Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Clarification on existing restrictions between Parties

1) Please could the Arbs confirm that the existing set of restrictions (Per Ncmvocalist's Statement) remain in force until otherwise advised? Also, providing this is the case, should the policing of the restrictions remain with the existing sysops or should violations be reported to the Committee for consideration in an appropriate place in these proceedings?

The restrictions referred to above can be found here; Without prejudice to this ArbCom, I don't think the restriction wording is disputed, but it's application and the attempted resolutions at refining it. However, the clarification is for the wording as existing, and how it should be implemented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The parties seem to be in at least some dispute (whether justifiable or not I don't know yet) exactly what "the existing set of restrictions" is. Please post here what you understand them to be (or believe they should be), so I or another arbitrator can respond more directly, perhaps by proposing a temporary injunction for the duration of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction proposed on the /proposed decision page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If this is the wrong section, please could this be moved to the appropriate one. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Wording of restriction linked, per request of nyb. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Clarifying of proposed remedy

2) In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Proposed_decision#Abtract_restricted, is it possible to clearly define what is meant by "pages that Collectonian has recently edited"? When myself and the other involved administrators were attempting to craft a set of editing restrictions previously (I believe this is the right link), there was a lot of discussion (and not much success in defining) what "recently edited" meant, and I worry that unless that is clearly defined, it may be difficult to fairly enact the remedy. -- Natalya 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I was hoping that the prohibition against gaming the remedies, coupled with broad administrator discretion that applies in enforcing ArbCom decisions as well as the fact that Abtract should hopefully learn from the decision that his behavior has not been acceptable, would be sufficient guidance. I'd really rather not try to quantify "recently" in terms of a number of days, etc. To me, the real question is "is this an edit that Abtract might have made for a reason other than that he's following Collectonian around again?" If problems persist after the decision, of course, we could revisit the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That's a fair point - thank you for already having considered it. -- Natalya 11:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU

Proposed principles

Harassment

1) Harassment, per Wikipedia:Harassment, is the perception of the chilling effect of the actions of one party upon the recipient. Where a claim of harassment against a good faith editor is made it can be expected that that editor will withdraw the action, or rephrase it, or not repeat it. Rebutting the claim of harassment, or arguing the action is permissible (for whatever reason), is inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I fear that this may be a bit overstated. There can be such a thing as an incorrect claim of harassment. I think what you have in mind is probably closer to the "perceived harassment" principles in the Jim62sch case (or the trunctated version in the C68-FM-SV case). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In consideration that a claim of harassment had been made previously, and repeatedly, and was not given appropriate consideration or response by the other party, other than acknowledgement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:Abtract

1) Abtract has been actively editing Wikipedia since April/May 2006 and has just under 9000 edits, with around two thirds to mainspace. Abtract has (recently) been mainly active in maintaining Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages. Abtract's block log has four entries for harassment and one for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Background. Abtract has been a useful contributor in areas of Wikipedia, but has also been found previously to have violated policy and guidelines sufficiently to be sanctioned by being blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Collectonian

2) Collectonian has been actively editing Wikipedia since July 2007 - although sporadically since May 2006 with an earlier edit from February 2005 - and has over 47,000 edits, with over 22,000 to mainspace and just under 5,000 to project space. Collectonian has been mainly active in subjects relating to manga and anime. As well as articles, Collectonian is an active vandal fighter with over 250 reports to WP:AIV. Collectonian's block log has one entry for edit warring, and a number of "technical" blocks/unblocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Background, again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abtract has an adversarial response to complaints and warnings, and generally

3) Abtract's habitual response to a complaint or a warning is to confront the issuer, either with complaints against the other party(ies) involved or the competence of the issuer. Only in rare cases will Abtract acknowledge their part in the matter, or admit being in error. Abtract's interaction with others is often adversarial, although he is capable of acting collegiately in some areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Abtract does have a tendency, on his talkpage and others, to appear to be taking "the other side" of a matter to the other party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Interpretation of restrictions

1) The restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome, and may be referred to ArbCom with a view of enacting further sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fair enough, but does not need to be expressly stated. Violations of the letter or spirit of restrictions, which cannot be dealt with adequately via arbitration enforcement, may always be brought back before us on a motion to clarify or modify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Taken from Newyorkbrad's wording on the Proposed decision page, with additional wording to make this a deterrence rather than articulating a desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Previous restrictions between Abtract and Collectonian only are deprecated

2) That these remedies supersedes the restrictions previously enforced between Abtract and Collectonian, and the temporary injunction based on the above restrictions detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Proposed decision#Continuation of temporary restrictions. The restrictions between Abtract and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) remain in place, although it is recognised that those parties have entered into a voluntary agreement by which they discuss areas of mutual concern and do not report each other for violations (those administrators previously recorded as "involved" are to remain avialable for consultation - but should refer any breakdown of the voluntary agreement for inclusion in these remedies per Proposed Remedy 3). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this needs to be express in the decision, but I endorse the statement that the decision in this case will supersede the current Abtract-Collectonian restrictions, but not the understanding between Abtract-Sesshomaru (about which relatively little evidence has been presented). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While any remedies adopted here will supersede the restriction previously existing between Abtract and Collectonian, and the temporay injuction, it should be recognised both that there were other parties subject to the restriction, and that there had been a working voluntary "suspension" of those restrictions between Abtract and Sesshomaru, and that the restriction/suspension between these parties continues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Other parties may apply to be named parties

3) Other contributors may apply to be subject to the same remedies in respect to interaction with Abtract. Applications, with such supporting evidence as required, should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee via Requests for arbitration or email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Should Abtract harass another editor as he has Collectonian (and arguably Sesshomaro, the matter should be addressed by administrators, with the added concern that the situation would have been chronic if there were a third or fourth editor Abtract harassed. The restrictions embodied in the decision could be used as guides. A new application to this committee would be in order, if administrators could not fully address the situation, but is not required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In view of the previous long winded and tendentious disputes between Abtract and other parties, allowance should be given to permitting the agreed remedies to be extended upon application to other contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abtract restricted

4) Abtract shall not:

(A) (per Proposed decision)
(B) Harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited (including the talkpage of a subject where Collectonian has recently edited the mainspace page - and vice versa); or
(C) (per Proposed decision)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a good clarification—but I don't necessarily want to build the negation of every wikilawyerish trick Abtract may have used to date into the decision. If anything, I'd like to see whether he is going to abide by the decision and leave Collectonian alone, or whether he is going to continue playing games. There should be very little tolerance for any additional game-playing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Another "tweak" in particular regard to actions previously taken by Abtract which comply with the letter but not the spirit of previous restrictions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: