necessary for future principles, basically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality and sources
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Copied from WP:ARBPIA3, as it seems relevant. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Tendentious editing
3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- WP:ARBPIA3 again. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
No Legal Threats
4) Users must not post legal threats on Wikipedia. However, third parties do not fall under the jurisdiction of Arbcom, provided that said interaction does not occur on wiki.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- based on WP:NLT. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Editor Intimidation
5) The purpose of principle 4 is to avoid editor intimidation, and legal threats are considered WP:uncivil. Off-wiki legal threats will not be viewed favorably by the Arbitration committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- based on WP:NLT, again. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons
6) Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- copied from WP:BLP. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki controversies and biographical articles
7) An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- copied from WP:ARBSEX. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Editor Privacy
8) Personally identifiable information must not be provided by any third party about a contributor without their consent.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- From Sceptre's proposed principles. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Restatement of the privacy policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The wp:privacy policy is about what info the WMF can release, not about editors posting stuff. You want WP:OUTING. Note that the WMF does turn over info in some situations.[17] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of Dispute
1) The conflict centers around editing of biographies within the field of British Politics, dating after 1979.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Mainly from the title, some evidence pages, an arbitrary cut-off is needed. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Media Lens is not a biography. I think some broader investigation is needed. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Philip Cross
2) Philip Cross has edited tendentiously within the locus of dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- General consensus. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's hard to nail down the extent of this, at least with the evidence that's been posted on wiki. It has undoubtedly happened but it's unclear if it exceeded the level that could normally be handled by civil discussion and feedback on talk pages. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki harassment
3) Philip Cross has been the target of an off-wiki harassment campaign.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- I expect plentiful links have been sent to ArbCom as private evidence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
On-wiki harassment
4) The off-wiki harasment campaign against Philip Cross has ventured on-wiki.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Evidence provided by JzG. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:16, 23 June 2018 (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.
Users reminded
1) Users, especially single purpose users, are reminded to direct legal correspondence to the OTRS team, not individual editors. Informal rasing of legal concerns is allowed, provided that it is not done so in a threatening manner.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Basically proposed principle (4). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- If they have a problem with individual editors, WMF Legal cannot act as a middleman. Cf. m:Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer — regards, Revi 12:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, if someone has a problem with what their biography says and wants help with it beyond posting on the talk page, they should normally contact OTRS rather than WMF legal. However, we can't require that of anyone-- it's just a recommendation. If they decide to sue an editor we can't stop them.
It's really unclear what this remedy is about. If it refers to something that happened on-wiki there should be a factfinding connected to it, supported by a diff in /Evidence. If it was off-wiki then "Editors reminded" is mis-targeted because it refers to something done by a non-editor. If it's about a hypothetical situation it should just be dropped. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Edited to point at OTRS. I've addressed users rather than editors, hopefully casting the net wider. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have "single purpose users" linked to WP:SPA which is about users with accounts. The vast majority of our users only read the site, not edit or log in. If you're trying to address BLP subjects, it's better to say so instead of including a much wider group to whom the suggestion has no relevance. Also, the OTRS is not lawyers and doesn't handle "legal correspondence". 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Edited to point at OTRS. I've addressed users rather than editors, hopefully casting the net wider. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, if someone has a problem with what their biography says and wants help with it beyond posting on the talk page, they should normally contact OTRS rather than WMF legal. However, we can't require that of anyone-- it's just a recommendation. If they decide to sue an editor we can't stop them.
Editors encouraged
2) Editors, especially single purpose editors, are encouraged to use Wikipedia's dispute reolution processes, rather than any form of legal action.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Emails to WMF legal are allowed, and off wiki legal threats cannot be prohibited, but it's preferable to exhaust on-wiki dispute resolution. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about? Galloway threatened a suit against Cross, but afaik Galloway doesn't edit Wikipedia. He can do whatever he wants off-wiki. The most Wikipedia can do to anyone is boot them off the site, and it can't boot Galloway because Galloway isn't on it to begin with. So we can't do anything about Galloway. If you mean someone else, be specific (privately to arbcom if necessary). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I know its going to be of limited effect, but it seems to me the best we can do. Hopefully, it'll encourage BLP subjects to come on-wiki and raise their concerns with the community, rather than going through a legal process. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this is directed at Galloway, he is not an editor at all as far as I know, single-purpose or otherwise. You might instead write a factfinding that Galloway got in an off-wiki dispute with Cross (evidence emailed to arbcom), and a remedy encouraging biography subjects to refer to WP:BLPHELP or WP:ABOUTYOU if they want assistance with content issues in their biographies. That might come across as another bureaucratic runaround by now, given how we got here, but it's still the best recommendation we can give. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Added: I think you're missing the traditional concept of an SPA, which is someone who edits singlemindedly on a single content area, typically a controversy/soapbox that they get into disputes about because they don't know what they're doing. Those editors should generally widen their focus rather than pursue dispute resolution where they invariably get sanctioned. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I know its going to be of limited effect, but it seems to me the best we can do. Hopefully, it'll encourage BLP subjects to come on-wiki and raise their concerns with the community, rather than going through a legal process. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about? Galloway threatened a suit against Cross, but afaik Galloway doesn't edit Wikipedia. He can do whatever he wants off-wiki. The most Wikipedia can do to anyone is boot them off the site, and it can't boot Galloway because Galloway isn't on it to begin with. So we can't do anything about Galloway. If you mean someone else, be specific (privately to arbcom if necessary). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban endorsed
3) The community-imposed indefinite topic ban on Philip Cross from the George Galloway article is endorsed by the Arbitration Commitee. It may not be appealed for 12 months.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Topic ban extended
4) Philip Cross is additionally indefinitely topic banned from all BLPs related to British Politics. It may not be appealed for 6 months.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Enforcement of restrictions
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Appeals and modifications
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:JzG
Proposed principles
Wikipedia is a content-focused project
1) Wikipedia is a content-focused project. Editors who become aware that subjects of biographical articles have concerns about their article, are encouraged to assist them in resolving the issue through Wikipedia's processes, for example via Wikipedia:Advice to biography subjects.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- Ok, but I think we need something stronger than an essay (which is what Wikipedia:Advice to biography subjects is.)
- My 2 cents: This has been a process which has seen failings on both sides. First, we should have reacted against WP:BLP violations long before it became an off wiki affair. There were enough diffs to show a deeply problematic editing pattern. However, secondly, various WP:BLP victims have reacted in a way which was not helping their cause, to put it diplomatically. When someone offers a reward to OUT you, I think most Wikipedians react instinctively with "circling the wagons". (I am an anon, I edit in a "difficult" area.....and I have received hundreds, and hundreds of death and rape threats over the years: my first instinct in this case was to wish "A pox on both your houses")
- However, I think we need to see that we (that is: Wikipedia) were the ones who "started the fire." We need to strengthen the WP:BLP rights, and that takes more than linking to an essay. If we do not strengthen the BLP rights, I fear we will have more boomerang situations like this one: with outings, possible libel suit etc. No-one (except possibly some lawyers) will gain anything from that. Huldra (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- From the outside looking in, does the responsibility for maintaining neutrality, particularly in BLP articles, not ultimately lie with Wikipedia & its contributors? Or do you seriously expect individuals to routinely monitor their own article & go through a long winded process, with a variety of anonymous editors & admins just to get some balance?
- See the Tim Hayward article as an example. It's hardly rocket science to recognize the multiple issues with it - an attack page, simple as that. A prominent Admin got involved with the edit warring there, however his response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts - whether they were "sock" accounts or not, did he even look at what was going on? Is that not an appropriate point for the intervention of an Admin? Is that not part of the role? It hardly instills confidence to engage when you're greeted with that reaction.
- Look at Neil Clark [Clark] Although the article was deleted, it's worth noting as it demonstrates that this is not a new issue with Cross. That particular campaign went on for nearly 3 years practically unhindered. Again, it hardly instills confidence. 3 years after deletion Cross was still having a dig Figures of fun
- Maybe this is normal for Wikipedia. Maybe it's acceptable. I'd like to think, for reputations sake, it isn't. RebeccaSaid (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, Clark revision history didn't link Neil Clark
- Broadly yes, but in this case people seem to have preferred to feed Galloway's conspiracy theory and bring it to Wikipedia rather than find out the actual concerns with specifics of the article, let alone address them. I think that is disappointing. Making a huge fuss about Philip Cross should not have been an alternative to fixing the article, which is what seems to me to have happened here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- With all due respect Guy, I don't understand the continued single-minded focus on George Galloway. It's not just about George Galloway. No matter how disappointed you are about the way it was handled, that doesn't change the fact that this is a long-term, multiple article issue, which maybe gained more attention because George is a higher profile figure than those who have raised it before. And people have been raising it, on & off Wikipedia for at least 12 years.
- I reference Neil Clark (again) as that is probably one of the most blatant examples of the failure of Wikipedia to address the concerns of an article subject that I have seen; I note that you personally asked him to stop editing that article due to complaints. User talk But he continued regardless. User Talk....... Judging by the dismissive language used, which the complainant will be able to see, & the failure to actually deal with it, I can understand why people take their complaints off-wiki.
- Piers Robinson is a more recent example. Within 25 minutes of his first edit he was blocked for having a user name which "matches the name of a well-known, living person". I almost understand why that is the case - to avoid potential impersonation - but I don't understand why zero effort was made by that Admin to engage before he did that. Same Admin whose response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts on the clearly problematic article of Tim Hayward, as above. This kind of reaction is why people vent their frustration off-wiki & don't bother with the formal processes. I am just saying.........
- Piersgregoryrobinson (talk · contribs) tried to remove the worst WP:COATRACK stuff from the Piers Robinson article, and was blocked after 2 edits by user:NeilN with edit line "Username represents a famous person, soft block". I don't see any indication that any effort was made in order to establish that user:Piersgregoryrobinson was indeed Piers Robinson ...or in impersonator. The WP:BLPEDIT policy says:
- Broadly yes, but in this case people seem to have preferred to feed Galloway's conspiracy theory and bring it to Wikipedia rather than find out the actual concerns with specifics of the article, let alone address them. I think that is disappointing. Making a huge fuss about Philip Cross should not have been an alternative to fixing the article, which is what seems to me to have happened here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."
- User:RebeccaSaid has a point: I cannot see that policy has been followed here. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- (Having said that: I have experienced user:NeilN as a very experienced and good admin. BUT,...in this case I don't understand him, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC))
The posts above by "outside looking in" RebeccaSaid are a good example of why we need to be cautious about strengthening BLP rights. Our policies, guidelines, and article content will be manipulated by those seeking to remove negative information about themselves or add negative information about their opponents in the name of "balance". Some attempts will be obvious, others less so. My actions have been mentioned twice up above. Let's see how the criticisms stack up:
- A prominent Admin got involved with the edit warring there, however his response was to revert edits, protect the page and call a variety of editors "sock" accounts - whether they were "sock" accounts or not, did he even look at what was going on? If you follow the link on RebeccaSaid's talk page you'll go to a offsite webpage filled with details about this situation. It's clear this person is quite adept at gathering and displaying evidence yet the comments above, complete with innuendo and leading question, contains no diffs or actual evidence. Looking at the actual history of Tim Hayward (academic), you'll see that a number of accounts were blocked as socks by me. RebeccaSaid attempts to throw doubt on my reasons for blocking but fails to mention that all the registered accounts were later checkusered and confirmed as socks. This information is easy to find (e.g., User:Cint4198) but somehow RebeccaSaid, who is capable of uncovering small details, failed to do so. As for the reverts, ([18], [19]) editors can check if the socks were removing any obvious BLP violations. If not, then it becomes a content dispute which admins do not adjudicate and socks are prohibited in participating in. There may be a question of balance, but that's basically the cry of every sock POV-pusher.
- Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Note that policy states "the subjects", not "claiming to be the subjects". There's a good reason for this - editors should monitor WP:UAA for a while and see how many editors we get claiming to be a famous person. I softblocked the account which is perfectly inline with policy and the block message even states, "If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia." Instructions are given on how to prove an identity and in Robinson's case, a simple tweet from his account would probably do. Editors who are against this blocking practice need to seriously think about what happens when the media catches wind of someone trying to whitewash their biography or attacking their opponents biographies. If we allow an impersonator to do so, that negative attention shifts to us (and deservedly so) for allowing the impersonation to occur.
Finally, as best as I can recall, I initially got involved in this situation by handling a standard edit warring report. The content was unsourced and made reference to a legal document and made with some sort of "balance" in mind. I cannot stress strongly enough how we do not need any kind of BLP or WP:BLPGROUP rights that would allow for such editing. We already have our hands full with blatant and subtle COI editing, mixed in with offwiki campaigns, socking, and real-life threats to good-faith editors. --NeilN talk to me 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki attacks
2) Off-wiki attacks, particularly those involving speculation about pseudonymous users' identity, should not be linked on Wikipedia. Instead concerns should be emailed direct to the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- Ermph, a revival of WP:BADSITES? I'd agree we should all be careful about such linking, but turning it into a bright line creates drama and has already been rejected. Trying to control access to outside information is also supposed to be one of the characteristics of a cult. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
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:
Proposed enforcement
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:
Proposals by User:Example
Proposed principles
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:
Proposed findings of fact
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:
Proposed enforcement
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:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
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:
Proposed findings of fact
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:
Proposed enforcement
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:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: