→Collect: not sure I added my name to the right section, feel free to move my comment if I messed up. |
Cube lurker (talk | contribs) →Collect: c |
||
Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::In a very high percentage of instances Collect is "Battle"ing against people who are dead wrong about how WP:BLP should be applied. This counts heavily in my book.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
===Proposed remedies=== |
===Proposed remedies=== |
Revision as of 13:51, 13 May 2014
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
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:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Robert McClenon
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Making allegations against other editors
2) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Neutral point of view
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Battleground conduct
4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Seeking community input
5) Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Advocacy
6) Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Biographies of living people
7) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Interpersonal conflict
8) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Same as battleground conduct above I think.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Patterns of behavior
9) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Behavior during arbitration cases
11) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
At wit's end
12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of Case
1) The locus of this case is American politics. There have been previous cases in this general area. The locus of this case is more specifically particular contentious articles and particular problematical editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I think the locus of case is more than simply American politics. I think that one has grouping of editors. These groupings see the conduct of other within their group differently than those outside their group. I think one can see this in the RFC/U, which was the original rational on bring this dispute.Casprings (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- If Casprings is saying that the issue is conflict between "right-wing" editors (Tea Party supporters, gun rights advocates) and "left-wing" (Tea Party critics, gun control advocates) editors, then I agree.
Arzel
2) Arzel has:
- Edit-warred, in particular by blanking material with which he disagrees.
- Resorted to uncivil edit summaries.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Collect
2) Collect:
- Engaged in uncivil and tendentious editing in connection with this arbitration case.
- Has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- In a very high percentage of instances Collect is "Battle"ing against people who are dead wrong about how WP:BLP should be applied. This counts heavily in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (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.
Discretionary Sanctions
1) The imposition of discretionary sanctions for all of American politics would be an extreme measure. As a result, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, subject any topic in American politics to standard discretionary sanctions without the need for a full case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is needed to check the spread of battleground editing from one area of American politics to another. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Arzel
2) Arzel is:
- a) strongly cautioned that the use of uncivil edit summaries will result in escalating blocks, without the need for a warning (because this finding is the warning).
- b) subject to the one-revert restriction on all edits in the area of American politics.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is to check blanking wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Collect
3) Collect is banned from the English Wikipedia for three months for battleground behavior and for tendentious editing in this arbitration case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I can't endorse this at all. Collect has a unique style of communication that is pervasive, and he frequently involves himself in contentious affairs adopting the role of devil's advocate, but a site ban of any sort is excessive in my opinion. Perhaps consideration should be given to a topic ban from AN, AN/I, SPI, BLPN, ARBCOM, etc., but if too broad, that could unjustly impede his ability to contribute constructively elsewhere.- MrX 11:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose.--MONGO 10:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Arzel and Casprings
4) An interaction ban is imposed between Arzel and Casprings. This ban may be appealed every six months.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 2
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Analysis of evidence submitted by User:Ubikwit
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- @Ubikwit: I quite agree with Srich32977. Although the scope does not formally exclude edits to Tea Party movement, and I do not wish it to, the committee is unlikely to place much weight on the edits you have entered into evidence. They have already been ruled on in a previous case, and therefore do not help us decide the current one. Please submit different material as evidence (and kindly also acknowledge this message). AGK [•] 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Ubikwit: Not quite, but perhaps I have not made myself clear. When I said TPM diffs could be "flagged", I envisaged it being entered as a footnote to non-TPM evidence – not making up the entirety or majority of your submission. TPM diffs can be very briefly referred to, or older evidence and findings of fact from the original case linked to; for example,
We aren't interested in edits to the TPM article, except if we need to be aware that, together with current evidence, they reflect a wider pattern in an editor's Wikipedia contributions. Remember also that I wrote much of the Tea Party movement decision (replacing an earlier pair of drafters), so I am likely to spot these patterns anyway. Have I made my position clear? AGK [•] 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)User X has did XYZ on <non-TPM articles>. See diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This continues a pattern from the TPM case; see diff 6 and TPM Findings of Fact 12 and 13.
- @Ubikwit: Not quite, but perhaps I have not made myself clear. When I said TPM diffs could be "flagged", I envisaged it being entered as a footnote to non-TPM evidence – not making up the entirety or majority of your submission. TPM diffs can be very briefly referred to, or older evidence and findings of fact from the original case linked to; for example,
- @Ubikwit: I quite agree with Srich32977. Although the scope does not formally exclude edits to Tea Party movement, and I do not wish it to, the committee is unlikely to place much weight on the edits you have entered into evidence. They have already been ruled on in a previous case, and therefore do not help us decide the current one. Please submit different material as evidence (and kindly also acknowledge this message). AGK [•] 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Most of the evidence submitted by Ubikwit pertains to Tea Party Movement edits. That topic, and the edits surrounding it, was "litigated" at Tea Party Movement. I do not see diffs which post-date the TPM arbitration closing. Even so, if there are post-arbitration problems with TPM-related editing, then such problems should be brought up for enforcement as TPM problems. With this in mind, I cannot see how Ubikwit's diffs help the committee in the present case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @AGK: I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the evidence, but I should point out that I posted it as background to a pattern of behavior exhibited across articles on American politics. Moreover, I did so after seeking clarification on the scope, to which you responded as follows
Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings.
- It now seems that you are contradicting your above-quoted response. Please clarify. As Mr. X demonstrates in some of his evidence, Arzel would appear to fly under the radar, eliding sanction by staying within 3RR, refraining from editing during Arbcom cases, etc. If the evidence I posted is not deemed as context but "an already litigated matter", then I would not have posted it in the first place had that been clear from the initial response I received. Thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @AGK: OK, I see. I'll remove the material.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @AGK: I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the evidence, but I should point out that I posted it as background to a pattern of behavior exhibited across articles on American politics. Moreover, I did so after seeking clarification on the scope, to which you responded as follows
Ubikwit has recently submitted a series of diffs related to current discussions on two articles. IMO the diffs simply point to rambunctious commentary by Collect, but nothing disruptive. If Collect would tone it down, and stop shouting on the talk pages, we would enjoy editing these articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence presented by User:Two kinds of pork
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The evidence presented by Two kinds of pork is not really evidence, but more of a statement of opinion, and mere conjecture. For example, the assertion "... they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel." is erroneous in three ways:
- I have no (personal) difference with Arzel. I believe the project does.
- Brangifer and I have not operated in unison (as implied by the slash). My efforts to reach out to Arzel were made independent of Brangifer.
- These diffs: [1] [2] are evidence of my serious and sincere efforts to address Arzel's conduct.- MrX 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence presented by Two kinds of pork is not really evidence, but more of a statement of opinion, and mere conjecture. For example, the assertion "... they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel." is erroneous in three ways:
- Comment by others:
- If you think Bradinfgers "attempt" was made in good faith, then that speaks volumesTwo kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to add that an RFCU is supposed to be a form of DR. One of the required elements is that users have "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". The example provided by Brangifer, a co-certified of the RFCU is the antithesis of a good faith attempt at a resolving an issue. As the primary drafter of the RFCU, I assumed MrX endorsed Brangifer's statement. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence presented by User:70.36.142.114
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence in RFC/U about Arzel
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- @Robert McClenon The statement that I "often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries." is simply false, and to my knowledge I have never had one redacted, so that insinuation is un-called for. I would ask that this statement be struck. I do often remove NPOV violations and UNDUE weight issues, especially within BLP articles, but your review seems limited to only cherry picked edits. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Arzel frequently blanks properly sourced information because he considers the sources biased (although they are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards). This violates Wikipedia policy, and shows a refusal to accept a community interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Arzel sometimes performs the useful service of removing unsourced characterizations, such as labeling a commentator as "right-wing" (which should not be done in encyclopedic language, but only when quoted). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Arzel often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries. Uncivil edit summaries are possibly even worse than incivility on talk pages, because uncivil edit summaries cannot be reverted, unless they are so inflammatory as to justify redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because Arzel sometimes performs a useful service, but is often disruptive, some sanction less extreme than a site-ban or a topic-ban from American politics is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence in Casprings
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Arzel and Casprings are two editors who do not like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- An interaction ban between Arzel and Casprings is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- To quote the interaction ban policy, "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I am not sure of what interaction between me and Arzel is a problem or disrupting for others. What problem does this solve?. Casprings (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
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: