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:
- Especially Pokemon and obscure internet bands. But yes, standard. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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:
Almost everything is negotiable
2) Collaboration and consensus seeking are the soil in which Wikipedia thrives. There are no few firm rules and no single users are 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:
- There are some fairly firm rules. What findings do you see flowing from this proposed principle? -- Euryalus (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- "rules" is an ambiguous term. There are some policies whose fundamental content is so securely upheld by the community (and in some cases mandated by the WMF) that the essence of the policies is for all practical purposes unchangeable. The possibility of exemption that would violate the fundamentals of some policies is in practice impossible; the variation from some of the specific interpretations or details can in some cases be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- @DGG: Rules in this context refer to policies and guidelines of the project, and specifically exclude WMF Terms, conditions and policies since those are outside of the control of the community and Arbcom. I agree that not every detail of every policy is negotiable, for example, we would not allow substantial copyrighted material to be kept in articles unless it met the legal requirements of fair use. However, each policy as a whole is not formulaic. They have to be interpreted and discussed among editors. Application of policy should flow from collaboration and consensus. I have made some tweaks to the wording of this proposed principle to try to capture that intent.- MrX 12:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- that we have a BLP and copyright policy is mandated by the foundation, and our policies must incorporate what they prescribe within the variation they authorize.See m:Terms_of_Use the site terms of use section 11 "the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable." This specifically links to the m:Resolution:Biographies of living people BLP policy, among others. But I do not think any doubt about this particular point will be relevant in the case at hand, where we will be applying the BLP policies as we have them on enWP. It would only be relevant if someone were to assert that our policies did not fulfill the vey general requirements of the TOU, and I can so no reason that this would be asserted in this case. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 9 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)
- This is true with respect to the principles. Their application Involves judgement and discretion, and is subject to guidelines and exceptions under IAR, and the details of the application of this policy are discussed extensively at various pages and frequently disputed. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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 must not be abused to win disputes 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. BLP articles must cite reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the subject matter is controversial. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions are not appropriate for inclusion.
- 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)
- @MrX: I definitely agree with what you are trying for here. Jbh (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've attempted to tone down the heading.- MrX 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: Perhaps the last sentence could be more concisely worded along the lines of:
- "BLP articles must cite reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the subject matter is controversial. Editors' personal opinions and the like are not appropriate for inclusion".
- --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ubikwit: I met you part way.- MrX 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've attempted to tone down the heading.- MrX 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: I definitely agree with what you are trying for here. Jbh (talk) 01:07, 8 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)
Comment by others is for comment on draft proposals, not for threaded exchanges of incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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:
- Concur - Mendacity is the death of collaboration. Jbh (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur, and note that certain forms of "refusal to engage productively in discussion" violate WP:TALK.
The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.
- --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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:
- This proposal is not supported by the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX:Thanks, that was what I was referring to. There's certainly some edit-warring at issue here, but there are differing opinions as to why. Which is, essentially, the key to the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- This proposal is not supported by the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Factchecker atyourservice:Please be careful asserting that "the accusers" in this case have done this or that. We're far from a unified/organized group - some of us have never been involved in "serious edit warring," and have no particular interest in liberal-vs-conservative political disputes. You also haven't presented any actual evidence to back up your suggestion that any of the accusers have been involved in "base partisan stonewalling," etc. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence is closed. I've already gone out on a limb by posting a previously undiscussed diff here on the Workshop page. That was a really important diff to put forth IMO, but I don't plan on testing Arb patience any further. And please understand that my accusations were not meant to apply to every single party other than Collect. I certainly didn't have you in mind when I said those things; we've never met AFAIK. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
This doesn't seem to be relevant, and has certainly strayed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry, but if the goal of this proceeding is to understand the origin of these edit wars, why is evidence of serious edit-warring problems by the accusers not relevant? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
Not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- One of the accusers here has been warned by an admin at least once for attempting to use admin sanction processes to "win" a content dispute. It's hard to avoid the impression that this is simply an attempt to exclude Collect from the editing process so he can no longer make valid edits which the accusers find disagreeable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
Subverting NPOV
3) Collect has subverted the core content policy WP:NPOV at multiple articles, by tactically exhausting the patience of other editors by removing sources, filibustering, forum shopping, and stonewalling.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur, and would add "gratuitously adding UNDUE material" to the list of tactics.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Collect has been a stalwart defender of the undue weight clause of NPOV so I do not agree with this finding.--MONGO 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Collect (site-ban)
1) Collect is site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- After witnessing Collect's wanton refusal to acknowledge any culpability and the his attempts to inappropriately rally supporters, I considered an indefinite site ban. However, in the spirit of not throwing the baby out with the bath water, I think a limited break might be best. Hopefully Collect would return with a fresh perspective and engage in collaboration to improve the encyclopedia.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose as too draconian.--MONGO 14:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Collect (topic-ban)
2) Collect is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, biographies of living persons, broadly construed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This addresses the selective application of BLP, BLP violations, subverting NPOV on BLP articles (especially with respect to WP:PUBLICFIGURE), and attempt to force an untoward interpretation of the WP:BLP which far exceeds community standards.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose any efforts to impose an indefinite remedy against Collect. Definitely view Collects hardline stance on biographies to be a necessity for determining a pragmatic balance.--MONGO 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Collect (1RR)
3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert in any article per 24 hour period, excepting unambiguous vandalism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This addresses the history of edit warring and apparent inability to realize that it is disruptive to the project.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any article or just BLPs? I don't think there is evidence to support a 1RR in all articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would support this if altered to a one-year remedy.--MONGO 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel: All articles. Political activities of the Koch brothers, Breitbart, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Drudge Report are not biographies.- MrX 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- This addresses the history of edit warring and apparent inability to realize that it is disruptive to the project.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Collect (warned)
4) Collect is warned that continuing to game the system may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The idea here would be that a one year ban would be deterrent, and that recidivism of the previous conduct would result in escalating sanctions.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Collect (prohibited)
5) Collect is indefinitely prohibited from using his user page, user talk page, or user sub pages to post cryptic comments, criticisms of people or groups of people, or any content that does not clearly benefit the goal of collaborative editing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I understand the intent here, but I think that the phrases "crytpic comments" and "any content that does not clearly benefit the goal of collaborative editing" would be better substituted for ones that are less likely to be wiki-lawyered over. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- I would change this to strongly advised and add caveat that further issues may lead to sanctions.--MONGO 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur, and would suggest re-wording to focus on the casting of aspersions by alluding to other editors or their comments in a derisive manner, in a manner such as to suggest that they are violating policy, etc.
- --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Factchecker atyourservice (warned)
6) Factchecker atyourservice is reminded that incivility and unnecessary antagonism do not improve the editing environment, and further instances of either will likely result in serious sanctions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This addresses the inappropriate conduct on the workshop page, the evidence talk page, and elsewhere on the project for which they have been previously warned and sanctioned.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not supported by the evidence that this remedy is necessary.--MONGO 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Sorry, can you clarify this? If I post a diff of egregious policy violation by one of the filing parties here, and express grave doubts about that party's judgment, when he is basing his case around making the same claims about Collect, that's uncivil? And meanwhile I am expected to sit and be clearly insulted for no reason by that same party, as he makes zero effort to discuss possible defects in the evidence he has presented? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 9 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 their talk pages or in their user space.
- 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:
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.
Casting aspersions
2) Of all the insults and name calling possible on Wikipedia pages, one of the more 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 admit his mistake.
- 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".
- I agree with the spirit of this, but I don't think a principle can include a requirement for a confession. Accusations of sockpuppetry should be accompanied by some sort of evidence, or at least a willingness to present evidence if requested. Such accusations should not be made lightly.- MrX 21:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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:
- Slightly shortened from the standard (sans WP:OR) -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @various people - removed "outside." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Slightly shortened from the standard (sans WP:OR) -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Concur, except that I prefer "furtherance of conflicts" over "furtherance of outside conflicts". - MrX 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with MrX. No need to put an unintentional loophole in there someone is bound to seize on it at some point. Jbh (talk) 20:56, 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)
- Concur, except that I prefer "furtherance of conflicts" over "furtherance of outside conflicts". - MrX 16:47, 7 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:
- A bit long, but covers most of the field of conduct alleged here. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- Concur, with a minor concern that the limits to AGF could use further elaboration. For example, inconsistent editing (with respect to one's own contributions) and repeated refusal to collaborate/respond to queries (i.e., violating WP:TALK) are signs that an editor is not actting in good faith, and the attempt to appeal to AGF is sometimes made by such editors as a defensive tactic to deflect criticism of such conduct. That is not to say that editors' don't change their minds upon learning through the course of normal editing with respect to the sources, of course, but that AGF as a policy can also be wielded in defense of non-collaborative editing.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:09, 9 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)
- @Euryalus: Thanks... I can support that Concur Jbh (talk) 02:40, 8 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)
- This is a reasonable principle, but its placement is a bit odd since there is no substantive evidence on the case pages that any user has been harassed. Of course, such evidence may have been provided off-wiki, in which case I'm obviously not in a position to comment on it one way or the other. MastCell Talk 16:49, 8 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:
Proposals by User:Jbhunley
Proposed principles
Harassment needs to be dealt with early
1) Harassment is corrosive to the editing environment of Wikipedia. Administrators should be encouraged to step in with short blocks or other enforceable remedies as soon as they become aware of a possible pattern of harassment. The community should support them is these actions regardless of the whether the editors involved are "well established" or not. Administrators who become aware of a pattern of harassment should take some care to keep abreast of the situation and take action to ensure it does not continue of escalate. The community should support them in this.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- @Newyorkbrad: Good point. Struck. Jbh (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- A merely "possible pattern" of misconduct is not a sufficient basis for blocking an editor (although it may be a basis for keeping an eye on something, or a word of caution). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes punitive is preventative
2) The idea that blocks are preventative not punitive sometimes leads to situations where editors get multiple warnings but no other action is taken against them. This can lead to some editors feeling they are 'untouchable'. The concept of "preventative not punitive" should not be used as a shield to forestall consequences in these situations. The community should support these actions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Not sure on the wording here. What I am trying to get at is if a pattern of bad acts can be addressed concretely early in the cycle it is unlikely to become a major disruption. Jbh (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Misrepresentation of others
3) Misrepresentation of other editors words or views by selective quoting, removal of context or in any other way can harm the collaborative editing environment necessary to build the encyclopedia by destroying trust and respect among editors. While anyone can make an honest error through misunderstanding or forgetfulness repeatedly or purposely misrepresenting other editors indicates an editor who is not a benefit to the project. See WP:CIR and WP:TPNO
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- An editor who misrepresents his colleagues does not have the competence required to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur - Editors must be able to trust that what is quoted is what was said. Anything less is deception and damages the editorial fabric. . Buster Seven Talk 04:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- This is essentially a restatement of settled policy. See WP:CIV at "Identifying incivility," part 2, subsection (e). (Hmm, how's that for WP:BURO?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of sources
4) Accurately reflecting what reliable sources say about a subject is the essence of what we do at Wikipedia. Any editor who regularly or systematically misrepresents sources, or regularly willfully 'misunderstands' sources it not a benefit to the project. The reason for the misrepresentation is immaterial. See WP:CIR.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- An editor who willfully and regularly misrepresents or 'misunderstands' sources for any reason, but in particular to further a dispute or POV, does not have the competence required to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur to some extent (competence would seem to relate to a capacity, based on learning/knowledge, etc., to contribute collaboratively to a given topic based on the sources (and a comprehension of the statements therein), rather than deliberately being disruptive in order to push a POV).
- Deliberate misrepresentation of sources is a form of gaming the system when an argument is being presented based on such misrepresentations vis-a-vis policy, and such conduct corresponds to tendentious editing.
- --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Pattern of tactical editing
5) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Misuse of process
6) Content dispute resolution such as RfC and the various noticeboards are valuable tools for resolving different editors interpretation of rules, applicability of guidelines, reliability of sources or any of the many things editors can disagree on in good faith. Starting discussions in these venues and then refusing to participate or not accepting the outcome is an abuse of these processes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur - Processes for resolving differences are a critical part of any successful social endeavor. People don't always get along no matter how many rules of conduct are implemented to force then to get along. Weakening the paths to dispute resolution weakens the concept of collaborators working together in goodwill.. Buster Seven Talk
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {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:Cwobeel
Proposed principles
Neutral point of view
1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of coverage should be reflected in article content.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Standard. Needed in the context of Collect's removal of significant viewpoints from BLPs, per evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Barring trivia, it's is very real problem when content appearing in multiple reliable sources is blocked from inclusion. Readers rely on Wikipedia for a concise, but full coverage of a subject, presented in an impartial tone. - MrX 21:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Biographical content
All biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Standard. Needed in the context of Collect's removal of reliably sourced material from BLPs, per evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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 MastCell
Proposed principles
Edit-warring and recividism
1) Edit-warring is harmful to the project on multiple levels. Users who have been sanctioned for edit-warring or for other improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. A pattern of ongoing or escalating edit-warring is particularly concerning.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Standard; edit-warring is a major issue in this case, in my view. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Effective communication
2) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognize when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. I think a central difficulty here has to do with Collect's communication style. This isn't an easy thing to demonstrate in isolated diffs, but ArbCom picked up on it in the Tea Party case, where they noted that Collect was dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants. Those behaviors aren't confined to the Tea Party articles, and Collect's communication style frequently inflames disputes and impedes productive discussion. See my evidence, in particular the non-stop insinuations of McCarthyism, stonewalling of obviously reliable sources, filibustering (e.g. refusing to allow other editors to convert the adverb "abruptly" into the adjective "abrupt"), and so on. MastCell Talk 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. We should all get to the point.- MrX 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Concur--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Consensus
3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Behaviors such as filibustering, stonewalling, misrepresentation of sources or policies, inflammatory or overheated rhetoric, and failing to listen to or engage other editors' points are disruptive, and undermine Wikipedia's fundamental content-building process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Again, this is the core issue from my perspective: Collect's style of communication and argumentation is extremely counterproductive and can rapidly sidetrack serious discussion. This is the behavior that ArbCom called out in the finding against Collect in the Tea Party case, as well. Examples in evidence here include Inflammatory and battleground behavior, Stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources, Misrepresentation of policies, and Inappropriate assertion of personal expertise to "win" disputes. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Responding to mistakes
4) All editors make mistakes from time to time. Occasional mistakes or lapses in judgement are part of being human. Editors should strive to acknowledge and correct their mistakes. Responding aggressively, combatively, or defensively when one is in error is counterproductive and harmful.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This is a key issue, from my perspective. On the one hand, Collect makes errors rather frequently, sometimes apparently as a result of superficial or careless reading of sources or policies (see evidence here, here, and here). But when these errors are pointed out, Collect's response is suboptimal, to say the least (also in evidence in the prior links). It really poisons the atmosphere to have someone who is misreading a source or policy but attacks anyone who points out their error. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Biographies of living people
5) Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Policy excerpt. Much of this case turns on BLP, as Collect has defended his behavior primarily by appealing to this policy. Nonetheless, there are repeated examples of serious BLP violations by Collect, either misrepresenting sources or using grossly improper sourcing to insert negative material into in articles and noticeboards; see also FormerIP's evidence regarding Collect's attempt to falsely accuse the economist Thomas Piketty of "fudging" his data in the relevant biographical article. Finally, with regard to protection of privacy, Collect claims as part of his evidence in this case that we should amplify an attempt by a blogger to blackmail a woman into recanting her allegations of sexual assault.
These sorts of violations would be concerning from a brand-new editor. Coming from an experienced editor who presents himself as a pillar of BLP enforcement, they suggest a fundamental lack of understanding and judgement regarding BLP. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with this statement.--MONGO 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Policy excerpt. Much of this case turns on BLP, as Collect has defended his behavior primarily by appealing to this policy. Nonetheless, there are repeated examples of serious BLP violations by Collect, either misrepresenting sources or using grossly improper sourcing to insert negative material into in articles and noticeboards; see also FormerIP's evidence regarding Collect's attempt to falsely accuse the economist Thomas Piketty of "fudging" his data in the relevant biographical article. Finally, with regard to protection of privacy, Collect claims as part of his evidence in this case that we should amplify an attempt by a blogger to blackmail a woman into recanting her allegations of sexual assault.
- Comment by others:
- I posted a diff of User:MastCell using grossly inappropriate sourcing to insert negative material into a BLP, and also misrepresenting that source a fair bit, and it was hatted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Conduct during Arbitration
6) 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. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Standard; this version from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. I understand that everyone is fair game, but in this case, at least one editor is attacking his perceived opponents everywhere but the actual Evidence pages, and that seems grossly inappropriate. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the ad homs and outright personal attacks are not helpful. Also, obtusely cross examining editors who have already spent substantial time researching and presenting detailed evidence with diffs is an affront.- MrX 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- These above comments are bit odd, seeing how MastCell is the one lobbing irrelevant and unnecessary personal attacks.
- Also, can I read User:MastCell's complaint about me not posting on the evidence page as a request that I be granted an extension and thereby allowed to actually post on the evidence page? Or no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 9 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: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.::*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)
- 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:
- Though I didn't raise WP:HOUND or WP:HARASS during this case, I have mentioned the issue on my User Talk page and elsewhere, partly due to Collect posting this thread on his User Talk page [3]. Some of the evidence presented by Fyddlestix corroborates the fact that Collect was trying to carry over his grievances from previous content disputes onto new articles, and I'll add more later, such as diffs.
- The point, I suppose, is that Collect's assertion that because he had a prior edit on a given article sometime in the past that his engagement there subsequently arriving in the manner described by him on his own UT page or in a manner indicated by the diffs provided by Fyddlestix precludes the possibility of hounding or harassment is incorrect.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ubikwit: That whole thread is in my evidence. I addressed the initial comment he posted on that thread in my evidence. [4](Although the diff for the first comment seems to be missing. I can hunt it up again if the Arbs want me to.) The link to the whole thread in my evidence is here at the second bullet point. Jbh (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: OK, thanks. I didn't have time to follow all of the evidence postings/responses. Noting that Fyddlestix posted this diff as evidence, I'll just leave this as is, unless there is a request for clarification.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ubikwit: That whole thread is in my evidence. I addressed the initial comment he posted on that thread in my evidence. [4](Although the diff for the first comment seems to be missing. I can hunt it up again if the Arbs want me to.) The link to the whole thread in my evidence is here at the second bullet point. Jbh (talk) 17:57, 8 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: [5], [6]. 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: [5], [6]. 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:
Evidence from My very best wishes
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I'm gobsmacked that in this link in the section Some evidence shows bias of submitters, My very best wishes characterizes Fyddlestix and my objection to being deliberately misrepresented as a "squabble". Diffs of the misrepresentation were presented:[7][8], yet no counterevidence has been presented. Notably, when I confronted Collect about his lie, instead of apologizing and retracting it, he stuck through part of it and said that I demur. He ended with a sigh. He then went on to claim that he
"was asked who the proponents were, and [he] sought to answer as accurately as [he] could."
, another misrepresentation. He was actually asked"Whose idea was it, anyway?"
. - MrX 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)- Breaking the table out into a list-article was entirely my, rather bad, idea. The table and material had existed in the article for sometime before being challenged by Collect. I felt that the length of the table in the article might be UNDUE and having consensus at the article (And my firm belief.) that the material was not a BLP or SYNTH violation I spun it out all on my own. In my frustration with Collect's obstinacy I did not consider the POVFORK issue which I later found compelling at AfD. MrX and Fydlestix had nothing to do with the creation of the article-list although Fyddlestix did an amazing job of applying cites to each entry and tightening up the sourcing after I spun it out. (At the end I believe 95% of the references were scholarly). I can not speak to who created the original table in the PNAC article as it already existed when I came to the dispute via BLP/N. Jbh (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm gobsmacked that in this link in the section Some evidence shows bias of submitters, My very best wishes characterizes Fyddlestix and my objection to being deliberately misrepresented as a "squabble". Diffs of the misrepresentation were presented:[7][8], yet no counterevidence has been presented. Notably, when I confronted Collect about his lie, instead of apologizing and retracting it, he stuck through part of it and said that I demur. He ended with a sigh. He then went on to claim that he
- Comment by others:
- "Diffs of the misrepresentation were presented:[3][4], "
- I'm glad that you linked some diffs, but could you please explain how you think they show misrepresentation? If they don't, both the claim and the diffs should be struck. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (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:
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: