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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Jurisdiction[edit]

2) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. This is a restatement of WP:ARBPOL. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We focus primarily upon editors' conduct on the English Wikipedia. The conduct of editors elsewhere can be considered when it has an unjustifiable, direct, negative impact on English Wikipedia. Misconduct by non-editors is not something we can remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Noting of course, per NYB, that we can take notice of conduct elsewhere as it relates to an editor's onwiki conduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As with NYB, though I regard the omission of that in the statement as a reason to abstain.. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With NYB as well, and abstaining per DGG over the matter of consistency. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
DGG, the omission of which part? That we can't remedy misconduct by non-editors, or that we can take notice of off-wiki behavior that has an on-wiki impact? Because if it's the second part, I think Principle 4 covers that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
for the 1st, we can't directly remedy, but we can advise the WMF etc. for the 2nd pt, prin.4 does cover it, and this should read consistently. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could add something about referring really egregious conduct to the WMF, but that doesn't really change the fact that our jurisdiction as ArbCom is strictly limited to the conduct of editors on the English Wikipedia, per WP:ARBPOL. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way the WMF would have stepped into this matter, which was an issue with content creation, so what's the relevance of including that? ~ Rob13Talk 00:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the Committee[edit]

3) It is within the scope of the Arbitration Committee to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons.

Support:
  1. This is a restatement of WP:ARBPOL. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As appropriate, such matters can also be brought to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could do with the starting phrase "Where appropriate," but otherwise true enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Off-wiki conduct[edit]

4) The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Support:
  1. This is a restatement of WP:ARBPOL. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the understanding that we are discussing seriously problematic conduct elsewhere, not legitimate criticism or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Brad. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Scrutiny for off-wiki behavior[edit]

5) Editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. But see the reminder in the remedies section for how to go about handling concerns about editor conduct related to off-wiki behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same comment as #4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same comment as #4. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Jurisdiction (2)[edit]

6) While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes, restricting the behavior of users off-wiki is not within its remit.

Support:
  1. I see this as both a restatement of WP:ARBPOL and common sense. We have no means to enforce restrictions off-wiki, so of course we cannot place such restrictions. We could potentially show someone the door on-wiki if their off-wiki activities are incompatible with editing Wikipedia. This is obvious in the most extreme cases (e.g. doxxing someone off-wiki would obviously lead to a block). ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rob has already summarized my thoughts on the matter quite neatly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To a point, we can still take note of conduct elsewhere and it clear that the behaviour elsewhere is inconsistent with editing Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As Rob says, we simply can't do it. But we can take it into account in our decisions and we can ifnorm editors of the on-wiki consquences of their off-wiki actions. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not quite clear on the wording objections - telling someone that they can either quit being a jerk on Other Website or get blocked here is not "restricting their behavior off-wiki". All we can do is restrict their behavior - or their ability to "behave" at all - on-wiki. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I cannot accept this until NYB's statement is added. (and the qualifications noted by other arbs here in their comments incorporated into the statement. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
This is true up to a point, but we can tell editor that they must stop engaging in seriously problematic conduct on another site (for example, conduct verging on threats or revealing editors' private information) if they wish to continue participating here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and I think the earlier principles about us taking off-wiki behavior into account when we deal with on-wiki situations encompasses that. I agree that we can tell someone they must choose between continuing abusive off-wiki behavior and continuing to participate on Wikipedia. I just don't think we can explicitly make a remedy that limits someone's off-wiki behavior (such as "Editor X must shut down their Instagram account"). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG again I think Principle 4 covers that: we can take notice if it has an on-wiki impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that #4 covers this. It's wording is therefore contradictory to the statement here unless some qualifier gets added here. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it's contradictory, per my comments above to Brad. We can take note of negative off-wiki behavior. We can make restrictions that take effect on-wiki in relation to such off-wiki behavior, in effect forcing them to choose between being blocked or behaving better. But we have no jurisdiction to issue a remedy that outright restricts anyone's off-wiki actions, and that is all the Principle is saying. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons[edit]

7) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Just noting that there are more expectations than just the linked pages of BLPs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This applies to biographical material on living people in any article, not just their biography. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Some editors consistently fail to recognize that this applies to all information about all living persons, whether it's in an article about that living person or not. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutrality in biographies of living persons[edit]

8) Material about living persons must be neutral with regards to the treatment of that person in reliable sources. It is expected that all content be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I would recommend rephrasing the last section: no one would expect that all BLPs must be "strictly positive"; what we would, and do, expect is that any negative content (and ideally all the comment) be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would also recommend rephrasing the last bit per NYB. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alex Shih (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as reworded. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As reworded. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As written, this still implies deference to them, and amounts to a statement that we will emphasize the positive aspects. All content must be scrupulously weighed--we have had problems with unjustifiable positive comment at least as much as negative. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC) changed to support DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:# Oppose per my comment below. ALL content should be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced. We don't want hagiographies either. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Tentative oppose. Deferring to the drafters to modify the wording per comments below. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Changed to support. Alex Shih (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I've expanded the last part per Brad's comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a final sentence that simply read "Content must be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced." Same editing rules apply for hagiographies and the airburshing of faults as for recitatons of perceived sins. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to use the word neutral in this way as in my experience it is often misunderstood. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As would I, and I'm pretty sure it's not just negative content that needs to be duly weighted. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with writing "all content be duly..." instead of "any negative content be duly...". We can't avoid referencing neutrality when the community policy is called "Neutral point of view". ~ Rob13Talk 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and changed it to "all". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing this as it only just occurred to me that "It need not be strictly positive" could be read as "normally BLPs would be strictly possible but there can be exceptions". Doug Weller talk 09:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doug, can we remove this clause? Understand the context, but BLP's need not be positive at all; they only need to be well-sourced and duly weighted. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done for expediency, but I still want to emphasize that BLPs don't have to be positive. That's what we were saying. ~ Rob13Talk 21:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article subjects[edit]

9) Wikipedia articles are collaboratively edited, and article subjects may not dictate content. Given the sensitive nature of biographies of living persons, the editing community should seriously consider any concerns raised by article subjects about the verifiability and neutrality of material about living persons. Article subjects with such concerns should present them through an appropriate avenue. They may direct concerns to the article's talk page, the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or to the Volunteer Response Team via email at info-en-q@wikimedia.org.

Support:
  1. Just to make clear the appropriate venue to direct such concerns. ~ Rob13Talk 16:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Article subjects may also raise concerns on the article talkpage or the BLP noticeboard, and in some instances this may be a more efficient way of addressing an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Noting per NYB, that subjects can also use onwiki methods (such as the article talk page or BLPN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But it needs rewriting to include the other forums mentioned by my colleagues. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As amended. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Needs to be rewritten to mention onwiki methods before I can support. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
agreed DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded a bit to make this slightly more concise. ~ Rob13Talk 19:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's better like that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest[edit]

10) Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs#Types of conflict of interest or bias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, but I think it's time we (the community) found something stronger than "strongly discouraged" How about "prohibited" , or "required to avoid" DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
DGG, I swiped the wording from WP:COI directly. I'm not sure we can outright say it's prohibited when that isn't reflected in policy/guidelines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we cannot alter it here. I've added a phrase to make it clear that "we" refers not to arb com, but to what It hink the community should consider doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes with article subjects[edit]

11) Negative feelings towards a subject do not necessarily render an editor unable to edit neutrally. However, engaging in a personalised dispute on a topic, particularly with the living subject of a biographical article, can be a form of negative conflict of interest.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now second choice to principle 11.1. ~ Rob13Talk 19:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Off-wiki controversies and biographical articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Can be" is probably more accurate than "is" in the final sentence. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think that 'negative' needs to be there, but okay. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Can we change this to "can be" rather than "is" and drop "negative"? Can be is a little too strong for me, and it's not necessarily a negative COI per the descriptions above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "can be" as two arbs have now suggested that. I've left "negative" in for now, to highlight that it's a bit different from the usual perception that a COI is positive (ie usually tied to affiliation or promotion). BU Rob13, thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
how about "negative or positive" ? DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would read that "engaging in a personalised dispute...can be a form of positive or negative conflict of interest" which doesn't make sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with “can be”. I think that’s how we had it originally. I think we should keep negative. We’re explicitly talking about disputes with an article subject, since those are relevant to this case. This is not exhaustive of ways in which one could have a conflict of interest. It is one specific (and rare) type of COI. ~ Rob13Talk 18:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki controversies and biographical material[edit]

11.1) An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest.

Support:
  1. Proposing as an alternative to principle 11, more closely mirroring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Off-wiki controversies and biographical articles. This is more concise and clear. First choice. ~ Rob13Talk 19:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. only choice.This is worded accurately. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support having changed the wording per User:BU Rob13. @Newyorkbrad, DGG, and RickinBaltimore: I hope you are happy with this. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as rewritten. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
This version feels more limited. It narrows the applicability specifically to biographical articles about the individual(s) someone has had a dispute with, but I think a dispute-related COI can have broader implications than that. For example, I think the argument could be made that if you engage in a personal dispute with a person, you may have a COI with regards to an organization they represent, their notable published works, bios of other people associated to them, etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could go with “biographical material” in the title and “articles related to that individual” in the text. If that’s preferable, feel free to change it. ~ Rob13Talk 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of arbitration[edit]

12) Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is relevant to explicitly confirm. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Needs to be said. Katietalk 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I agree, but can we reword somehow to note that not everything that can be located online is necessarily permissible as evidence? ~ Rob13Talk 07:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, it needs amending. I'm also not 100% clear what it means by limited to what can be located online. I can guess, but I'd like it made more specific. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also am concerned with the limit to online. We normally do not see material publlshed in print form, but we would take account of it. (looked at another way , the statement limited to what can be presented; on line is meaningless. Amything can be transcribed and presented online. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that part. They would at least have to present it online in order for us to consider it. I'm not about to give out my address to let people mail me stuff. ~ Rob13Talk 19:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

13) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflict of interest[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Added to make this explicit. We danced around this when writing the principles, but we should just come out and say it. ~ Rob13Talk 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Prior dispute resolution and topic ban[edit]

3) In a discussion at the Administrators’ noticeboard in May 2018, editors expressed significant concerns about the neutrality of Philip Cross’ edits to the George Galloway article. As a result of this discussion, Philip Cross was restricted from editing the George Galloway article directly. Subsequently, the neutrality of Philip Cross’ editing in the overall area of modern British politics was questioned.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC) \[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Just noting that I added a link specifically to the section which imposed the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of Philip Cross[edit]

4) Philip Cross was the subject of an intense campaign of harassment and intimidation both on-wiki and off-wiki during this case, including the creation of attack pages, efforts to obtain and reveal his personal details, and unsupported speculation that he is a state agent.

Support:
  1. With a note that some of the on- and off-wiki conduct directed at Philip Cross was truly deplorable. In some cases, it was potentially libelous. The most severe accusations surrounding Philip Cross were never found to have one iota of evidence supporting them. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cross was quite arguably in the wrong here, but the moral high horse being ridden by the so-called "opposition" has very short legs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. PMC puts it well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Alternate accounts[edit]

5) There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross has used alternate accounts or sockpuppets to edit or support his views on-wiki, nor that he has coordinated with any other editors, outside individuals, or organizations in his editing.

Support:
  1. This includes public and private evidence, and "no evidence" is meant in the broadest possible sense. Nothing concrete has even hinted at this as a possibility, despite speculation to the contrary. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Echo Rob. Some of the speculation on this point bordered on the absurd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No credible evidence presented as a part of this case, certainly. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I've added "outside individuals" to this finding of fact, since I saw at least one claim that we're explicitly dodging the non-existent evidence that Cross coordinated with a journalist (who is neither an editor nor an organization). That was obviously our intent, but pinging those who already voted anyway in case this changes anything for them. @Premeditated Chaos, Newyorkbrad, Callanecc, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, and DGG: ~ Rob13Talk 19:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to off-wiki evidence[edit]

6) KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persistently attempted to link to private and/or off-wiki evidence despite repeated instructions and warnings to submit such things privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 16:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Philip Cross warned[edit]

1) Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 16:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Although since this is not a typical COI situation, a more precise wording might be that he is to avoid editing articles as to which he is involved in personalized off-wiki controversies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Like NYB, I'm a little hesitant about the framing of "conflict of interest" when this is a fairly unusual case that is unlike most of the issues that fall into that already-fraught category. But "don't edit articles about people you're in a dispute with" ought to be common sense enough not to need all the clunky language and conceptual infrastructure about "COI management"... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Weak oppose. The first sentence is adequately covered by the following topic ban remedy; the second is a bit too open-ended. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Philip Cross topic banned[edit]

2) Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 16:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The topic restriction needs to be broader than just the single George Galloway article. I suspect it could be somewhat narrower than all post-1978 British politics, but no one seems to be advocating for such a version, and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to develop one myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
It's possible that this conflict of interest could have been managed from the start by avoiding just a subset of his topic area. At this point, Philip Cross' initial management of his conflict of interest was so poor that I think any editing within this broad topic area would bring intense scrutiny and suspicion, community outrage, and possibly even media coverage. This topic ban avoids even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In this case, that's badly needed. ~ Rob13Talk 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann restricted[edit]

3) KalHolmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. All appeals must be directed toward arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Note that this is more strict than the policy on outing. It forbids discussing even disclosed off-wiki activity, for instance. This is due to repeated boundary pushing. ~ Rob13Talk 07:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13, Premeditated Chaos, and Euryalus: Can we unlink the banning policy? This isn't clearly a "ban" so I'm concerned that linking to that policy has the potential to confuse things. Also noting that I added a sentence and appeal timelines consistent with the standard in ArbCom procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ Rob13Talk 07:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note that appeals should go to arbcom-l as part of this remedy. This is due to the nature of the behavior that led to the restriction. A discussion of off-wiki material will be required in any appeal, and that shouldn't appear on-wiki. ~ Rob13Talk 05:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

4) Topics related to post-1978 British politics, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. This was proposed in the Workshop, and the drafters felt it was worth a vote. I do not see sufficient evidence of widespread issues in this topic area to justify discretionary sanctions, however. ~ Rob13Talk 16:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I asked that this be included as it was floated at the Workshop with some apparent support, but I myself do not see the issues as being widespread enough to require discretionary sanctions to solve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not enough widespread disruption which the community has been unable to resolve that would warrant discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not widespread enough at present. Katietalk 16:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above and below, not necessary at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As stated above and below, there isn't a need just yet for DS to be implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Euryalus (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Are we sure that there are ongoing disputes on these articles to the extent that would warrant adding another broad area to those covered by DS, once the specific issue at the heart of this case is resolved? If, as the drafters indicate, this is not clear, I too would oppose this, but I'll keep my eyes open for any comments on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worth noting that Brexit is making this topic area more contentious, but I consider that somewhat outside the scope of this case. I consider my opposition to be without prejudice against the community enacting general sanctions in the future if the disruption picks up (or, theoretically, the Committee enacting discretionary sanctions). I just don’t see evidence in the previous phases of this case to support sanctions this broad right this moment. ~ Rob13Talk 07:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a problem with the mainstream parties, but a considerable problem with all the little right-wing groups whose supporters are continually trying to "improve" their articles with IPs and SPAs. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has the community proven unable to deal with that, though? The reason the community couldn't resolve this case was because of off-wiki components unique to the Philip Cross situation. We shouldn't take a sledgehammer to the topic area over a very unique situation unlikely to be repeated if they've been adequately dealing with everything else. ~ Rob13Talk 19:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone who edits in the area who agree that it needs attention rather than being handled article by article, but we don't have evidence or a FoF for this so we can't have a remedy. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community reminded[edit]

5) The community is reminded that publicly posting details or speculation regarding an editor’s personal information or off-wiki behavior violates the policy on outing, unless the information has been disclosed on-wiki by the editor in question. Concerns regarding off-wiki behavior are best reported through an appropriate private channel rather than on community noticeboards.

Support:
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 16:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As this Committee has repeatedly observed since the days of Fred Bauder, there are inherent tensions between our policies allowing anonymous editing but discouraging conflicts of interest. The remedy correctly describes how one aspect of that tension is resolved. As a matter of drafting style, I wouldn't address a "reminder" finding to the entire community, but I am probably idiosyncratic in my thoughts about the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not convinced of the value of this kind of general reminder; but it does no harm to re-emphasise this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@Newyorkbrad: I'm sure both PMC and I would agree that you're the superior drafter, so I'm very open to a change in wording. I was a bit hesitant to remind the community about policy, since our policies derive their authority from community consensus, but no better wording popped out at me. I felt this was important enough to be an actual remedy rather than simply a principle. ~ Rob13Talk 20:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it to “Editors are reminded” would be preferable in my view. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC) by Newyorkbrad.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Jurisdiction 10 0 2 PASSING ·
3 Scope of the Committee 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Off-wiki conduct 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Scrutiny for off-wiki behavior 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Jurisdiction (2) 10 0 1 PASSING ·
7 Biographies of living persons 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Neutrality in biographies of living persons 11 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Article subjects 11 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Conflicts of interest 12 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Disputes with article subjects 9 0 0 NOT PASSING · 11.1 passing as first choice
11.1 Off-wiki controversies and biographical material 10 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Limitations of arbitration 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict of interest 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Prior dispute resolution and topic ban 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Harassment of Philip Cross 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Alternate accounts 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Links to off-wiki evidence 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Philip Cross warned 10 1 0 PASSING ·
2 Philip Cross topic banned 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 KalHolmann restricted 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Discretionary sanctions 0 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 Community reminded 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Everything has been voted on, with everything but discretionary sanctions passing. Nothing left to do here. ~ Rob13Talk 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Katietalk 21:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 08:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Proposed_decision&oldid=852129051"