Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Incivility: placeholder |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Asgardian banned: placeholder |
||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
:Abstain: |
:Abstain: |
||
:# |
:# |
||
:Placeholder: |
|||
:# Need to think some more on findings 2 and 4. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion by Arbitrators== |
==Discussion by Arbitrators== |
Revision as of 11:07, 4 April 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) & Seddon (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KnightLago (Talk) & Steve Smith (Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 8 |
1–2 | 7 |
3–4 | 6 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Edit warring is prohibited
1) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this includes slow-moving disputes that would not ordinarily fall under the three-revert rule.
- Support:
- A bit different as NYB pointed out in the workshop, but the point that edit-warring includes slow moving disputes is very important in this case. KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not exactly how I might phrase it, but the gist is quite right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Though in slow-moving disputes is important to identify all participants in an edit war, and conduct in edit summaries, and on article talk pages and user talk pages and other namespaces. Because the dispute is slow-moving, it may be difficult to get a full picture of what is going on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Editorial process
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- As above, the extent to which the parties to this case have discussed their edits needs to be brought out. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Article ownership
3) Editorial control over a Wikipedia article is vested in the editing community as a whole, rather than in any one editor; editors are expected to resolve disagreements through consensus within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Without an explicit link to WP:OWN this principle is largely a pointless rehash of principle 2 (sorry for not pointing this out earlier). Carcharoth (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
4) Editors are expected to use edit summaries to make it easy for other editors to see what is being done with an article. Leaving the edit summary field blank is undesirable, and using it to mislead as to the substance of one's edits is prohibited.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Editor decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Although I don't know that the "disrepute" aspect is relevant here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Brad that the "disrepute" element is out of place in this case (the conduct is largely limited to a narrow topic and the conduct is not something that would gain much wider attention in terms of the project as a whole). Carcharoth (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Recidivism
6) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. However, even if a previously sanctioned editor has returned to previous behaviour, the conduct of other parties in edit wars should be placed on the record (even if it doesn't rise to the level of a finding) in case they too carry on such conduct in the future. Anything less serves to vindicate edit warring because "the other person was wrong". The key question is whether both sides did reverts without discussion, or whether discussions took place. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Past case
1) Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the subject of a 2007 arbitration case, which resulted in a yearlong editing restriction due to sustained edit-warring. Since that case, he has been blocked on multiple occassions ([1]) for edit-warring. Asgardian was also the subject of a December 2009 request for comment, which led to this arbitration case.
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I make that 4 blocks during the year-long arbitration restriction (with at least two of the blocks being extended and/or reset). Not all the blocks were noted at the case pages, and one of the blocks noted at the case pages does not appear in the block log! There are two blocks in the year and two months following the expiration of the restrictions. Whether this is indicative of improved conduct, or admins felt less able to block for the same behaviour because the arbitration restriction had expired, is the key point here, I think (and the December 2009 RfC helps answer that in part). Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Edit-warring
2) Since 2007, Asgardian has continued to engage in sustained edit-warring ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]) across multiple articles. The edit-warring has continued during this case ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]).
- Support:
- Noting that this is by no means an exhaustive list; nor does it illustrate the entire extent of the edit-warring. KnightLago (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Placeholder:
- Before voting here, need to cross-reference this with the talk pages and the conduct of other editors in the disputes. The key here is whether the edits were following discussion, or a prelude to discussion, or whether they were ignoring discussion or in the absence of any discussion whatsoever. Also need to check the dates of the edits (I think they are all in 2009 and 2010), as a better wording might be "since 2008" (the edit warring in 2008 is covered by the finding on the blocks made in that year). Noting that edit warring during a case is silly. Editors should have the sense to focus on an arbitration case, and failing to do that indicates a lack of self-restraint. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
3) Asgardian has used edit summaries that do not accurately or wholly sum up his edits ([95], [96]), or failed to use edit summaries while making controversial edits ([97], [98], [99]).
- Support:
- This is a byproduct of the edit-warring. KnightLago (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is true, but follow-up questions would be: was Asgardian pointed to this conduct (with diffs) and asked to stop it? Also, what is the extent of this conduct? There are 5 examples above. Is that all of them, or are there more? If he was asked to stop, and there was more of the same conduct, then that should be noted in the finding. Also, three of the diffs are from 2009 and one from 2010. The last diff is from 2008, presumably to demonstrate that this pattern of conduct goes back further than just this year and last year. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Incivility
4) Asgardian has made uncivil remarks, including commenting on other editors, instead of content ([100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]).
- Support:
- KnightLago (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Placeholder:
- Again, true as far as it goes, but lacks context. The edits are from four separate years (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), which indicates a long-running pattern. What I would ask here is whether there was any provocation, and whether there are patterns such as the same editors being involved and poor conduct by them as well. If there is a lack of provocation, or the above diffs are an over-reaction, then that should be noted in the finding. I disagree that this diff is incivil, and the context of the wider dispute needs to be examined to see if that diff should really be included here. The other diffs should have been toned down, or never said, I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2010 (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.
Asgardian banned
1) Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
- Support:
- The only option after a previous case with restrictions, blocks for violating those restrictions, and a return to arbitration for the same conduct that was the problem in the first place. And a continuation of that conduct during the case. KnightLago (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, as I hate to ban any dedicated editor, but in light of the prior history, this particular Tale of Asgard seems fated to an unhappy ending. Edited the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Placeholder:
- Need to think some more on findings 2 and 4. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comment
-