Stevertigo (talk | contribs) |
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) →Hostile editing environment: clarificiation |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::ChildOfMidnight, currently, I don't see the merit in your suggestion - this is covered under Obama Article Probation per Tarc. Why do you think your concerns fall outside of Obama Article Probation? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
::ChildOfMidnight, currently, I don't see the merit in your suggestion - this is covered under Obama Article Probation per Tarc. Why do you think your concerns fall outside of Obama Article Probation? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::It may be covered in the probation, but it's not being handled. Perhaps because the issues involve political differences, guidelines regarding personal attacks, soap boxing, and other policies are systematically being ignored. Taking them to noticeboards simply plays into the partisanship and neutral parties are badly needed to enforce the rules. The atmosphere of partisanship isn't constructive to editing and improving the article content. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
Revision as of 18:32, 21 March 2009
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Scope of case
1) Request to clarify and limit scope of case, and parties to the case. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Can we please get some clarification regarding which editors, actions, and subjects are under review, and for what? The bounds of the case have been proposed as narrowly as the behavior and treatment of a single editor[1] over the course of several days, to an examination without explicit time, subject matter, or other limits of the entire course of editing of Obama-related pages, a matter that would potentially involve 150 or more articles (Category:Barack Obama) and talk pages, hundreds of talk page articles, hundreds of editors working over the course of a year or more, and hundreds administrative actions having to do with WP:AN/I (and AN, 3RR, BLP/N, etc), sockpuppet reports, WP:AfD, article probation, etc. A wide-open mandate will allow every editor with a grievance against another, or against Wikipedia, to begin posting accusations and making motions, which will quickly become unruly. It is best if we can define this case from the start before people invest the time and angst in gathering evidence and defending themselves against it. Without endorsing any of these, some matters I think are seriously proposed include:
- Behavior of editor User:Stevertigo
- Reaction of other editors to Stevertigo and treatment of Stevertigo by other editors in connection with the foregoing
- Other current disputes, controversies, and behavioral issues on the main Obama pages
- Resolved or inactive issues on the main pages
- Matters on minor and less directly related obama pages
- Terms of community article probation
- Overturning, modifying, endorsing, or replacing community probation with arbitration ruling
- Enforcement regime for terms of article probation or enforcing new ruling
- Past acts of editors to enforce article probation and conduct article patrol
- Concerns that Wikipedia favors Obama, censors critics, a cabal of liberals own the Obama pages, etc.
- To be clear, I think the only clear present need is to resolve #1 and #2 (though I would have favored an administrative resolution or simply a cup of tea with the editor). #3 is arguable. #4, #5, and #9 are a hornet's nest, and a re-do of already resolved issues that impose unnecessary stress on all involved. #6 and #7 are worth considering, if Arbcomm truly thinks it can craft a solution that is more effective rather than less effective than the current regime, keeping in mind that the community has already reached a decision and Arbcomm is not really a rule-making body. #8 is problematic because Arbcomm does not have resources to enforce its own decisions - it can exhort or request editors to do its bidding but it cannot force people to do article patrol. And confronting #10 head-on is a content issue, and probably would take us off track. Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can we please get some clarification regarding which editors, actions, and subjects are under review, and for what? The bounds of the case have been proposed as narrowly as the behavior and treatment of a single editor[1] over the course of several days, to an examination without explicit time, subject matter, or other limits of the entire course of editing of Obama-related pages, a matter that would potentially involve 150 or more articles (Category:Barack Obama) and talk pages, hundreds of talk page articles, hundreds of editors working over the course of a year or more, and hundreds administrative actions having to do with WP:AN/I (and AN, 3RR, BLP/N, etc), sockpuppet reports, WP:AfD, article probation, etc. A wide-open mandate will allow every editor with a grievance against another, or against Wikipedia, to begin posting accusations and making motions, which will quickly become unruly. It is best if we can define this case from the start before people invest the time and angst in gathering evidence and defending themselves against it. Without endorsing any of these, some matters I think are seriously proposed include:
- Second this request. This case has changed from Stevertigo's behavior, to Obama POV war, to Obama articles in general. Which is it, why, and who is supposed to be involved? This was originally about Stevertigo's disruption, with just a few involved parties. Now that this is titled "Obama articles" it seems to have nothing to do with Steve and can involve a lot more individuals. Grsz11 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree in part, but actually it's good to see the Arbcom treating the matter more conceptually, and I knew it would. It would be good if it also (in addition to Wikidemon's very well-done scope list above) considered this to be an avenue for dealing with site-wide holistic issues such as philosophical and procedural conflicts between policies and processes, along with its usual everyday scope of conflicts between users and hotspot topics. The Founder retired; if Arbcom doesn't, who will? In any case, I'm not the only one who's promoted a greater scope for the Arbcom, and there seems to me at least several ways in which the Arbcom can expand to be more responsive and effective in dealing with certain issues in both abstract and hands-on ways. On a personal note, I would of course love to take the credit for getting that started; especially if I actually did.
- Of course part of this case is the review process, in which my actions are being assessed along with everyone else's. There are a couple of other dimensions here, which I hope Arbcom takes note of: Arbcom, AIUI, comments on actions + comments as "behavior", but this conglomerated concept of "behavior" can be unusually subjective, and maybe even hamper Arbcom deliberation, though I can't think of any examples of where things have gone less-than-smoothly. Arbcom should also comment on the merit of the arguments. It already comments on certain kinds of expressions, notably insults and other "uncivility," but why not also comment on other important dimensions, like arguments' fidelity to core values, arguments' logical reasoning, and arguments' responsiveness to others. I welcome such a review of my own expressions in this matter, in addition to my actions (page creation, talk comments, filing ANIs, RFARs, erratic or frustrated expressions) and that's why I filed this RFAR to deal with the issue of my "behavior." It of course in the course of which would have to deal with others, but I actually liked framing the case as one dealing with me personally. A sarcastic way to frame this bruhaha, perhaps, but that's only because those charges appear to be lacking much other way of framing them. and that's maybe why Arbcom decided to change it.-Stevertigo 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
More better thoughts on the context of this RFAR
A direct material context for this RFAR would be the Obama criticism of article. Wikidemon has a point.
A nominal ("not well-thought out") extrapolated context would be to deal with Obama articles in general, and this scope, set by or else just ostensibly implied by this RFAR title, represents a miscategorization of this particular conflict, and a misunderstanding of its own mandate to deal with particular issues, even policy issues, and not whole groups of articles, as if they were all under the same policy concerns. In fact the idea that all Obama articles fall under BLP is another policy misconception/misrepresentation issue that the Arbcom needs to make clear. I can clarify that concept for Arbcom first, if it yet is not.
With all that out of the way, I do understand that Arbcom can re-re-conceptualize this RFAR anytime it wants to, and deal with each particular point in turn. In fact, Arbcom could, if it were more staffed and creative, take the initiative and step in on its own into conflicts and file its own cases, and get things done that way. It yet does not.
Anyway, if I am indeed central to this case, and judging by all the various comments complaints characterizations criticisms and contrivances, I am, it must be noted somewhere that I've had nothing to do with any other Obama article at all, (except maybe the additions of a couple hello-missile attacks in Pakistan to the Presidency timeline article). So, because I am not largely involved in most of the issues implied by a case with designs on dealing with the Obama articles as a whole, I would ask that this be a separate case from that, or that case be a separate one from this, or that this be simply renamed to a title which deals with the direct material context.
In case my point wasn't well made enough, unless many many more users are added to this RFAR, and many many more issues/diffs are made and referenced, this RFAR is only by logic, reason, and fact confined to just the users who dealt with me in the context of the "criticism of" article and the issues behind these dealings. The direct material context is a superior boundary for this case, and I do (oh so humbly [such as to not make Arbcom feel uncomfortable by complying with my concepts and bending to my will]) suggest that scope. Now that we've all given it a little thought. Just as the "Stevertigo is a disruptive troll" context was too specific (and not to mention absolutely hebetudinous [which is what made it great for an RFAR title; sunlight is the best disinfectant]), so to is the "all Obama articles" context too wide, and not to mention entirely irrelevant to me. -Stevertigo 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Notes on the Arbcom and such
I'll keep this short. It occurs to me that while I'm here I can make a few suggestions to Arbcom with regard to how it handles this case. If valid, they can be rejected, or else if valid they can be accepted. The concept of an Arbcom, as I originally conceived it in 2003, was simply a place where people did Jimbo's job; take complaints, make suggestions, people act on those suggestions, things move on. It was in the context of being pissed off by a particular being and his personal attacks; a nice being in real life perhaps, but a real dick online; that I usurped someone's compilation of said being's attack diffs and transformed it into the first "community case". An arrangement that admittedly didn't last too long, but provided everyone with an idea of what a then-futuristic Arbcom case might look like. Jimbo didn't like it, IIRC. But I did. And everyone else did too. Anyway, the Arbcom was eventually started, and now here you are. I was happy and I went back to doing whatever it is I actually do here.
I had to actually deal with this "Arbcom" at the WP:RFAR/SV, and, motivated more by self-serving personal protectionism than anything else, I suggested a few changes for the Arbcom to maybe make my situation happier. I wasn't quite as skilled at the time at forming expressions, and perhaps for such reason my suggestions were largely or else entirely ignored. But basically I stated that they should be more interactive: explanatory with their observations, directly interrogative with their questions, and open in their deliberations. I don't know what went on behind closed Arbcom emails, and I don't really care to one way or another. But I do know that that case made them unhappy, and I surmise it's because they couldn't adequately separate their own personal characterizations of the being (me) from the arguments given by that being and the others involved. Anyway, for one reason or another, they didn't listen to me, and we all know what became of that.
I do have a few suggestions for this Arbcom, given in the spirit of open discussion (an important point that relates to this case), and fraternal consideration. The most notable issue is the difference in context between that Arbcom and this one. The post-Founder Arbcom is autonomous; it can do what it wants to, including but not limited to: interacting with the participants, forming creative decisions, reforming policy, regard the value of arguments, give weight to such arguments, improve the Arbcom process, open deliberation, expres its considerations, be responsive, not be [monolithic], be proactive, get community assistance, recruit more help, grow to respond to demands for its services, etc.
More as needed.-Stevertigo 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Arbcom might use public web annotation for RFARs? -SV
Comments
- Comment by others:
Hostile editing environment
2) I would like to propose that an enforcement mechanism be provided to address soap boxing and aggresive behavior by editors on that page while this case is ongoing. I know there are existing boards, but because the nature of the problem is that minority viewpoints and opinions are attacked, strict and fair enforcement is needed. In the past, editors who have been active on that page have removed and redacted comments with which they disagree, but have not been held to guidelines such WP:SOAP and WP:No Personal Attacks. It's a very hostile atmosphere that makes it difficult to discuss article issues such as content and citationsis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Without merit. We were at a point where there were easily a dozen or two new topics/demands created over 2 days, all on the same or slight variations of the same subject. Subjects covered by Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ and enforced by Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Beating the same horse over and over and over (and these are not new users that were unaware of existing discussions and probations) becomes disruptive after a point. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- With merit, actually. Tarc is treating the issues surrounding the direct material context ("criticism of") and, if I may use metaphors here, is characterizing what he and and others did as case of 'dogs get loose sometimes.' He said "..[unaware users] becomes disruptive after a point." Which leads up to some implied excuse like:
people who've had to deal with a lot of orcs and trolls in prior days and weeks can't really be blamed if the next day, still in battle-mode, they wind up beating up a hobbit; in a case of mistaken identity.
- Of course, I don't know if he's still sticking to the characterization that I was being disruptive and trolling. If he is, well, you can destroy that argument in various ways. If not, we should note that his argument and that of others has changed. Further we should note now how this change in attitude is relevant to this case and how it has been conceived. Conceivably, Tarc, Sceptre, Grsz, and others can simply state that their personal characterizations were wrong, and we can just go from there into the diffs and what they did. -Stevertigo 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- ChildOfMidnight, currently, I don't see the merit in your suggestion - this is covered under Obama Article Probation per Tarc. Why do you think your concerns fall outside of Obama Article Probation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- It may be covered in the probation, but it's not being handled. Perhaps because the issues involve political differences, guidelines regarding personal attacks, soap boxing, and other policies are systematically being ignored. Taking them to noticeboards simply plays into the partisanship and neutral parties are badly needed to enforce the rules. The atmosphere of partisanship isn't constructive to editing and improving the article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- ChildOfMidnight, currently, I don't see the merit in your suggestion - this is covered under Obama Article Probation per Tarc. Why do you think your concerns fall outside of Obama Article Probation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:Sceptre
Proposed principles
Neutral point of view
1) The neutral point of view policy is a a fundamental policy that is understood to be beyond dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Biographies of living persons 1
2) The biographies of living persons policy is a fundamental policy that is understood to be beyond dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Biographies of living persons 2
3) The biographies of living persons policy applies to any material about a living person; not just biographies.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Biographies of living persons 3
4) All material which is under the purview of BLP must be reliably sourced and neutral.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Barack Obama
1) The article Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the source of controversy which has resulted in a community-enforced probation being placed on it and related articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Obama and WorldNetDaily
2) In early March 2009, the Obama article was the focus of a manufactured controversy when Aaron Klein, a correspondent for the publication WorldNetDaily, alleged that Wikipedia was giving preferential treatment to articles pertaining to Obama.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Obama and WorldNetDaily 2
3) Since the publication of the WorldNetDaily article, Obama-related articles have seen an upsurge of allegations of bias by users.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- 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:Y
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:Z
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: