Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles closed

Original announcement

KalHolmann

On July 23, 2018, User:BU Rob13 replied to my renewed Request for Evidence of my Offenses: "I have seen this and we will respond by email when time permits. I've been rather busy the last couple days, so I haven't yet collected the diffs for you." The case is now closed, and I am formally restricted, yet I have received no such evidence. KalHolmann (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You asked for evidence of your own actions on our case pages for an appeal. This is busy work, since you know exactly what you did on our case pages, but I will do it anyway. You may not appeal for six months, so I haven’t exactly prioritized it. I will send you the diffs by the end of the week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

On 26 July 2018, User:Cameron11598 identified my restriction by the Arbitration Committee as a "Topic ban." On 28 July 2018, I requested clarification at the Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions page. "Please specify," I asked politely, "what topic ArbCom has banned me from." Five minutes later, User:Bbb23 reverted my request, with the snarky admonition in his edit summary, "If you can't read, then don't edit Wikipedia." I therefore request that ArbCom itself answer my question. What topic have you banned me from? As I understand it, my restriction is different from a topic ban. If so, please advise Cameron11598 to correct his mistake. KalHolmann (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, I've changed the label to "editing restriction". It really doesn't make the slightest difference what it's referred to on that page as, there's no official taxonomy of what is called what. What matters is the actual behavior that you're banned from. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos, in your edit summary you say, "Let's call it an editing restriction then, it changes nothing." In that case, why change it? If my restriction is equivalent to a topic ban, ArbCom should call it a topic ban. Yet note that in ArbCom's Proposed decision, the list of Proposed remedies includes 3.3.2 Philip Cross topic banned followed immediately by 3.3.3 KalHolmann restricted. Using two separate terms is confusing. KalHolmann (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I changed it at your request because it seems to be causing you significant confusion. Hopefully some of that confusion has now abated. Again, it really does not matter what it was listed as by a clerk on an archive of editing restrictions, what is actually relevant is the wording of what you are restricted from doing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello All, just wanted to appologize for any conufsion I may have inadvertantly caused. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Premeditated Chaos - "Oh for the love of god" moves you to a total loss of mature authoritive response to a simple question from a user that you are supposed to be uninvolved clerking with. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In context, I think that choice of words was not that bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) KalHolmann's attitude throughout the majority of this case has been to push boundaries, claim persecution, and otherwise frustrate the process. For him to now claim that he doesn't know what he's restricted from because it was inadvertently labelled as a "topic ban" instead of an "editing restriction" on a list of things people are restricted from, despite the fact that the rest of the entry did not in any way alter the wording of the restriction as passed in the case, is absolutely pushing the limits of credulity, so yes, I lost my patience somewhat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not complain because it's typical of the arrogance and condescension that Wikipedia administrators have shown towards me. See above, for instance, where User:Bbb23 told me, "If you can't read, then don't edit Wikipedia." Why single out User:Premeditated Chaos? KalHolmann (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Premeditated Chaos "I lost my patience somewhat" - yes you did, you became involved and your responsibilty in this situation is to remain uninvolved. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to invoke WP:INVOLVED, that policy deals with taking administrative actions during a conflict you are personally involved in. I haven't taken any administrative actions against KalHolmann. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I consider Premeditated Chaos's response in this situation to be measured and proportional to the level of ridiculousness that was occurring. She is certainly not INVOLVED here and I think both she and BU Rob13 both deserve a lot of credit for drafting one of the clearest proposed decisions from the committee in a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Via email, User:BU Rob13 has clarified the terms of ArbCom's sanction against me. He sent me what he called "a non-exhaustive list of the evidence that led to your sanction. It includes everything we would list in the finding of fact if not for the potential privacy concerns involved. After a review, I cannot provide diffs for most of this, as the content has been revision deleted and is not accessible to non-administrators." He did convey six external links, four of which were to tweets by Philip Cross's acknowledged Twitter account and the other two to an independent website that blogged about this case. I had included these, he advised, in two separate submissions of evidence "contrary to instructions to email off-wiki material to the Arbitration Committee." He also conveyed one internal link to something I posted on my user page "after we had requested its removal, still containing numerous external links to off-wiki material."

I said I understood that under the terms of my sanction, I am forbidden from posting these links at Wikipedia. However, I said I needed help in grasping the off-wiki ramifications to comply with ArbCom's terms. Would it, I asked, likewise violate my ArbCom sanction if I were to post these same links off-wiki via my Twitter account? And would it violate my ArbCom sanction if I were to retweet (RT) tweets from other accounts containing these or similar links?

He replied that ArbCom cannot restrict my off-wiki behavior directly. Nevertheless, he added, "off-wiki behavior may speak to whether a sanction remains necessary, so your appeal could be affected." In other words, ArbCom is restricting my off-wiki behavior indirectly. The bottom line, as it relates to my status as a Wikipedia editor, is that my off-wiki behavior is subject to indefinite ArbCom scrutiny.

He further replied, "You are free to do whatever you like off-wiki, provided it's legal, I suppose. You are not necessarily free to continue editing Wikipedia unrestricted if what you do off-wiki is incompatible with doing so."

I realize everyone at Wikipedia believes the terms of my ArbCom sanction are so utterly simple and crystal clear that a child could understand them. But I honestly did not appreciate the extent of ArbCom's off-wiki reach, and am grateful for BU Rob13's assistance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cc: User:Alex Shih, User:Callanecc, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:KrakatoaKatie, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Opabinia regalis, User:Premeditated Chaos, User:RickinBaltimore, User:DeltaQuad, User:Euryalus, User:Ks0stm, User:Mkdw, User:Worm That Turned

ArbCom is restricting my off-wiki behavior indirectly. The bottom line, as it relates to my status as a Wikipedia editor, is that my off-wiki behavior is subject to indefinite ArbCom scrutiny - this is right in line with Principles 4, 5, and 6 of the decision, and it applies to you and anyone else just as much as it applies to Philip Cross. Let's flip this example around: if Philip Cross appealed his TBAN six months from now but was still participating in off-wiki disputes with Mr. Galloway or other BLP subjects, we would take that behavior into account when making our decision about whether or not to lift the appeal. We can't tell him directly what to do with his Twitter, but we can affirm that certain behaviors off-wiki have consequences when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. In the same vein, we can't tell you what to do with your Twitter, but we can affirm that off-wiki behavior may have on-wiki consequences. If you're arguing that we can't take your off-wiki behavior into account if you appeal, then you're also arguing that we can't scrutinize Philip Cross' off-wiki behavior if he appeals. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos, you're drawing a false equivalence between the gravity of Philip Cross's offenses and mine. I absolutely reject that interpretation. Cross damaged Wikipedia's reputation. I did not. KalHolmann (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly attempted to subvert restrictions placed during the case designed to prevent outing and off-wiki harassment campaigns. That is quite damaging. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. It might be personally unpleasant for Cross, but it is not 'damaging' in any way to either ENWP or Cross themselves to link to publically available information. Especially since it was a result of his own actions in using Wikipedia as a tool for his conflict with article subjects. Hence the 'false equivalence' accusation. If you want punish KalHolmann for breaking wiki-rules thats fine, but dont pretend there is any real comparison between the two, given the harm that is caused by editors who abuse the shield of WP:OUTING in order to harrass others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making comparisons of how damaging either action was. I am stating that an editor repeatedly pushing the boundaries of rules set up to prevent outing and harassment has a chilling effect on all contributions editors make on the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

So now I'm guilty of having a chilling effect on all contributions editors make on Wikipedia. This case is supposedly closed, yet the charges against me keep piling up like garbage on a city street during a sanitation workers strike. KalHolmann (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how a discussion, prompted by you, of why your past behavior was undesirable constitutes some kind of "new charges". I'll also reiterate, once again, that we are not a court and we don't lay "charges". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, I know that ArbCom is not a court. Please stop treating me like an infant. KalHolmann (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Then don’t use courtroom language. We’re going to correct you when you misstate something about the arbitration process not because we believe you have a genuine or reasonable confusion about the process but so you cannot prompt genuine and reasonable confusion in others. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Update re Twitter. Today at 13:31 UTC @fivefilters tweeted: "#Wikipedia bans agenda-driven editor Philip Cross from British politics, but punishes the messenger too," and embedded a link to FiveFilters.org's blog on this topic. I have retweeted their tweet but shall refrain from linking to it at Wikipedia. If this violates the terms of ArbCom's indefinite restriction, please advise and I will remove my RT immediately. KalHolmann (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Others

Apologies if this is obvious to anyone paying attention -- I've not been reading the case. In "he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia", does this mean that future off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions, or does it mean that any future adverse impact may lead to further sanctions even if it stems from behavior that happened before the case? MPS1992 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Context suggests the former interpretation – the intent seems to be making it clear that even off-wiki behavior can lead to sanctions if it has adverse impacts on enwp. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both -- I had suspected that to be the more likely meaning, but am now reassured that indeed it is. The sky has turned a strange color, perhaps this happens whenever an arbitration case closes. MPS1992 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Have not been following the case, but the results look pretty funky to me. There are five findings of fact related to Philip Cross, none of which should a priori lead to sanctions (in fact #5 is even clearly a positive). Why the strong language in the remedies then? #1 and #3 in the remedies are also weird, since both "sanctions" should already apply to everyone. Not saying the remedies are wrong, but it sure seems to me like the reasons for imposing those remedies are not clearly given. Banedon (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, I stayed away from this case as the off-WP stuff was too dicey for me, given my history. I have a question about Finding of fact #2: Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics.. I am asking the following question carefully. Is the stated COI here: a) the public disputes on social media (per WP:BLPCOI) or b) some other external relationship that was disclosed on-WP or c) some other external relationship that was disclosed privately? I recognize it might be some combination of these. I felt like the original complaints about PC were "cry COI" and it would be useful to have a clear view of the nature of the COI that Arbcom is defining here. Based on the choice of the verb "demonstrated" I am guessing that the answer is (a) only, but I wanted to confirm. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a) and only a). Cross's behavior crossed over into COI territory when he engaged in a sustained personalized dispute with the subject of a BLP which he was actively editing. As mentioned in some of the other FoFs, there was no indication of any collusion on Cross' part with any other person or entity, paid or otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably far too late but that FoF would be much more useful for future citing if "per WP:BLPCOI" were added to the end. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

General comment

There were a lot of questionable proposals and recommendations made during the Workshop phase. Arbcom did a really good job separating the wheat from the chaff and crafting an appropriate Final decision. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)