Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) |
Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::Again: is this something that Collect is supposed to have done, specifically whilst other editors were in the process of ''not'' doing it? [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|Centrify <small>(f / k / a FCAYS)</small>]] [[User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Factchecker_atyourservice|(contribs)]] 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
=== Proposed findings of fact === |
=== Proposed findings of fact === |
Revision as of 12:41, 8 April 2015
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 User:MrX
Proposed principles
Respect and cooperation
1) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility, even when they disagree. Edit warring, disrupting the project to illustrate a point, and failure to act in good faith are detrimental to fostering a collaborative environment where everyone wins by fulfilling our goal of building a free, online encyclopedia of all knowledge.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur - These are the minimum standards of basic socialization. The goal of building the encyclopedia is paramount, if it is not why is an editor here? The only way for the project to be successful is to maintain a healthy working environment. Poor conflict management can only harm that environment and voluntary conflict resolution will fail without a baseline of respect. Jbh (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - . Buster Seven Talk 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Everything is negotiable
2) Collaboration and consensus seeking are the soil in which Wikipedia thrives. There are no firm rules, nor are there single users appointed to enforce them. The policies and guidelines of the project are not carved in stone, and their content and interpretation can evolve.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- @Euryalus: Yes, there are some fairly firm rules. The principle here is the red pillar, which I find to be instructive. It relates directly to this single editor's novel interpretation of the WP:BLP policy which far exceeds community standards in my estimation. - MrX 15:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: I understand the sentiment here and the 'red pillar' but I worry about two phrases
Everything is negotiable
andno firm rules
. Both of these seem to open up potential for a huge amount of wikilawyering and stonewalling by those who want to not only argue about how a "rule" is applied but about the rule itself. This concept and IAR gives Wikipedia's "rules" elasticity and an ability to handle things no one thought of while still providing a common framework to work in. Elasticity is good but malleability is bad. I think those two phrases are a bit too close to the malleable end of the continuum for my comfort. Jbh (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)- "Everything is negotiable" is the converse to Collect's oft-repeated "WP:BLP is not negotiable" and "less-often-repeated "WP:NPOV is not negotiable". I believe that Jimbo once stated that NPOV is non-negotiable (I can't find it now), but I assume that was meant in the abstract and not as a dictum. It's antithetical to the project's design to rigidly proclaim its policies unalterable. Reasonable people can agree on what it means to not to have firm rules (bold, not reckless), but the important nugget in this proposed principle, is that a single editor should not be able to appoint themself as arbiter of how everyone else should interprets and follows a policy. - MrX 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- As I recall, the bulk of WP:BLP actually is non-negotiable. And in particular, groups of like-minded partisans are not supposed to team up to flout BLP to make a living person look bad. Especially not a politician during election season. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP is not a weapon of first resort
3) WP:BLP is a policy that guides us to carefully edit where real people's lives are concerned. It is not a license to automatically reject content unfavorable to the certain subjects, nor an excuse to edit war or advance non-consensus interpretation of the policy. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur - Although I also do not like the title. Maybe something like Don't cry BLP or really anything that does not allude to battle. This principle is useful at stages of conflict well before a subject turns into a BATTLEGROUND. Implicitly accusing someone of BATTLEGROUND when citing the principle may well escalate tension rather than encourage productive debate. Jbh (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Newyorkbrad. Suggest: "BLP is not a license to override NPOV". - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm open to changing the heading, but I want to capture the idea that the policy has been used abusively. I don't think it's always about NPOV; sometimes is just seems to be about WP:WINNING.- MrX 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I like the text a lot more than the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is there at least one diff of Collect abusing BLP in the way described? Could somebody point it out to me? Or are we talking about "HuffPo said something nasty about a republican, it wasn't found in any other sources, and Collect wouldn't let me put it in the article" ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I like the text a lot more than the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Trust and civility
4) Editors are expected to be open and forthcoming in content disputes. Insufficient explanations for edits or refusal to engage productively in discussion can be perceived as uncivil. Dishonesty, in word and deed, are corrosive to the project.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Again: is this something that Collect is supposed to have done, specifically whilst other editors were in the process of not doing it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Edit warring
1) Collect has a history unabated edit warring. has edit warred at several articles in the past 13 months. His block log includes evidence of edit warring in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2015.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- @Euryalus: I don't know if you mean that Collect hasn't edit warred, but I assume that you dispute that it is "unabated" so I've revised my statement.- MrX 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - Profiling may be prejudicial in RL, but a Users editorial history is a valid barometer of who he is and how he chooses to behave. . Buster Seven Talk 05:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Gaming the system
2) Collect has a history of gaming the system in order to prevail in disputes. He has engaged repeatedly in making false claims, wikilawyering, filibustering, forum shopping, fallacious arguments, canvassing, using Wikipedia to make a point, and abuse of process. This is most evident in his attempt to force an untoward interpretation of the WP:BLP policy and impose his own novel interpretation of that policy which far exceeds community standards. He wrongly elevates himself as the stalwart of WP:BLP.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- @Buster7: This (the newbie fear claim) is not well supported in the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Euryalus:Perhaps it's not specifically named but it is inferred. And it is human nature to not want to go up against someone that knows ALL the rules and regulations and seems to be the Site Expert on everything BLP, or at least that is the projection. Plus, I'm not really thinking of Newbies. Its more semi-established editors that have a sense about the place and that sense tells them not to mess with senior editors that project power and knowledge, even if its a smokescreen. But I'll edit my concur accordingly. The effect that an editor such as Collect has on the actions (or non-actions) of other editors can not be measured but it also should not be minimized as non-existent. . Buster Seven Talk 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Buster7: This (the newbie fear claim) is not well supported in the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Much could be said about those that fail to grasp the concept of do no harm. When an editor spends their time only concerned with adding negative information to a BLP page then they should be called on it. While balance is crucial and we should not whitewash any BLP subject, extraordinary claims demand exemplary evidence.--MONGO 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Do no harm failed as a policy, for good reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The hope is that your five blocks in the past year for edit warring and BLP violations means you might have learned something by now. I reiterate even more strongly now that any editor who has such a flippant attitude regarding BLP policies needs to be BLP banned.--MONGO 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There is no requirement to do no harm in BLP. Accurately documenting what multiple high quality RS say about a person may indeed cause them distress or harm. As you say, it is not Wikipedia's place to whitewash the subject nor is it our place to protect people from their significant public actions. WP:BLP strikes a balance between documenting a person's public actions and protecting their private life and do no harm is not the balancing test used. Exemplary evidence - yes. Pedantic sophistry - a most emphatic no. Jbh (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Do no harm failed as a policy, for good reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would split this into several parts, to make it easier to decide what applies and what does not. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - that Collect games the system in many ways.
Inexperienced editors are wrongly influenced by his air of being the last word on BLP rule interpretation and the manner in which he enforces that interpretation. They fear being a combatant against him.Buster Seven Talk 05:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Much could be said about those that fail to grasp the concept of do no harm. When an editor spends their time only concerned with adding negative information to a BLP page then they should be called on it. While balance is crucial and we should not whitewash any BLP subject, extraordinary claims demand exemplary evidence.--MONGO 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- The policy is, in substance, to do no unfair harm, no unnecessary harm, no unencyclopedic harm. And above all, no harm for the very sake of harming. This includes the policies against untoward invasions of the privacy of borderline-notable people, and of unduly weighting minor aspects of their lives. It doesn't, of course, and to take an admittedly exaggerated example, mean that an article on a convicted mass murderer must omit the murders and focus on his or her kindness to puppies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Buster7
Proposed principles
Talk page etiquette
1) While collaboration is the expected norm for editors, there are admittedly times when editors will not agree. Disagreements do not permit the on-going display of out-of-context dialogue and unexplainable diffs on either of the editors talk page leads.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. Talking to oneself about the perceived shortcomings of others is best done in private, if at all. Legitimate concerns should be handled through good faith discussion or dispute resolution.- MrX 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - I suggest generalizing it a bit as '...diffs on their talk pages or their user space.' or words to that effect. "talk page lead is too specific in my opinion. Jbh (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Jbh (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Casting aspersions
2) Of all the insults and name calling possible on Wikipedia pages, the most serious aspersion one editor can claim toward another is that of Sockpuppet. Since Collect has falsely accused numerous editors of being sockpuppets over the years, he should now be required to apologize to those he slandered.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The 'worst' insult probably varies from editor to editor. An accusation of being a SOCK that is not backed up can already be pursued as harassment. Having more admins who are prepared to step in and nip the early stages of harassment in the bud is, I believe, critical to the ongoing health of Wikipedia since we seem to fail miserably at that, particularly with "established editors" and "good content creators".
The second part of this principle is more a remedy but I would not support it as that. Forced apologies are never sincere and, in my opinion, are more a social shaming ritual. There are times/places where such things are appropriate and necessary but I do not think formal dispute resolution on Wikipedia is one of those. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The 'worst' insult probably varies from editor to editor. An accusation of being a SOCK that is not backed up can already be pursued as harassment. Having more admins who are prepared to step in and nip the early stages of harassment in the bud is, I believe, critical to the ongoing health of Wikipedia since we seem to fail miserably at that, particularly with "established editors" and "good content creators".
- 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:Euryalus
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 or furtherance of outside conflicts, 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:
- Concur, except that I prefer "furtherance of conflicts" over "furtherance of outside conflicts". - MrX 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - "..an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect.." is hard to maintain when observing the same editor do the same detrimental things over and over again. . Buster Seven Talk 05:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Standards of conduct
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur - Seems pretty much the base line for socialized interaction to me. Jbh (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - Expected conduct in a nutshell. . Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Recidivism
3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur - Mistakes are an important part of the learning process and experience can be measured by mistakes made and recovered from. Making the same mistake over and over, not learning and growing, indicates a severe problem that must be addressed for the good of the project. Repeatedly failing to learn from mistakes can become a WP:CIR issue. Jbh (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - The constant harangue about fellow editors, constantly changing editors at that, year after year, is contrary to the stated goals of collaborators working together. An editors history lives in his talk page. Buster Seven Talk 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Dealing with harassed editors
4) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Possibly pointed in more than one direction. But also arguably covered by #2 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MONGO: agreed. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: The second one more than the first, but as you say they are both good points. It's the argument often put forward in post-Gamergate AE, that good-faith people get pushed into incivility by a sense of harassment from others, and that this needs to be borne in mind when using administrative tools to resolve disputes. It's not an absolute excuse, but it might be some mitigation. This sentence is the flipside of the proposal above re Recidivism, which broadly states if you keep getting sanctioned then you might be the problem. This one says if you keep getting sanctioned, you might be the victim. In most cases its a bit of both. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly pointed in more than one direction. But also arguably covered by #2 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. There are appropriate avenues for addressing alleged harassment. Constant whining about it is just disruptive. - MrX 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to see something either here or in another principle that addresses claims of harassment where the claiming party does not or will not address the harassment in the proper venue. Unsubstantiated claims of anything be it harassment, SOCKing, COI etc. that are not addressed in their proper forum are corrosive to the social environment and the project. Jbh (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: On further reading I am a bit confused about the last sentence. Are you saying harassed editors may be harassing the harassers so be sensitive to who the victim is or that when dealing with harassed editors admins should be understanding that they might not be on their best behavior and cut them a bit of slack? I think both are good points. Jbh (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Administrators who are unfamiliar with a set of circumstances may not be able to properly referee a dispute and it is not always possible to provide such details short of in this forum or at arbitration enforcement. Harassment definitely should include repeated frivolous warnings by editors that are not administrators, the filing of unwarranted SPIs and mischaracterizations of an editor at public noticeboards.--MONGO 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I am not sure what exactly form of Wikipedia:Harassment we are talking about. Wikihounding? If so, some relevant findings of fact would be required. Yes, there are people who perceive any reasonable criticism of their editing as harassment, but I do not think that counting and addressing such "harassment" would be practical in WP environment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Jbhunley
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
Evidence from Collect
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- It is clear from the diffs presented by Collect about my editing show they he and I sometimes disagree about content, but in no way demonstrate that I have violated BLP policy. For example:
- 333 is a comment in an RfC in which I support the consensus view that the title of the article is appropriate.
- 335 Yes, that was a snark on my part, voicing my annoyance with Collect's forum shopping, largely because he has repeatedly defended this particular sockmaster against mountains of evidence.
- 345 Not a snark; legitimate concern about wikilawyering.
- 337 not remotely a BLP violation and I think I made a sufficient argument. WP:MUG actually supports my argument.
- 346 Again, a comment in RfC is not remotely a BLP violation. The descriptor is very well-sourced, although my views on using such labels has evolved since then.
- It is clear from the diffs presented by Collect about my editing show they he and I sometimes disagree about content, but in no way demonstrate that I have violated BLP policy. For example:
- I never claimed that Collect followed me to articles or hounded me. He claimed that I followed him to 80% of article—a claim which I proved to be false. Of the articles that we edit in common, I edited some months after Collect last edited them. (for example, Rick Perry:15 months; Steve Scalise:4 months)- MrX 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Evidence from Atsme
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Breitbart (website) December 21, 2014 - Nowhere in the removed content is the word "deliberately" or any of its synonyms. That's not strict adherence to policy; that's using the policy as a lever in a content dispute. I partially agree with Atsme, in that Collect is consistent.- MrX 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Accusations by Collect
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- In his evidence, Collect accuses me of violating WP:BLP, harming people, showing disdain for real-life harassment and death threats, and so on. As supporting evidence, he offers two edits of mine to A Rape on Campus from December 2014: [1], [2]. Given the severity of this charge, I feel compelled to respond formally, although I think that perusal of the evidence alone is sufficient to show that it is unfounded.
In this edit, I remove several "See also" links from the article. Now, it is beyond me how the removal of "See also" links could ever constitute a BLP violation, although I suppose it is technically possible. In this case, the links were clearly intended to link a dubious sexual-assault accusation to "feminist theory", to Janet Cooke, and so on. "See also" links aren't intended to convey an ideological viewpoint about the article subject (in this case, using it to imply that it discredits feminism). If some notable person has linked the case in question to "feminist theory", then we report that in the article body, with appropriate sources, attribution, and context—not as a "See also" link. This is Wikipedia 101. I suppose it is arguable whether this was a "good" edit or not (I think it was), but it is absolutely laughable to misrepresent it as a BLP violation or as evidence of gross malfeasance and disregard for human dignity.
In the second diff, I remove a paragraph about a blogger who threatened to reveal personal details about the accuser unless she recanted her allegations. The blogger in question in question has a long history of publishing inflammatory (and often false and harmful) claims about living people (see New York Times profile). In this case he claimed that the female accuser was "rape-obsessed" and threatened to "reveal[] everything about her past" unless she recanted her accusation of sexual assault. Regardless of the ultimate disposition of the case, I think BLP compels us to avoid amplifying this sort of repellent blackmail, particularly in a case involving a sensitive topic like sexual assault. I removed the material as an obvious violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP, as I said in my edit summary, and frankly it seemed like a no-brainer.
For Collect to present my removal as a BLP violation is shocking but also telling. Every time he sanctimoniously repeats his absolute commitment to "do no harm", I want you to think about that edit, because this is another Emperor's-New-Clothes moment. Here, I am trying to "do no harm" to a living person by refusing to amplify a blogger's attempt to blackmail her. Collect is supporting the inclusion of threats against a living person by a blogger with a track record of false accusations and harm to living people; and in fact he is arguing that I violated BLP by removing them. I think that tells you everything you need to know about his level of consistency and integrity in applying WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- In his evidence, Collect accuses me of violating WP:BLP, harming people, showing disdain for real-life harassment and death threats, and so on. As supporting evidence, he offers two edits of mine to A Rape on Campus from December 2014: [1], [2]. Given the severity of this charge, I feel compelled to respond formally, although I think that perusal of the evidence alone is sufficient to show that it is unfounded.
- 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:
- In passing, no credible evidence was presented regarding either disruptive essay-writing (is that even a thing?), or canvassing. As a personal view and subject to other Committee opinions, am unlikely to support proposed findings on either of these topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: Exactly so. If (if) it occurred, it had no effect. And it's not important enough to pursue. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: ah, I was unclear. I meant findings relating to canvassing during this case, which were raised as an accusation on the /Evidence talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- In passing, no credible evidence was presented regarding either disruptive essay-writing (is that even a thing?), or canvassing. As a personal view and subject to other Committee opinions, am unlikely to support proposed findings on either of these topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- @Euryalus: I'm surprised that you don't see evidence of canvassing, but I suppose it's a misdemeanor offense anyway and probably doesn't really matter.- MrX 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I too am a bit shocked by this since Campaigning "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is an element of CANVASS not just improper notification. Jbh (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: Thank you for the clarification. For a bit there I thought I would need to re-consider my position if the things I thought were improper were not. That would have been a lot of crow to eat. :) Jbh (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: I'm surprised that you don't see evidence of canvassing, but I suppose it's a misdemeanor offense anyway and probably doesn't really matter.- MrX 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others: