ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) →Article patrol: comment |
|||
Line 782: | Line 782: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::An excellent suggestion. Reverting inappropriate edits on deems inappropriate does not require rudeness. A lot of good faith and experienced editors got caught in the cross fire. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
===Proposed enforcement=== |
===Proposed enforcement=== |
Revision as of 23:41, 28 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 possible temporary misunderstanding by Arbcom of its own mandate to deal with particular issues, even policy issues, and not just 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)
Communication during RFARs
I know that Arbcom likes to conceive of itself as monolithic; its not terribly interactive, and carries the air and umbrage of lonely high-court judges who don't like their jobs and don't want to be here. Banning people from a website is serious business indeed, and that's fine, but I'd like to make a couple suggestions about how the Arbcom can handle this case and others as well.
- Web annotations - a fancy term for "commenting everything just as you read it." This gives other people an idea of what Arbcom is thinking, and in fact offers proof that Arbcom actually is dealing with it, and that info is helpful both to others and for themselves.
- Collaborative writeup : I gave a long list of diffs and explained these with short comments. Wikidemon has done a wonderful job of writing a long writeup about the events, along with diffs. The problem with my version is that its not explantory, and assumes that Arbcom will read all of the diffs and get their meaning. The problem with Wikidemon's version is that its all very rigourous handwaving; its more than 60 percent characterizations and characterization based. Indeed, writing such things is prohibited in mainspace, and I'm thinking the same limitations belong at Arbcom pages too. At least, within one particular section, parties could be required to collaborate on a singular history of the relevant events, employing various formatting tricks to keep things atomic, linear, and therefore something neutral and more honest.
- Chat hearing; all parties and Arbitrators can meetup online on a certain day beginning at a certain time, and deal with all their/our issues and questions directly.
I'm not sure if you've considered/done any of these things already, but that's the concept; expressing myself means unsaid things don't go unsaid. Regards, Stevertigo 07:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- Comment by others:
- Chat hearings are interesting but totally unacceptable unless they were 100% public and logged and posted as Evidence. The web annotations of what they're looking at is interesting, but honestly, the Arbs didn't sign up to do nothing but this 24x7. It's unworkable, and Wikipedia is just a website, not a professional endeavor for any of us. rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Steve, the very core of this case is your disruptive antics. So yea, I would indeed use that characterization still. "Troll" has a specific meaning in my mind, and IMO this doesn't ride to that. There were a lot of your own POV you tried to push into a mainspace articles, article FAQs, policy pages, DRVs, and so on. When it was clear that your POV was in the minority, and not winning any over to a change, you edit warred to try to ram it into place, and then ran to AN/I on multiple occasions when that failed. When those filings failed, you ran to arbcom (which you have managed to not-so-subtly hint on several occasions as being something you had a hand in creating. We get the point. Really.).
- Those sorts of actions are the epitome of what it is to be a disruptive editor. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the Hobbit is told repeatedly that the Shire is strict about trolling but chooses nonetheless to lurk under a bridge with a club and demand a tribute from those who cross, he can hardly complain that the mob thinks him a troll. Claiming he is the bridge architect is neither here nor there. There is some mob mentality and gloating over vanquished trolls, and both newbies and established good faith editors can be treated rudely and caught in the cross-fire, particularly when they take a stance that seems trollish. Mobs happen when there are no police. Article probation can and should be improved; if enforcement were swift, predictable, and applied with great even-handedness and decorum by administrators who backed up authoritative warnings with action it could be more effective, and perhaps less frequently ignored. Had a well-respected administrator warned Steve to tone it down, I wonder if this could have been stopped before it started, or maybe we would just be in arbitration three days earlier. I am not sure what ArbComm can do here, it sounds more like a "how to be a good administrator" issue. But perhaps it can help by adjusting the scheme, or lending its imprematur to the affair. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- My argument, and the metaphors within, still stand. These above comments, and the inaccurate metaphors within, appear to be based in and circularly rehashing of the characterization of me as "disruptive" "troll." Simply repeating a characterization doesn't make it true or more substantiated. -Stevertigo 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- My comments stand as well. The case is not circular. Your edits were clearly disruptive, as this Arbcom case will likely show, something that will be hashed out in the evidence and workshop sections. Trying to achieve a negative POV shift on the main Obama article by edit warring on its talk page, while calling those who disagree "Obamaites" is, on all fours, the very sort of disruption article probation is intended to prevent. It is probably not necessary to reach the question of whether you were trolling, but if we do, a case can be made that it is an apt term. Per Troll (Internet), trolling is posting "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages....with the primary intent of provoking other users...". Nominating one of the 5 pillars for deprecation as a complaint for not getting one's way fits that bill, as does the repeated creation and editing of essays as a way to complain about other editors one is interacting with. I have already made a proposal in the "remedies" section that Arbcomm hold people on article patrol to a high standard of civility and decorum, even when dealing with disruption. Calming disruption often means ratcheting things down instead of up. So we will probably find that it is best in most cases not to accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries. However, there is sometimes a reason to do so, because it signals something to other editors. A reversion on the merits is different than a reversion of simple disruption, something we might figure out if we get into the best process for what happens to BRD on a probation page if a disruptive editor takes it to BRDR-? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- My argument, and the metaphors within, still stand. These above comments, and the inaccurate metaphors within, appear to be based in and circularly rehashing of the characterization of me as "disruptive" "troll." Simply repeating a characterization doesn't make it true or more substantiated. -Stevertigo 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the Hobbit is told repeatedly that the Shire is strict about trolling but chooses nonetheless to lurk under a bridge with a club and demand a tribute from those who cross, he can hardly complain that the mob thinks him a troll. Claiming he is the bridge architect is neither here nor there. There is some mob mentality and gloating over vanquished trolls, and both newbies and established good faith editors can be treated rudely and caught in the cross-fire, particularly when they take a stance that seems trollish. Mobs happen when there are no police. Article probation can and should be improved; if enforcement were swift, predictable, and applied with great even-handedness and decorum by administrators who backed up authoritative warnings with action it could be more effective, and perhaps less frequently ignored. Had a well-respected administrator warned Steve to tone it down, I wonder if this could have been stopped before it started, or maybe we would just be in arbitration three days earlier. I am not sure what ArbComm can do here, it sounds more like a "how to be a good administrator" issue. But perhaps it can help by adjusting the scheme, or lending its imprematur to the affair. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
RTD
Demon said "[Stevertigo's] edits were clearly disruptive", which is interesting in a couple ways: Your usage of "disruptive" is similar to how others have used it; ie. an adjective that characterizes, hence a characterization of something. Usually, the term is applied to behavior; ie. 'his behavior is disruptive,' and that appears to be the general concept here. Your usage of the term to modify the word "edits," at least has the appearance of being less of a personal attack than a characterization of a particular edit, but in this context (Wikipedia), its often hard to make the distinctions between "a disruptive edit," "[generally] disruptive editing" and "a disruptive editor." Anyway you slice it your accusations appear to rest on a characterization, rather than an actual argument about the substance of the edit. And regardless, the concept that any particular edit can simply be characterized by someone without qualifying it, is largely obtuse. That is why reviewers assigning quality labels to a current version of a wiki page without factoring in reviewer WP:ER (cf. WOT) metrics is almost useless.
The concept of "disruption" is itself too *subjective to use without describing its effects; what does it "disrupt", who does it "disrupt", what does "disruption" in this context mean? That someone, you perhaps, had to put down their tea and boldly revert the change? Certainly, something like my creation of {{tl:Digital library}}, which ATTOTR has nothing on it, might qualify as a "disruption" according to someone who considers stubs to be useless, or templates to be unusable until they are at least nearly perfect. As someone who's edited here since... CamelCase (almost, I think. Hm..), I can assure you (trust me) that the stingy, unwikier concepts people sometimes promote here are *not how WP got to where it is (ATTOTR). If you could understand that point, you would understand why I called the accusations (not necessarily the arguments) "circular" (though it may be hard to distinguish argument from accusation). And by the way, I wasn't "nominating one of the 5P for deprecation", I was suggesting that IAR be itself ignored, as it often has to be, and relegating it to history. Certainly Arbcom does not cite IAR much in deciding cases, does it? I really would love to hear the results of your Arbcom archive search for that.
All that said, I do notice, having actually read your comment now, that your'e actually trying to deal with the general concepts; "that Arbcomm hold people on article patrol to a high standard of civility and decorum" - "and "decorum" too eh? People who ignore that WP:DECORUM policy sure get me mad to. I note you're not quite giving up the characterizing language: "even when dealing with disruption," etc. In your wisdom you also note that "calming disruption often means ratcheting things down instead of up." Interesting. "So we will probably find that it is best.." Wait, qualifier coming" "..in most cases.." Ah. "..not to accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries.." I just said that. (a la..). Demon continues: "However, there is sometimes a reason to do so.." What? Assemble the concepts:
- "However, there is sometimes a reason to [..] accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries [..] because it signals something to other editors."
Yes it does. It signals that you are incapable of using actual arguments and are instead using characterizations. That you cannot "handle" an individual editor by yourself and therefore you are "signal[ing] something to other editors." Certainly you could also hang out at IRC and talk about BSG reruns all day until something comes up, but you might consider doing other things. Demon states that "a reversion on the merits is different than a reversion of simple disruption" Eh? Certainly there are different types of reverts, and different ways to characterize these types. But these are not well defined, and no reverting editor AFAIK has ever reached the conclusion that their reverts themselves (usually with little discussion)were disruptive. I for one am fond of using the WP:NINJA characterization, when actual arguments fail. Continued: "[]..something we might figure out if we get into the best process for what happens to BRD on a probation page if a disruptive editor takes it to BRDR-?" I see, so general principle-related concepts like undue characterizations and accusations, along with reverts based on such, according to you, need to be defined specifically in the context of BRD and then also BRDR? This concept of yours fails certain cognitive tests, in my mind anyway. -Stevertigo 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stevertigo, please refrain from disparaging my reasoning abilities or trying to deconstruct my explanatory style. This is an arbcom case about your actions, not about my IQ or lack thereof. The simple fact, as detailed painstakingly and at length in the evidence page, is that you caused trouble unnecessarily for the project and a number of its volunteer editors during a period of heavy disruption to the Obama articles. Call it what you will - disruption to prove a point, trolling, soapboxing, edit warring. Those are just descriptive terms. As far as I can tell they all apply to the behavior under review here. You have presented excuses, justifications, and criticisms of other editors. You protest about being treated harshly, when you have not even begun to acknowledge that it is your own far more aggressive behavior that triggered a necessary response. I think it is reasonable that Arbcom clarify the type of response that is appropriate in the face of disruption to article and talk pages on probation, but the crucial issue is that it is a response to the disruption, it is not the cause of the disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
1) I did not "disparage your reasoning abilities." Read it again. I simply pointed out that your argument had certain logical flaws in it, and was, coincidentally, based on a somewhat irrational concept. 2) this is not "an Arbcom case about my actions" - If it was, my original suggestion of calling this "SV's disruptive trolling" would have been accurate. 3) "..You caused trouble unnecessarily for the project" Bah. "..And a number of its volunteer editors" Blah. "During a period of heavy disruption to the Obama articles" OK, well, on that one you got me. I didn't much care for or consider the context that there was actual controversy focused there. Or did I? Hm. Not really. But is WP:BB in the context of "disruption" (cf. "controversy") a "bad" thing? Certainly, if the editing itself is "bad." But that would be a subjective "description," wouldn't it? Hence we are here, to determine if my creation of a subpage draft, commenting in favor of its keeping, changing the text of a FAQ, and reporting irregularities to ANI were each or all "bad." Likewise we are here to deal with the concepts of people not me, and whether these were each or all "bad,"** and, less importantly, their related behavior. Here's an idea: Instead of calling it "trolling," "disruption," "forum-shopping," or "soapboxing," you could just call it "bad." That way there's no issue of descriptive ambiguity or characterizing subjectivity. -Stevertigo 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
PS: **A few examples: A misconception of WP:SUB as the basis for deleting a draft subpage (instead of moving it to talkspace). A misconception of NPOV and BLP as being definitively against controversy/criticism sections and articles. A misconception of WP:CONS as a concept local to the article in question, rather than site-wide consensus issues. A misconception of BLP as controlling for all articles related to a particular person. A misconception of UNDUE as applyied to a particular subject, and not to others. A misconception of TALK to justify the manipulation of other people's comments. A misconception of PROB such that justifies violating any of the superceeding principles and policies. A misconceived reference to non-related matters as being motivated by the typical characterizations. A refusal to deal with actual arguments, such as my request for evidence that Arbcom has ever based a ruling on IAR. Indeed, a 5P that can't actually be referenced for anything. -Stevertigo 21:07, 27 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)
- While your concerns may be legitimate, I'm still not sure what you're expecting when it's already covered (but not being handled). ArbCom cannot force anyone, including administrators, to do something that they don't want to - whatever the reason may be. This is why I expect more individual editor remedies in line with the probation remedy to guide administrators on precisely how stringent they may be in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:54, 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
1) Parties to the Obama articles ArbCom case should stop their efforts to rewrite guidance or otherwise push guidance to reflect their views, pending the conclusion of the ArbCom case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This could be something to look at doing. Feels odd for us to ask them to stop editing in areas just barely in this case's scope, but I'll ponder this one more. Wizardman 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
The editor proposing this injunction may wish to lay out the evidence, and explain their role in the matter, because it is not immediately obvious what is happening. Both Sceptre and Stevertigo were active at CFORK before their disagreement on the Obama pages. Was this the product of an earlier policy dispute that spilled over to a new subject area? Further, Francis Schonken was revert warring against Sceptre, apparently to make a change in CFORK, immediately before that page was protected.One issue in this case is that editors should not fight over meta-pages to win support for their content proposals. Perhaps Arbcomm can clarify at what point an editor has exceeded the reasonable bounds of policy advocacy and instead entered the territory of policy gaming. Now that the matter is in arbitration, continuing to edit war over the pages at stake in the case is unfortunate, and a signal that the parties will not stop if left to themselves.But need that be remedied by an early injunction, or could that wait for a resolution of the case? It could take some work to sort it all out. Wikidemon(talk) 14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)- Endorse after further investigation, and fast. See evidence I gathered here. - Wikidemon(talk) 23:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse - Grsz11 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain - I am/have been too involved in policy/process development (WP:CIVIL, WP:CU, WP:WP, WP:DRRא etc.) to comment. In fact the diffs all speak for themselves; particularly so on those rare occasions when I've stated things plainly. Regards, Stevertigo 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- proposed - already suggested w.r.t. Sceptre's interference with WP:CFORK (including a forum shop at WT:NPOV), see WT:CFORK#Prior history; now this night there was Stevertigo's flurry of edits to WP:SUBPAGE, WP:CRITICISM, WP:Summary Style (and others) - all with the main purpose to support their take on this case.
- Maybe it would be useful to point out to these participants that traditionally policy and other guidance is taken "as is" at the outset of the case, so their last-minute changes won't (or shouldn't) have any effect.
- My main objective is to have WP:CFORK unprotected soon (currently protected indefinitely), which would not be possible unless a temporary injunction like the one above (or a similar one) comes into effect. I don't think it would be a good idea to have WP:CFORK protected until after the conclusion of the Obama articles case, but I realise that (and related) guideline(s) would have to face considerable turmoil unless the parties to this case are told to keep out temporarily.
- I happen to have quite a few of these related guideline pages on my watchlist, but have no involvement whatsoever in the Obama articles case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This edit to WP:Controversial articles yesterday might be an example; I'm just bringing it up because it's a relevant page I watchlist, not because I'm taking a position. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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:
- I think it should read as Obama-related articles rather than restricting it to the main article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- If this statement is needed, I would not oppose it, though it may need to be tweaked to be fully accurate. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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 parties:
- Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, the Klein article was engineered and misleading, for political purposes, and even the reliable sources say that. However, to avoid needless pronouncements we can avoid the phrase "manufactured controversy" even if true, and need only note that an article was written alleging cabal tactics, censorship, liberal bias, and pro-Obama favoritism, and in process of writing it a now-blocked sock/COI account that attempted to add fringe conspiracy material. ChildofMidnight is correct, below, that whatever the merits of Klein's methods, there are people who believe that there is bias and censorship present in Obama-related articles and that Klein brought them to light. Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- The framing of your statement is not neutral. Many editors feel the story exposed bias and censorship issues that are real. Others feel the actions of the journalist resulted in the manufacturing of a controversy that doesn't have a basis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The statement is not neutral, arguably not factual, and will open a whole can of worms in the media (both mainstream and otherwise) if the ArbCom were to ever adopt a statement specifically calling out a media source (be it left or right leaning), probably resulting in a much greater edit war than we are seeing right now. The ArbCom should comment on specific user conduct, not on article sources. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
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 parties:
- Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Obvious per the Obama talk page, which per my evidence on the evidence page saw a ten-fold increase in editing volume, mostly from new accounts, within an hour of the story. The page went from 37 to 320K, and my reconstruction here of what the page would look like without removing the disruption shows conclusively that they were there to complain, soapbox, fight perceived censorship, edit war, etc., in response to the Klein article (which was cut-and-pasted three times, and linked to several more). Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Any time a story is covered in outside media and garners attention on noticeboards around Wikipedia editors will take a look. Usually the efforts to improve articles and address concerns are successful. In this case because of the partisan issues, there was hostility even to experienced and good faith editors. It's also worth comparing how the article was edited and what was removed from only a month or two before (such as any mention of Wright, and other notable content). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Untrue, article has been the source of high visibility for a long time and will continue to be, just like George W Bush was when Bush was President. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (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.
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:Bobblehead
Proposed principles
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
1) Wikipedia has, as its primary objective, the documentation of human knowledge. In order to do so, it relies on verifiability, neutrality and on existing, reliable sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Prominence
2) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Make that "have been described as germane to the subject matter by coverage in a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet WP:WEIGHT and relevancy concerns" - nearly every item in the Obama article can be supported by hundreds of published sources; a minority viewpoint covered in only a few reliable sources, or a well-documented viewpoint that does not bear directly on the subject of the article, are both inappropriate in the biography of a hyper-notable individual. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
2a) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Modified slightly per Wikidemon's request. I think the "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" covers the same ground that Wikidemon's request for the addition of "have been described as germane to the subject matter by coverage in a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet WP:WEIGHT and relevancy concerns" covers. "Minority views" will, by their very nature, be covered to a lower extent than "majority views". --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose as not germane. This is a biographical article, not a scientific article. Most biographers do not publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. I would not oppose a reference to BLP, insofar as BLP is relevant to the matter at hand. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Civility
3) Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Disruptive editing
4) Behavior can be disruptive even when not outright grossly violating civility expectations. In particular, tendentious editing or repeatedly failing to engage in consensus building or accepting community input can disrupt good-faith editor attempts to write or improve articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Baiting
5) Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof), persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner are disruptive.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Dispute resolution
6) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Relevant comparisons
7) The prominence of negative and positive views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Advocacy
8) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Fanning the flames
9) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Controversies/criticisms in political articles
10) Due to the nature of politics, and American politics in particular, it is possible for minor relationships and events in regards to a politician's biography to become major issues during a campaign. These events/relationships should be covered in relation to the campaign, not the politician's biography.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This one is most related to the whole Bill Ayers controversy, but I've seen this play out across all politician's articles, so figured a general principle would be a good thing to add. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is a content decision left up to editors in main space and guideline space to decide. If the editors have made this decision, so be it. If not, that is a content decision too. The decision is only relevant to this case if we get into the wider question of whether it is okay for editors like Stevertigo to act on their own to edit war against consensus on the self-determination that they have a better grasp of policy than others and that policy overrules consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This one is most related to the whole Bill Ayers controversy, but I've seen this play out across all politician's articles, so figured a general principle would be a good thing to add. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I think this is a sound editorial principle, but probably outside the remit of ArbCom. MastCell Talk 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It probably is, but something needs to be said about the biographical and campaign portions of politician articles and how they are treated. The root cause of the edit warring on Obama's article is how to handle biographical information (minor or major) that becomes "major" campaign issues. There is a constant tug-of-war over whether or not campaign controversies should be included at all in the Obama article and whether or not presenting those controversies are a BLP or Undue weight violation. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is not the purview of the ArbCom and such a broad stroke will inadvertently affect many other articles adversely. Content organization should be done at the article level and otherwise with consensus of editors in another forum, not in an ArbCom case. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a sound editorial principle, but probably outside the remit of ArbCom. MastCell Talk 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Template
10) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Barack Obama 2
1) Articles related to Barack Obama have been the source of editor conflicts which has resulted in a community-enforced probation being placed on the main article, Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and related articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Modified version of Sceptre's 1) FoF per Ncmvocalist's request. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Obama and WorldNetDaily 3
2) In the week following the publication of an article in WorldNet Daily accusing the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama of bias, there was an influx of new and established editors that edit warred over the inclusion negative aspects of Obama's biography that necessitated full protection of the article.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Another modified version of WorldNet Daily FoF. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The heart of the matter really. First came the cannon fodder; the one-offs, the WP:SPAs, the anons, many of which earned blocks of varying lengths. Then came users who were already established here to pick up and carry the same torch, albeit in a (comparatively) more measured, more civilized manner. The disruption caused by the former and the latter were equal in measure, though. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably should be moved from my section to your section, Bobblehead. Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Argh. I'm a douche. Done. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably should be moved from my section to your section, Bobblehead. Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The heart of the matter really. First came the cannon fodder; the one-offs, the WP:SPAs, the anons, many of which earned blocks of varying lengths. Then came users who were already established here to pick up and carry the same torch, albeit in a (comparatively) more measured, more civilized manner. The disruption caused by the former and the latter were equal in measure, though. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I disagree with this proposed finding as arguably unfactual. As stated above, such a finding could lead to a much greater edit war and unwanted media attention (from both sources mainstream and sources otherwise). Secondly there is no reliable evidence, just anecdotal injecture, supporting this proposed finding. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The facts are plain and the evidence simple. The World Net Daily article (this is the scrubbed version) was posted at 10:54 8 March 2009.[2] The first edits reasonably traceable to the WND article are at 0:04[3] and 0:11[4] 9 March 2009. Beginning at that moment the Obama article and talk page volume jumped abruptly (it was not a gradual ramp-up) by more than ten-fold, and did not subside for two days. The pages have not seen that kind of swing in editing volume from any other source. All of that is readily understandable from the talk page history, and I have provided diffs to that in my evidence section. A high proportion of the edits were attempts to introduce disparaging material, insert fringe theories, vandalize, edit war, and allege whitewashing, bias, and censorship. Many new editors, and many existing editors who had not edited the article or talk page recently or at all, were doing it. The relevance to this case is that Stevertigo, and a few other established editors who are not parties, jumped in and edit warred during this period of instability. You would have to ask the admins why they edit protected, but the immediate cause of article protection seems to be a revert war on the main page, the participants of which can be seen in this edit history,[5] and a revert war by Stevertigo on the FAQ page.[6] Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right, but your evidence is speculative at best. Bringing WorldNetDaily into the ArbCom ruling is unnecessary and will cause much greater problems than a simple edit war with 4 or 5 editors that really hasn't even spilled over to the main article page. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean other than the new editors admitting that the reason they were editing the article was because of the WND article that the evidence is speculative.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they said it over and over again, and even cut-and-pasted the entire article, per this reconstruction. Wikidemon (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean other than the new editors admitting that the reason they were editing the article was because of the WND article that the evidence is speculative.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right, but your evidence is speculative at best. Bringing WorldNetDaily into the ArbCom ruling is unnecessary and will cause much greater problems than a simple edit war with 4 or 5 editors that really hasn't even spilled over to the main article page. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- The facts are plain and the evidence simple. The World Net Daily article (this is the scrubbed version) was posted at 10:54 8 March 2009.[2] The first edits reasonably traceable to the WND article are at 0:04[3] and 0:11[4] 9 March 2009. Beginning at that moment the Obama article and talk page volume jumped abruptly (it was not a gradual ramp-up) by more than ten-fold, and did not subside for two days. The pages have not seen that kind of swing in editing volume from any other source. All of that is readily understandable from the talk page history, and I have provided diffs to that in my evidence section. A high proportion of the edits were attempts to introduce disparaging material, insert fringe theories, vandalize, edit war, and allege whitewashing, bias, and censorship. Many new editors, and many existing editors who had not edited the article or talk page recently or at all, were doing it. The relevance to this case is that Stevertigo, and a few other established editors who are not parties, jumped in and edit warred during this period of instability. You would have to ask the admins why they edit protected, but the immediate cause of article protection seems to be a revert war on the main page, the participants of which can be seen in this edit history,[5] and a revert war by Stevertigo on the FAQ page.[6] Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with this proposed finding as arguably unfactual. As stated above, such a finding could lead to a much greater edit war and unwanted media attention (from both sources mainstream and sources otherwise). Secondly there is no reliable evidence, just anecdotal injecture, supporting this proposed finding. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Disputed area
3) The dispute concerns articles whose primary topic is Barack Obama and coverage of Barack Obama as a secondary topic within other articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- May need to be rephrased as the edit war hasn't spilled over to the main Obama page with these parties. But in whole, I support. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Advocacy
4) Advocacy of specific points of view has repeatedly taken place in the disputed area. Both promotion and suppression of negative aspects of Obama's biography have occurred.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose. Not relevant because there have been no real documented edit wars on the main article with the parties, surprisingly. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think this all comes down to the scope of this RFAR and whether or not it is limited just to the named parties or the Obama articles as a whole. Based on the name of the RFAR and comments by the arbitrators when accepting the RFAR it would appear the intent is to explore more than just the conduct of those specifically named, but the actions of all editors across all of the subject of Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not relevant because there have been no real documented edit wars on the main article with the parties, surprisingly. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith disputes
5) Many of the disputes in the area do not appear to be good faith attempts to reach consensus on the proper neutral coverage, but attempts to promote or suppress points of view in articles. Accordingly, much of the discussion has been adversarial rather than collaborative and prevents reaching consensus rather than working towards it.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose. Vague and violates WP:AGF. May have been applicable to prior ArbCom case, but not applicable here. Personally, I feel all the editors and administrators involved have good faith; some of them are just misguided. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Chilling effect
6) The vehemence, and far-ranging nature, of the disputes have had a strong negative effect on the ability of neutral editors to participate effectively in the editing process, and has driven away or pilloried editors who do not subscribe to either of the polarised points of view being warred over.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Well said (er, "lifted" that is). --Ali'i 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, there is no evidence of this. This case is much different from the fringe science case. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Generalized problem
7) The warring over the disputed area of Barack Obama is endemic. A large number of editors have behaved inappropriately to various extent and to various degrees to support one of the two extreme positions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose. This case is not the same and there are not just two extreme positions. In fact, Stevertigo is a self-admitted Obama voter. I don't know of any identified McCain supporter who is involved in this dispute. This dispute, frankly, has very little to do with personal political beliefs and more to do with "Wikipedia" beliefs, IMO. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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:Wikidemon
Proposed principles
Article talk pages
1) The purpose of talk and meta-pages is to propose and discuss improvements, to pose pertinent questions, and to take care of routine housekeeping details, concerning the main page(s) to which they apply. Talk pages are not forums for general discussion, or for airing grievances about editors, groups of editors, the subject of the article, or Wikipedia as a whole.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Closing discussions
2) Talk page discussions that are resolved (as in rejected or accepted proposals), that have gone off topic or grown uncivil, or that no longer appear to have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in any improvement to the article in question, may be concluded by any editor. If possible they should be preserved as a "closed" discussion rather than deleted. Editors should re-open closed discussions only if they reasonably believe that continuing the discussion would reasonably and directly lead to an improvement in the article in question.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- In a high-traffic article where the talk page is subject to the same discussions again and again that will at some point sooner than a more legitimate discussion run out of meaningful discussion, the section can be "archived" with {{hat}} or {{discussion top}}. These sections include BLP issues, attempts to disrupte, etc. A quick look at Talk:Barack Obama shows just one of these right now: "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" by Daniel Pipes. Endorse this proposal as standard practice. Grsz11 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fresh evidence. Compare this page with this mess. The first is the actual Obama talk page after dozens of closures, deletions, and moves. The second is what it would have looked like without them, with closures in Template:Highlightgreen and deletions in yellow. Which would you prefer? Does Arbcom really want to prohibit turning #2 into #1 and, if so, do we just accept chaotic talk pages or can Arbcom think of a better way to do it? Wikidemon (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose, in direct contradiction of WP:TALK. WP:TALK does NOT forbid inquiring about positions that have consensus. Suppressing talk activity, so long as it is not obscene or a personal attack (and personal attack must be properly and narrowly defined), then this will adversely harm the project. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's already routine practice on Obama and other high-traffic / high disruption articles, so asking Arbcom to acknowledge the realities of talk page patrol is not a proposed change. At the moment Stevertigo made his first edit[7] the Obama talk page was in a heavily pruned state. There were twelve collapsed discussions, several that were moved and consolidated, and countless posts had been deleted. If anyone seriously means to propose that Arbcom forbid this I would be happy to mock up what the talk page would have looked like if it had been left to deteriorate - probably completely unusable. I do understand the concern that things remain open and transparent, and tend to agree with JustGettingItRight that deleting comments should be kept to a minimum (I would add a few more categories: blatant racism / homophobia / etc, legal threats, spam, vandalism, process forks, trolling, socking, and a few other like matters). For that reason I've found it better to use the {{hat}} / {{hab}} templates to collapse clearly pointless discussions rather than simply removing them or allowing them to spin out. If an editor wants to continue they can always un-collapse in their own browser, and if there is support for continuing the conversation then it can be reopened, judiciously and within reason. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, in direct contradiction of WP:TALK. WP:TALK does NOT forbid inquiring about positions that have consensus. Suppressing talk activity, so long as it is not obscene or a personal attack (and personal attack must be properly and narrowly defined), then this will adversely harm the project. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Meta-pages
3) Creating and editing meta-pages (e.g. policy and guideline pages, essays, and FAQ sections and other "house rules") to favor one's position in a content dispute, or disparage other editors as a group, then referring to those pages to support one's position in the dispute, is a form of "gaming the system".
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Stevertigo
1) From March 10 to March 17 Stevertigo violated various behavioral policies and guidelines, after being asked to stop, and in so doing violated the terms of community-mandated article probation for Obama-related articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Article patrollers
2) From March 10 to March 17 various editors performing what they considered to be article patrol were uncivil to, and edit warred with, Stevertigo.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Unsatisfactory finding in the absence of names and diffs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2009 (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.
Stevertigo
1) Stevertigo counseled to abide by terms of Obama article probation, and policies and guidelines regarding civility, consensus, and edit warring.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Any disruption caused by Stevertigo was in my opinion relatively minor, not in bad faith, and does not indicate an inability or unwillingness to contribute productively, particularly in light of his longstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. Instead, the main issue is a lack of respect for, and willingness to recognize or abide by the wishes of fellow editors. We do not need to punish, prevent, or shame here. As long as he can stay with the program I do not see that any remedy is necessary; if he does not, simple administrative remedies should suffice. Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom would not've taken the case if the behaviour wasn't sanctionable. Sceptre (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I observe that Stevertigo has been making a number of wide-ranging structure / policy / process changes that seem to be in good faith and are overall to the benefit of the encyclopedia: setting up templates, clarifying guidelines, organizing policy pages. He works fast, often editing multiple related pages at a rate of an edit every minute or two until all of the pages collectively support an improvement or clarification to how we do things, without taking an incremental approach or obtaining consensus first or after. A great example is Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution, which he just created in less than 24 hours. One gets the sense he loves the project and is not doing this out of any personal agenda. Perhaps this is how the encyclopedia was being built 7 years ago - he is not the only old-timer with this approach. That makes him a great asset, and someone I would be reluctant to reign in, as long as he is on the right track; when he goes off course the effect is to steamroll over people who question or disagree. The "criticisms" section issue is a case in point. Some people approve of criticism sections and articles, many people do not, and lots of people in between accept them in the right place, in moderation. Gone are the days when a single editor can simply declare on a topic of this magnitude how he thinks things should be, or what he thinks consensus is, and make it so through forceful editing. I cannot tell if Stevertigo's stated desire to add negative material to the Obama article and fight what he considers whitewashing and censorship there derives from his conviction that criticism sections and articles are a good thing, or vice-versa, or perhaps they are unrelated. Maybe we can just ask him what he's after rather than going through such a laborious process of documenting everything. Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom would not've taken the case if the behaviour wasn't sanctionable. Sceptre (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Any disruption caused by Stevertigo was in my opinion relatively minor, not in bad faith, and does not indicate an inability or unwillingness to contribute productively, particularly in light of his longstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. Instead, the main issue is a lack of respect for, and willingness to recognize or abide by the wishes of fellow editors. We do not need to punish, prevent, or shame here. As long as he can stay with the program I do not see that any remedy is necessary; if he does not, simple administrative remedies should suffice. Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Article patrol
2) Editors patrolling articles under Obama article probation are instructed to stay civil, maintain a sense of decorum, use proper forums for resolving disputes, and avoid personal attacks. Abusive conduct by any editor may be considered a violation of article probation terms, even if the editor believes they are acting to prevent disruption.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- A number of editors, most not parties to this case, have engaged in abuse (e.g. taunting, mocking, insulting, using profanity) against parties who made questionable edits to Obama articles. Something like this, if enforced, should reduce the instance of alleged WP:BITE-y conduct, and the sense by those holding minority viewpoints that Wikipedia and the Obama-related areas are stacked against them. Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- An excellent suggestion. Reverting inappropriate edits on deems inappropriate does not require rudeness. A lot of good faith and experienced editors got caught in the cross fire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
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: