Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
While I appreciate that Mongo has been more apologetic than me, I really don't feel that I have much to apologize for in relation to the FoF, for the above reasons. The fact that Mongo is being apologetic is not a reason why he should be treated less harshly than me, even though I don't believe that either of us have committed offenses anywhere near the offenses by Collect that resulted in the initial request. </br> |
While I appreciate that Mongo has been more apologetic than me, I really don't feel that I have much to apologize for in relation to the FoF, for the above reasons. The fact that Mongo is being apologetic is not a reason why he should be treated less harshly than me, even though I don't believe that either of us have committed offenses anywhere near the offenses by Collect that resulted in the initial request. </br> |
||
--[[User:Ubikwit|<span style="text-shadow:black 0.07em 0.03em;class=texhtml"><font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ubikwit| 連絡 ]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Ubikwit|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑</font>]]</sub> 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
--[[User:Ubikwit|<span style="text-shadow:black 0.07em 0.03em;class=texhtml"><font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ubikwit| 連絡 ]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Ubikwit|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑</font>]]</sub> 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Both you and Mongo think the other is being treated more favorably; such a contrast of views is often taken as an indication of a fair decision'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Revised PD Date == |
== Revised PD Date == |
Revision as of 15:58, 6 June 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Clerk notes
@DHeyward and MONGO: Hi, please see the banner at the top of the page. Statements are only allowed in your own sections. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DHeyward
Workshop?
Not a single arbitrator posted or participated in the workshop. It seems odd that there is anything of significance that would be in a proposed decision if it wasn't significant enough to elicit community input. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
MONGO evidence
REally? These are [1] and this [2] are examples of incivility? This edit from my talk page was cited [3] as evidence but there is no doubt that PeterTheFourth is a SPA and his first edits were to GamerGate arbitration. How is that any more inflammatory than actually tolerating SPA's? In what universe and what context? Had arbitrators bothered participating in a workshop there wouldn't be these trivialities. The first is a request to leave Collect alone (and isn't incivil) and the second is about the quality of sources in a recently deceased person that hasn't even been established to be political. I was unaware that serviceman that gave their lives for their country only came from one party. perhaps the committee can enlighten us as to how they reached these conclusions as it is not apparent from their Workshop comments. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, unlike others, there is no evidence of disruption. The committee seriously needs to review exactly what a topic ban is supposed to accomplish. Indeed the only person presenting evidence against MONGO has asked for a close with no action.[4] --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
While it shouldn't need saying
Arbitration is intended to serve Wikipedia: Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for the future, not on past issues. Arbitration aims to find the best way to move users beyond the dispute. For this reason, the committee is more likely to consider if a user can change, or what restrictions would be of benefit to the project, than on who said what in the past. If only. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
MONGO's Contributions and false equivalence
This [5] encompasses MONGO's contributions. No blocks, no edit wars. Occasional incivility over 10 years. Over 65,000 edits and 30,000 are mainspace [6] over 18,000 unique pages. What percentage of edits are incivil and who else lives up to that standard? It seems like the punishment is for volume of edits. This isn't whack-a-mole game. In contrast, he is being held against Ubikwit as if there is barely a difference [7]. Ubikwit has a total of 6,300 edits of which less than 20% are mainspace edits and only over 530 unique pages. Let me repeat, you are considering the same sanctions for an editor that has ccontributed 20x to the mainspace (arguably the only objective) and to 30x the number of total pages. I am not qualified to speak about Ubikwit's contributions or his prior history with Arbcom. I do know false equivalence when I see it, though, and this is it. How many example edits of 65,000 are representative of a 10 year contribution? Ubikwit's talk page edits is 2,300. MONGO's is 11,000. Those numbers equates to Ubikwits largest contribution at 37% but is less than 20% of MONGO's despite the 5x difference. Yes, I would hope it's easier to find more incivility with an editor that has so many more contributions. Do what you think is appropriate for Ubikwit (I would hope nothing) but the false equivalence in analysis is false. --DHeyward (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
MONGO wasn't named a party to the Tea Party case
@NativeForeigner: as far as I can tell, MONGO wasn't a named party to the Tea Party Case or discussed. Also, apologizing for the United States article issues when neither of the two named subjects were recent editors is hollow (okay I admit, MONGO edited the geography and climate section in 2007 [8] - I didn't bother to check if his 8 year old edits were civil). Ubikwit was a Tea Party Case member which makes the false equivalence even worse. Why did the committee not deal with Ubikwit in the the Collect case? That is the obvious IBAN and twofer opportunity. MONGO is unrelated and not involved. Why apologize for the United States article when neither appear to be involved and there is no remedy? The lack of a Workshop phase has made these errors very obvious. This case doesn't address anything related to United States and sanctions on MONGO aren't extensions to the Tea Party case unless I missed something. This reeks of false equivalence. Even complaints of MONGO's talk page edits of Robert Kagan lack any sign of incivility [9]. I don't see where MONGO ever edited the article, just questioned the negative label being added to a BLP on the talk page. Even topic banned editors get a pass for BLP - and on a talk page no less. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: What's not been demonstrated is that punishing these two editors will do anything to improve the project. The lack of proposals is an indication of a lack of need for solutions against editors, not a call to action by Arbcom. MONGO is a prolific editor. Without AE requests, without Workshop participation and without ANI requests as backdrop, it is difficult to conceive what problem these solutions are searching for. What exactly can't go on and why was it so difficult for Arbcom and the community to formulate them for a Workshop? The examples given wouldn't even warrant an ANI admonishment, let alone a topic ban. This case was broken out from Collect but wasn't dropped when it became clear the only community interest was Collect. These proposals offer no solution, it's merely whack-a-mole regarding a prolific editor. For months, since this was opened, there has been no complaints regarding MONGO nor in the months prior. Why is it suddenly so pressing to topic ban a prolific editor that has no sanction history of disruption in the area? --DHeyward (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposals
Proposed: Formulate new DS for the topic area if arbcom believes the old ones are not working. Leave MONGO out of it. There is no need to make examples of MONGO which will only chill contributions. It's pretty clear (to me at least) that it's the shear volume of edits, not a disproportionate amount of incivil edits, that has occured. Certainly there has been no evidence of disruption by MONGO. --DHeyward (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed A "write for the enemy" discretionary sanction. It's generally pretty clear where political boundaries line up. If an editor appears to be overly negative in tone for a particular article, create a DS that allows the editor to only make positive edits to that article (and talk) and a 0RR restriction. Example: After an editor insists on adding negative material, or only adds negative material (or one-sided if preferred) to a political article (sourced or not, BLP or not), AE can limit their contributions to that article to only positive material if it causes a dispute. The problem isn't the single editor, it's the atmosphere (it can be seen on the Anthony Watts page today as the bickering over "denier"). Problems arise when one group of editors want to characterize something as negatively as possible whilst another, equally polarized, does not. It's rare to see one group being extremely positive and the other being extremely negative but it is quite often the case that disputes arise when a group decides to make something negative and another group is defensive. The Santorum neologism dispute is an example. Use DS to stop editors that egregiously focus on adding negative material in either talk page discussions or articles. They can add positive material but are still limited to 0RR after DS is enacted. It can be page/person/topic specific. We are about to enter the 2016 election cycle and there will be plenty of editors seeking to add negative material (i.e. the NRA is evil, planned parenthood is evil, hillary clinton is evil, mitt romney is evil, etc). For most cases, the disputes will be about adding negative material. If you want an example from this case, the use of "neocon" being added by Ubikwit. It wasn't that the opponents to that label were arguing for hagiographic terms, rather they simply opposed the perceptibly negative "neocon" label. A DS that prevented Ubikwit from adding that label (or adding negative material about those persons) stops the dispute. Another example would be labeling a group as "terrorists." When consensus cannot be reached and there is a dispute, the negative material should be stopped - regardless of the politics involved - edit warring to add negative material to political topics should lead to a "write for the enemy" type of restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 You are of course correct about NPOV, UNDUE and RS's and writing for them. However, these disputes arise out of disagreements over NPOV, UNDUE and RS's. It's when those disagreements become unproductive or are repeated by the same editor over multiple pages/topics, it would be nice to have a method to keep passionate editors without the disruption caused by conflict. It's pretty easy to see negative/positive light disputes. We do it in BLP articles all the time. The idea that they are worked out in consensus is the goal but what I see as the problem is persistent attempts to add negative information that is resisted. It's usually not hard to spot. Where consensus is achieved, negative information is fine and there is nothing wrong with it. It becomes problematic when it's a singular focus of a specific editor that will edit war it into the article. This case started exactly as I outlined, with negative information being added and resisted by others and armies grew. HAd there been a way to stop it until consensus is reached, we wouldn't be here. Instead, it spiraled into this. Anthony Watts is headed to the same place (and that's a BLP). I'm proposing the way to stop it is similar to how we stopped it in BLPs: stop the negative side first. Those that have restraint to abide by it have no problem, those that can't get the "Write for the Enemy, 0RR" sanction (rather than a topic ban, though it could progress). It's a way to retain passionate editors, teach consensus and stop edit wars and POV pushing. Negative information will not be excluded, it's just the starting point for stopping escalating disputes by picking a side as an extension of WP:ONUS. --DHeyward (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 it's not intended to solve disputes. Disputes are part of consensus building. What it does is stop unproductive disputes that escalate. There are editors that compromise and can work together to create articles from various viewpoints. They work their differences out. The issue here is that a few editors insist on insertion of negative material that is very visibly negative (i.e. constantly using "Barack Hussein Obama" or "denier" or "misogynist" as examples). All of those undoubtedley have their place and eventually get worked in where they belong. The problem isn't that they are negative, the problem is editors that insist "because it's sourced it must be everywhere." Those editors create the conflict that draws people to a side or they drop out. You can see the sides build when these editors arrive and push. I only propose a way to stop those editors, not stop the process. Negative material should and will be in the encyclopedia. It's much better when it's written by people that can work together. Negative is rarely hard to spot and your example "X does not believe in anthropogenic climate change" is not the type of statement that draws ire or creates conflict. It's when people somehow believe "X" was named by their parents "Climate Change Denier X" and should be used as far and as wide as possible. Virtually no one believes that use of the word "denier" isn't negative. Both those that want to add the label and those that want it removed would agree that it's negative. For different reasons, but still negative (ie. either you believe it's deservedly negative or it's negative and not deserved). Edit warring, conflict generating, and infinite insertions of these terms is what leads us to ANI, AE and here. Most editors will have a general belief and can live with a middle ground but when someone starts adding it everywhere, another starts removing it everywhere. Moderates get involved because if it's not NPOV, they pull it back and it's a full blown edit war. The goal isn't to remove negative material, it's to curb editors that create the conflict by pulling articles with negative information. Stable, well-written articles don't have this problem. Dynamic political articles do and they are inflamed with rushes to add negative information. We had this debate for BLPs and raised the bar. We can do the same for articles. We still have negative information in BLPs, we just don't let it disintegrate the topic. Wait until 2016 and it will get ugly as it does every presidential election year. By now, things like the Santorum neologism have worked itself out into something with more neutral coverage. If we repeat 2012, we will see editors arguing that neologism has equal weight and footing with the candidate and will constantly link, add, disambiguate, whatever, to make their view known and which will then create violent flip-flops where it's removed entirely and endless RfC's that leave no middle ground to work in. We have policies like WP:ONUS and WP:OWN that address them but we are not very effective at applying them in political content debates. --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Guerillero Liz highlights on a good point though. The U.S. has major foreign policy and major domestic policy periods that don't lend itself to centuries. There would be debate about other breaks (post-vietnam vs 1980, etc,) and there are other significant breaks but that's neither here nor there. The problem is this: articles like Redwood National and State Parks which MONGO helped bring to a Mainpage featured article - we learn that native Americans were forcibly removed and slaughtered to a third of their population in 1850 through 1895 and by 1919 wiped out. In 1911, Rep. John Laker propose redwood national park to preserve the redwoods that were being logged. California legislated state parks in the 1920's. It became a National Park when LBJ signed legislation in 1968. In 1980 it became a World Heritage Site. There's politics wrapped in all of it from U.S. expansion, to nature conservancy to logging to legislation. If anyone thinks that detractors won't drag MONGO to AE for "topic ban violation" based on any date chosen because there are politics involved in creating national parks and forests, hasn't been here very long. Same thing with Retreat of glaciers since 1850. There are editors that oppose having the expansion of some glaciers from 1950 to 1980 or so mentioned because it's politically tied to AGW. the point is that politic dates and epochs start and stop randomly. AGW goes back to 1750 but reliable temp record starts at about 1850. Satellite era in 1979. I think he'd quit before facing that nonsense. That's when hostility and incivility happens and we really don't need a dated political topic ban to drive away a prolific editor. MONGO is not Eric. No blocks. No endless ANI's. No AE's. He can be abrupt and incivil but usually only with people that are also abrupt and incivil and it's rare. Not enough to attract a block. --DHeyward (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
Clerk note: this was made in response to DHeyward. I think this could have been handled by motions at the other American Politics case which I never even heard of.--MONGO 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Caspring...While edit warring is bad, many content disputes only lead to better articles.--MONGO 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I admit that there have been times I have been incivil and hostile and for that I apologize. Even so, I feel since all my efforts have been dedicated to defending BLP and I rarely edit articles about those I may be in political disagreement with one should be able to see that I've been defensive on issues, not offensive in trying to add negativity. Case in point is my statement at the Hillary Clinton FAC...[10]...in which I stated that while I was no fan of the subject, I supported promotion of that article to featured level. I'm not a threat to American Political articles and will adjust my tone to better serve the pedia.--MONGO 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The diffs support a civility warning in my case. I believe that is an issue where I am definitely guilty. I rarely edit articles on politics that are not congruent with my own, and while my incivity could be seen as disruptive in the political arena, I'm not edit warring overall nor trying to damage article space. I realize the diffs provided in my finding are only representative but they do not convey, as I explained earlier, my work on things that cross party lines where I am also oftentimes in the defense posture. My efforts to follow the verdicts of science rather than my politics is more than apparent in Retreat of glaciers since 1850, which I shepherded to FA and have been working on as of late to keep it from going to FAR. I can't see any reason to stick around if I'm cornered in a minefield that prohibits me from working on articles that could easily attract polarized politics such as the Retreat of glaciers article...as that article clearly demonstrates that glaciers everywhere are in Retreat and the scientific consensus is that this is caused primarily by AGW, a subject that is a polarized American Political issue. This is but one of many examples where my editing will be possibly hampered by this remedy. In others, I've been at the forefront of keeping conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 articles minimized and heavily participated in bringing several related articles in that venue to FA level. Broadly construed, 9/11 articles are definitely in the realm of American Politics because of the events that led to them and what happened afterwards. In one diff cited in my finding, it's suggested that I created hostility by informing Collect that he should gather evidence because I knew he was going to be taken to arbcom. Alerting another to prepare for their defense is hostile in what way? While one diff surely is hostile, that one isn't. I have no topic bans....few attempts to remedy my alledged topic disruption has been attempted either at noticeboards through AE. I haven't been blocked since 2008 and that event was a major contributing factor that led to the blocking admin losing their bit. While I respect that the committee is making a sincere effort to put an end to the bickering on American political articles...why am I singled out? It's shortsighted to assume that only myself and Ubikwit are causing all the troubles. A remedy that draws a line in the sand for everyone involved would have allowed for strong discretionary sanctions to be applied for any future flare ups.--MONGO 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am taking this into account and posted the diff on the PD page --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would say that my editing history indicates that I am a POV pusher or that I wreck articles with synthesis or unsubstantiated claims. However, many editors I have had disagreements with would likely say I have been rude, short, in civil and some may say I have engaged in personal attacks or failed to AGF. My limited engagements with Ubikwit do not indicate we need an interaction ban between us...I don't harbor any ill will towards him, and my comments to him on one talk page were out of place though I was curious if he did have anything else to add or subtract that wasn't related to possibly controversial (negative) issues...that's all.--MONGO 17:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have to say to the committee and the community that I hear you. I recognize I'be been difficult to discuss some matters on, mainly due to my rudeness. I'm self imposing a moratorium for a year on editing or commenting on any mainline political issues excepting global warming and 9/11, and I'm not very active anymore anyway. I'll also strive to keep my cool and pretend that anyone I may be conversing with on a talk page is sitting right next to me. In most cases, people are kinder to each other when face to face.--MONGO 20:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed decision delayed
The proposed decision has been delayed. The arbitrators have stated on the clerks' mailing list that they will have something by next week at the latest
. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'd also like to apologize on behalf of the arbitrators as requested by email. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ubikwit
Thanks for the update.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner: First, it's disappointing to not see a finding about competence, as the issue is prevalent in this topic area, where editors vote their politics and ignore or misrepresent sources regularly. If there were to be anything preventative in the findings, one would surely imagine that the politically motivated conflation of religion and politics should have demonstrated a need for such a finding in this topic area.
While I've admitted that my conduct has not been perfect, there is a difference between calling a spade a spade and making personal attacks. I don't think that calling a spade a spade is necessarily hostile, and I'm not sure what other hostility you are pointing to in the diffed edits. One point that you may have overlooked is that Xenophrenic first made a veiled threat about Arbcom on my Talk page here, though he tried to deny it subsequently[11]. That was before I filed the request about the article, which was turned down. Are you asserting that threatening to take conduct to Arbcom (after opening two indecisive AN/I threads) and then following through is hostile?
And I'm rather curious as to why none of the personal attacks made by Mongo were diffed? Contrary to the false assertion by DHeyward above, I also diffed the personal attacks made against me by Mongo at the Robert Kagan article talk page, for example.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that there is more egregious conduct raised everyday at AN/I and closed without sanctions, so the proposed topic bans seem draconian to me. That is more so the case considering that this case was opened as a second thought to the Collect case in the first place, against my protestations, and saw minimal participation, with a mere single post by me during the workshop.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of competence, if you could indicate such need with diffs I'd consider it. I saw issues with civility, with some misunderstandings. But competence allows for mistakes. Your conduct, as far as I saw it, was calling a mistake a straightforward attack. I think all too often in this project the inverse of Hanlon's razor is applied. In terms of the format, I tend to agree. The evidence here wasn't that representative of the case brought about Collect, and although they were two separate issues, the need to separate them was minimal. The affect was far more attention was spent on the Collect case than this. Some of what delayed the decision being posted was my general dislike of the evidence provided. (It wasn't representative) but we make decisions based upon evidence submitted. I am in no way asserting that threatening to take conduct to arbcom is hostile. The other route we could have taken was a Tban between parties but as Sceptre concluded at one of the ANI threads it would likely be like putting a band aid on a geyser (or something to that effect). I share their concerns. NativeForeigner Talk 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sceptre uses she/her pronouns --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I wasn't familiar with that.
- There are a lot of issues at play, so I'll try to simply address a couple, and will have to take more time to examine the diffs you provided in light of your above comment.
- The primary issue is of ADVOCACY/ACTIVISM, and Collect was the primary motivator of misconduct on political articles on Wikipedia. By that I mean that wherever he showed up and started engaging in the kind of tactics demonstrated by the reams of evidence presented against him, he kindled the fires of partisan feuding instead of policy-guided editing. I was often a target for his invective, and that drew attention to me and my edits from other like-minded (conservative) editors.
- Collect, was competent, but a partisan advocate that mobilized the activists.
- One sign of that is the appearance--out of nowhere--of Mongo at the Robert Kagan page simply to level personal attacks at me to dissuade me from editing according to the scholarly sources I was citing. I find it somewhat incomprehensible that the diffs of those blatant personal attacks have not been cited in the FOF against him, as they tie together this aspect of the editing environment in the American politics topic area.
- LM2000 and Jweiss11's pronouncements equivocating religion and politics, however, are signs of sheer incompetence. I tried to point that out, they refused to compromise, and that article, structurally and content wise, is still broken, especially in relation to the existence of the "Social and economic politics" section. I tried to remedy the situation at AN/I, twice. Here, while I would agree that incompetence is related to ignorance, initially, at least, after it has been pointed out, there should be an acknowledgement of an issue, which there wasn't. There was only a tendentious maintaining of the invalid position, and much to my surprise, no where on Wikipedia has that been addressed, even in these proceedings. I've seen editors refer to a systemic bias toward religion on Wikipedia, and this would seem to be an example supporting that.
- As for Xenophrenic, there is no way I can recognize anything corresponding to ignorance in his POV pushing. His edits belie more sophistication than LM2000 and Jweiss11, for example, and he never even responded to my query regarding the equivocation of religion and politics. I believe that I did query him regarding a COI, but he denied having one. And his multiple false invocations of Godwin should not have escaped scrutiny here.
- The most offensive comment I made would have to be that to Mr. Jensen, but telling an academic that your not impressed with his dismissal of peer-reviewed academically published works is in the neighborhood of calling a spade a spade in order to bring his attention to what he was doing, which was not policy-compliant and not what one would expect of an academic. In retrospect I would certainly have not made the comment in the same poorly phrased manner, as it was unintentionally overly personal, and I apologize for that, but it was not a personal attack. It was meant to be a comment about his editing (as an academic), not about his person. He responded in a somewhat reflective manner that he too had published on Oxford, etc. Note that I have interacted with Mr. Jensen on other articles subsequently, and he has apparently come to agree with me on the relevant material in the neoconservativism article in general.
- I didn't notice any comment by a use named Sceptre, so I will have to check when I have some time.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a comment by user Sceptre, but I understand the gist if it is in reference to Collect (i.e., an IBAN).
- Meanwhile, I should state that regarding Mongo, though I don't feel that he or me committed offenses egregious enough to warrant a topic ban, I do feel that he deserves a stronger admonishment for deliberately resorting to the tactic of making a false recourse to BLP policy and simultaneously advocating that RS and NPOV be violated in the name of his partisan advocacy of BLP defense of a public figure whose work has generated great controversy in the public sphere. That is the type of conduct that is particularly problematic in the topic area of American politics, and it is related to WP:ACTIVISM, for which there is also a conspicuous lack of a statement of principle. If discretionary sanctions are to be implemented, there is a need for such statements of principle so as to facilitate the resolution of conduct issues at AE.
- I've yet to go through the diffs in my FoF.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Edit warring
- Though I didn't protest the block as I am aware that the definition of edit warring is more expansive than 3rr, an examination of the circumstances of the complaint filed by Collect (as a tactic to eliminate the competition) is illustrative of the fact that this case is somewhat superfluous because Collect was the main force driving the disruption.
- To be brief, though I had reverted Collect's edits, there was an emerging consensus against which Collect was intentionally inserting the material with respect to which the emerging consensus was against including so as to goad me. That was described by Fyddlestix (talk · contribs) in the 3rr report per the above-cited diffs. I don't intend to make excuses, but I have seen the goading mentioned as a mitigating circumstance in such cases, and editing with consensus to improve the article is also a factor worthy of considering, per WP:IAR. Admittedly, I could have handled the situation with more composure, but after several failed An/I threads against Collect, it had become exasperating to deal with him and his repeated and deliberate attempts at obstruction. I don't foresee having such problems going forward in this topic area thanks to Collect's absence.
- Sanctions
- If it is deemed that I should be sanctioned, per TomHarrison's suggestions, at most a revert restriction would be in order.
- I had never interacted with Mongo as far as I know until he started lobbing personal attacks at me due to his political affiliation, apparently. Moreover, I have never been uncivil toward him. Accordingly, I don't believe that an IBAN (at least a 2-way IBAN) would be in order, or even necessary, as it wouldn't benefit the encyclopedia.
- I would not object to an IBAN with Xenophrenic, on the other hand, though he has stopped editing the Harris article.
- It bears noting that Collect was topic banned for a large number of egregious offenses, and the proposals to topic ban Mongo and me are based on evidence that would not even be sanctioned at AN/I, let alone merit arbitration.
- Harris article
- In fact, I filed two An/I threads and a request for arbitration about the Harris case, all of which resulted in no action, yet there are three diffs related to that article cited as misconduct by me.
- The first diff should probably have been used in an FoF against Xenophrenic for misrepresenting sources, falsely invoking Godwin's law, crying BLP, failing to respond to the query about competence and the statements of LM2000 and Jweiss11 (violating WP:TALK), etc. Xenophrenic was obstructive on every aspect related to American politics in that article, and while there are three diffs in the FoF on me, there is no FoF on Xenophrenic. This was a comment made after having already filed one (or both) AN/I reports regarding Xenophrenic's conduct, and before filing the related request for arbitration, which NativeForeigner invited me to bring back to Arbcom should the problems continue.
- The second diff is not a diff but a link to a section from an AN/I thread addressing misconduct. It is not clear what I'm being accused of here, and once more, no action resulted from the report.
- The third diff is another link to a section on the Talk page related to readability, where Collect pretended not to read what I wrote and responded to a non-point (violating WP:TALK), and Xenophrenic is called out for falsely invoking Godwin's law, which has consistently met with absolutely no repercussions.
@NativeForeigner: Am I to understand that you drafted this FoF? Do you recall the request for arbitration I filed regarding the Harris article? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I did most of the drafting of the FoF about you. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: OK. I see the note that you were taking over the drafting from a few days ago, which makes me wonder how much of the relevant material you were able to read beforehand.
- First and foremost at issue is the request for arbitration regarding the Sam Harris article that I filed a month before the case request against Collect was filed. NativeaForeigner's last comment is here.
- It might appear that the tone of my comments in the diffs you posted in the FoF are too brusque, but the background to that article involves three separate filings related to conduct matter, primarily focused on Xenophrenic, but also Collect.
- At the top of my statement in the arbitration request I linked to two AN/I threads, one BLP/N thread and two RFCs. Together with the Talk page and article itself, that represents a substantial amount of material detailing various forms of tendentious editing on an article in which I was virtually the sole editor trying to incorporate scholarly RS to balance the POV unduly self-serving self-published statements (eventually removed en mass). There were also a couple of SPAs at the article, and the diff to the AN/I discussion addresses contradictory edits by one who subsequently edited in a more consistent manner (after I'd queried him on their Talk page[12], etc.). The editors that had bloated the article with unduly self-serving promotional statements Harris posted on his blog were obviously engaged in ADVOCACY, and another editor engaged in content disputes with me has subsequently removed similar from the The Moral Landscape article.
- I managed to improve that pathetic promotional screed of an article to a substantial degree, though it still needs much more work.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
arbitrary break
@DGG: That's an interesting take on things, but seems problematic insofar as the case request was focused solely on Collect. I don't recall that there was any evidence presented against anyone other than Collect.
In other words, the case against Collect was the only business that the community brought to Arbcom; meanwhile, EvergreenFir's proposal, which I'd supported, was ignored, as were my protestations, so I tend to think that Rich Farmbrough's comment is somewhat enlightening and spot on.
While I appreciate your admitting, in retrospect, that this case wasn't necessary, as a result, an FoF has been presented against me that includes three diffs (two of which are links to threads) related to the Harris article and AN/I pertaining to conduct there (which resulted in no action by the community) that I consider to be somewhat nebulous, particularly in light of the related dispute resolution steps initiated by me with little effect, and which, again, stem from a request for arbitration I submitted in relation to that material that was was declined.
Meanwhile, the most egregious evidence in the for of diffs of blatant personal attacks by Mongo against me at the Robert Kagan talk page, which were presented by two different editors, have been utterly ignored. I'd like to query Guerillero about the rationale for that. Those diffs are far stronger than anything you put in the FoF against me, though that FoF has garnered a number of supporting votes. There was actually more misconduct by Mongo across a wider swath of articles/ and user talk pages, yet half of the evidence against him has been ignored. Let me just say in advance that this is a challenge to you, because there is no justification for it, as far as I can tell. Maybe you'll be able to convince me otherwise.
While I appreciate that Mongo has been more apologetic than me, I really don't feel that I have much to apologize for in relation to the FoF, for the above reasons. The fact that Mongo is being apologetic is not a reason why he should be treated less harshly than me, even though I don't believe that either of us have committed offenses anywhere near the offenses by Collect that resulted in the initial request.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Revised PD Date
Sorry, a couple drafters have been busy, I've had a nasty stomach flu. Regardless I have a rough draft set up. Upon being reviewed by the other drafters, I'd expect a full PD out by this weekend. Apologies for the delay. NativeForeigner Talk 09:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Casprings
But content disputes are now happening to one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia, United States. Many similar faces and such. Casprings (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this question, but I haven't participated at ARBCOM before. I've been following this case, and been wondering whether it's still active. Nobody seems to have edited any of its subpages in more than a week. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, the arbitrators have definitely not forgotten the case or anything, just real life things have unfortunately come up. Thanks for the inquiry. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Real life is, well, real. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- DHeyward, such a restrictions does not seem workable to me, because what constitutes positive and negative material is highly dependent on personal POV. "Socialist" is mildly offensive to a democrat, the worst insult imaginable to a republican, and a term of pride for the few socialist politicians (which certainly exist). "climate change denier" is seen as negative; but "climate change believer" is seen as equally negative by other people. No, the way forward is what it has always been, iron-clad adherence to the RS and WP:DUE, without trying to "balance" source POV by cherry-picking sources from "opposite" political views. If editors are unable to do so, they need to be separated from the topic, or at least from each other. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- DHeyward, I can see where you are coming from, but I'm not certain I agree. Yes, the locus of the dispute is about the interpretations of WP:DUE and WP:RS, and a couple of others; but a fair amount of the dispute that I have witnessed (to be certain, I've only been here a couple of years) has been about a) labels and b) whether "negative" material is relevant. To me, your proposal does not address either of these, because a) a statements such as "X does not believe in anthropogenic climate change" is considered negative by some people and positive by others and b) by saying that we will require you to "write for the enemy," we are likely to head towards far more white-washed articles than we already have, and we already have too much white-washing. I think a 1RR restriction or something similar would work far better, and general discretionary sanctions are certainly warranted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by RightCowLeftCoast
Due to the lack of the majority of editors involved in this arbitration in the evidence portion, and the lack of participation by the arbitors in the workshop section, why should any ruling be created from this case? Perhaps it is best to just close the case without any action taken.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to raise concern with the statement made in "3.1.6 Neutrality and sources". I believe I understand the reasoning behind this, however IMHO this might backfire, as it might be not keeping with WP:BIASED. It also might be used to invalidate the reliability of sources that some editors may not agree with such as Huffington Post, Breitbart, The Daily Beast, Salon, Washington Free Beacon, etc.
On Discretionary Sanctions, reading it. It appears to be a tool to be feared, especially given that topic banning (or total blocking (up to a year)) some editors for a year, while not banning others may lead to imbalance in articles given that some editors may prefer certain sources over others, leading to a good faith unintentional bias to be built up reflecting those sources. Perhaps a better process maybe to create a fast tract to a binding mediated dispute resolution process.
Perhaps it may become due to some editors and admins assuming bad faith of certain editors or groups of editors (which has caused WP:RIGHT for instance to wither on the vine, while WP:SOCIALISM has remained strong and active). If this is the feeling of some editors and admins it is hard for editing to be done in a "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect". I may disagree with others politics, when editing articles related to politics, but that does not mean that I don't believe that they are coming from a point of view where they believe that they are doing what is best for the project. Even if that point of view means that they have bad faith of my edits because I do not share their political opinions.
As shown by a study discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship, while some articles maintain a liberal bias coming from earlier days of Wikipedia, more active editors lead to more neutral articles, which IMHO is what we should all be striving for, especially in the subject being discussed in this arbitration. If we the community create an atmosphere for new editors that favor new editors of a certain political leaning than another, it will lead to a perhaps unintentional move towards an ingrained bias in the project.
Perhaps to attract new editors, especially those interested in articles within the subject of this arbitration, a guide could be written, teaching these new editors the rules of the road. This way they don't quickly become involved in edit warring and incivility. They learn how to utilize dispute resolution processes, and become well meaning, constructive, mature editors overtime gaining experience.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by EvergreenFir
Separating from RightCowLeftCoast's section per instructions. Sorry about that.
I have to agree at this [RightCowLeftCoast's] point. Just close without action. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Given MONGO's comment above ([13]), remedy 3.4 seems like the most severe any remedy should go. Restricting MONGO from editing in areas they have demonstrated much effort and ability in (e.g., glaciers) does not seem like a fair solution. Though I do wonder about the 9/11 stuff given some of the behavior at the American Sniper page. Moreover, as MONGO mentioned, they do not have the same history as in arb cases as Ubikwit, so I wonder if equally harsh remedies are called for. I honestly don't know about their behavior on the Collect case or other things that might inform such a decision, but just from this evidence it would seem like there is less history here. If the arbs think that MONGO needs a mandatory "break" from political pages to prevent some of their passionate stances from becoming disruptive, then the narrow scope of 3.4 achieves that without unduly restricting their other productive editing as far as I can tell. As I don't know much about Ubikwit, I won't comment on their remedies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @NativeForeigner: - Thanks for commenting. I trust the arbs have spent a lot more time reviewing the evidence, accounting for past behavior, and considering past precedent than I have. I trust they will make a reasoned decision. Just wanted to add my partially-informed opinion. Thank you! Also I have to laugh at
wasn't a party to tea party
. Just humorous wording EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @NativeForeigner: - Thanks for commenting. I trust the arbs have spent a lot more time reviewing the evidence, accounting for past behavior, and considering past precedent than I have. I trust they will make a reasoned decision. Just wanted to add my partially-informed opinion. Thank you! Also I have to laugh at
Proposed decision date
The PD date of this case has been adjusted to May 31, 2015. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have taken over the drafting and we will 100% hit that date --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Working with Tom on this. We will definitely have it out in the next 24 hours. He's posting the principles right now, and as soon as we have an improved scope for a couple topic bans we will be proposing, the findings of fact and remedies will be posted. NativeForeigner Talk 02:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- We have everything up. If any users have feedback regarding the scope of the topic bans or discretionary sanctions feel free to comment here. We will try to be as responsive as possible. NativeForeigner Talk 03:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- And on a purely personal level I'd like to apologize for the amount of delay. It is largely my fault, and I apologize for any issues it may have caused (ie the issues on United States.) NativeForeigner Talk 03:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Although it definitely seems that we are drawing equivalence between these two users (Mongo, ubikwit) I don't think that their behavior was identical. I think it was similar (incivility, prodding at times). One way to deal with this would be to simply iban the users. But with both users in the area, and with the issues not being strictly bilateral I was concerned that would be inadequate. Largely behavior has continued from Tea Party (2013) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Ubikwit. The number of voices objecting is certainly something I'm considering, I've read all the concerns on this page. Regardless we've drafted something which we thought would have a good chance at passing, and some concerns were raised that it was potentially not strong enough (see addition of full ban for ubikwit.) NativeForeigner Talk 08:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Short Brigade Harvester Boris: I'm not happy with the closely broadly wording. I don't think anyone particularly is. If anyone here has any suggestions, they will definitely be considered. NativeForeigner Talk 08:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: Yes, I'm aware Mongo wasn't a party to tea party. I am aware of the parties involved in the United States dispute, the decision does nothing to directly involved parties, but DS in the area could have been applied, potentially. (Although I'm not sure they would in the formulation we have presented) This case dragging on so long did nobody any good. I'm on mobile, but if I did say mongo was a party, I meant Ubikwit. I'll look into the Kagan stuff at earliest convenience, but I don't believe that was used in any findings of fact. As for why it wasn't dealt with in Collect? That was split off, and quite frankly it shouldn't have been in retrospect. The evidence provided wasn't focused on the same disputes as I would have expected from the Collect request, and as we saw this case had a lot less community interest/community contributions in the workshop phase. Again, we should have posted in workshop, but what's done is done. I can see your concerns about the false equivalence, severity wasn't equivalent. I suppose we could modify the decision with adjectives describing hte exact severity, but at the end of the day when we were drafting it was generally concluded that a topic ban for both should at least be on the table. NativeForeigner Talk 10:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Tom harrison: We did discuss an iban but thought it wouldn't be adequately strong. Were you thinking about a two way iban between them, or something more specialized than that? NativeForeigner Talk 10:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have taken over the drafting and we will 100% hit that date --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Typo?
Finding 2, last sentence, is there a "not" missing (or equivalently, should "effective" read "ineffective"?)? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed, I think. NF and I were trying to use the word ineffective --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tom Harrison
Topic-banning Mongo and Ubikwit for, essentially, mutual incivility in articles about contemporary politics, seems disproportionate to the offense. It's also likely to further discourage experienced editors from contributing in difficult topic areas. Something narrower and more specifically tailored to the offense might lead to better work in the area. Tom Harrison Talk 11:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner: If not only that, something narrowly tailored (I share Boris' view about "broadly construed"); restrictions on reverting for edit-warring, with an interaction ban for chronic incivility. These are likely to be effective, while not discouraging experienced editors from working on controversial pages and BLPs. Tom Harrison Talk 12:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by BusterD
The dearth of participation in this process demonstrates that few agree with the value of such arbitration. Strong agreement with Tom Harrison. Wikipedians' disagreements are by their nature adversarial and sometimes, unfortunately, lack civility. IMHO Mongo and Ubikwit are hardly the most uncivil offenders in the arena of American politics. The evidence against them is below the threshold for administrative action, much less arbitration. I urge Arbitrators to vote against remedies presented. Admonishment is the most drastic remedy I recommend be applied. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for not making a statement in my own subsection. I am unused to making statements in this sort of process. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support for MONGO's statement of 01:55, 2 June 2015. BusterD (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate that arbitrators are considering options after reading comments from editors on the left, right, and uninvolved. It's rare that so many people who frequently disagree can come together on these issues. Whatever the outcome, I'm appreciative of the consideration arbs seem to be giving comments on this talkpage. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support for MONGO's statement of 01:55, 2 June 2015. BusterD (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
I agree broadly with Tom Harrison, BusterD, DHeyward (mark your calendar, as this doesn't happen often) and RightCowLeftCoast (indeed -- a double red-letter day). The discretionary sanctions are OK but the topic bans are excessive.
If you carry through with the sanctions then for goodness sake delete the "broadly construed" language, which historically has led to confusion. (One of the arbs already has commented on verbal pushmi-pullyu of "closely related...broadly construed.") The admins at WP:AE have a hard enough time already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: Speaking as someone whose politics are generally on the other side of MONGO's I can personally verify his description of his participation in climate-related articles. (Disclosure, my employment is within that subject area.) We need more people who are willing to reach across the aisle on topics like this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Native Foreigner Just drop "broadly construed" and say what you mean in plain, simple language. "Broadly construed" has turned into one of those legalese phrases that makes people's eyes glaze over. Try something like "any topic related in any way to American Politics since 1933," or whatever it is that you actually intend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Scope of sanctions/topic bans
There has been a lot of criticism about the various proposed scopes of the topic bans/discretionary sanctions, including the "broadly construed" language (either generally or in combination with the "closely related" phrase), however there has been a distinct lack of alternatives put forward.
The piecemeal approach to sanction areas (climate change, Tea Party, etc) has just seen the substandard behaviour move onto a different topic. The shortcut route to approving DS for specific areas tried last time has not worked either. Stopping this cycle is in everybody's benefit, so we need to find a scope that is broad enough to stop the problems but not overbroad so as to avoid unnecessary chilling effects. If you don't think any of the proposals made so far fit that bill then you need to help us find an alternative. Leaving things as they are is not a viable option. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- If there are editors who have moved between sub-topics of American politics, exhibiting the same problem behaviour, then by all means extend the topic scope applying to them. They may, of course then move on to British politics...
- However it would seem overkill to use this broad brush approach on "first timers".
- As to other proposals:
- 0RR/1RR
- May contribute to talk page only
- May make no more than one post per talk page section, and may not start sections.
- Is placed on an interaction ban with <foo>
- Is reminded to comment on content, not on editors.
- You might also consider asking the named parties what restrictions they would volunteer to place on themselves, to reduce or end the disruption.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions suggestion
It seems like some of these proposals might fail because the cut-off year can't be settled upon. Any thought to simply say, 20th century and 21st century? I'll admit it's just as arbitrary as 1933 or 1980 but it's clear, not too recent, not too much ancient history. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that American politics and history do not cleanly break along easy lines like that. Neither 1933 nor 1980 are arbitrary dates. They are the starting years of major eras in political history. I think that these are our choices in dates: 1607, 1776, 1792, 1828, 1854, 1896, 1933, 1952, 1968, or 1980. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking about the logistics of enforcing a topic ban based on a specific year as well as the prospect of getting a consensus of arbitrators to agree on a target year. I wasn't thinking of historical eras since this topic ban is about politics, not history. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the smaller scope would have the support of those arguing for a larger scope, so finding consensus should be fairly trivial. As to what the date should be, learned arguments are probably unnecessary, the evidence should show where the problems arise: in general the significant arguments I have seen, separate from the case, rarely go back more than a few years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC).
Sua sponte matters
It has been a matter of some concern, over the years, where various committees have taken sua sponte decisions on various matters. These actions are probably ultra vires and usurp the normal community processes.
Moreover they have divisive and often counter productive results, they deny the community the ability to reach a more productive conclusion, they create a chilled environment and they build concern over the unfettered exercise of power.
In this particular case, both the arbitrary decision to make all editors commenting parties to the case, and the decision to create two cases out of one, were unprecedented and severely worrying (though the sua sponte addition of a single party to, IIRC, the GGTF case was a hint that worse was to come).
Effectively this case is being brought by the Committee, and being judged by the Committee. As has been remarked above, the parties to the case let alone the community at large seem uninterested, though they have made the effort to robustly put their cases in the evidence phase.
It is questionable whether any useful ends are served by sanctioning parties to this case, and certainly in this way. I would endorse those above who suggest that the best way forward might be to close the case completely. Alternatively admonishments and reminders proved a way for the committee to express the established community views on the appropriate ways handling of disputes.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC).
- as I understand what we did in the committee, we split the cases because we thought that the evidence case would be much more extensive and involve many more parties than in fact it turned out. In retrospect, it was unnecessary. Once that became clear, we did consider merging them back together again, but decided it would would have caused even greater confusion. I don't see how any decisions such as this can possibly be called ultra vires -- they involved not policy, but internal matters of case management. Similarly, it would be very odd if we did not make such decisions involving the handling of a case sua sponte-- they concern our own procedures, & it is our own responsibility to figure out how to transact the business the community sends us.
- as for whether any useful ends will be served by sanctioning, the opinion of the majority of the committee is not yet evidence, but it is obvious that, as usual, various of us have various opinions. As I see it, that's the purpose of having a large committee and voting independently--it avoids group-think as much as any formal procedure can. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Effectively the naming of additional parties, and the creation of additional cases is transacting business that the community has not sent you. Another disgraceful example was the banning of Betacommand by motion. It is arguably fine line between procedural and substantive matters, but these three cases the line has not merely been crossed but clearly and definitively been crossed. There are many other less obviously egregious examples where remedies far more sweeping than the original dispute have been imposed, effectively amounting to policy creation which is specifically excluded from the remit of the committee. While this type of abrogation of power is not unusual (see SCOTUS, for example) it remains wrong.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC).