WP:RFAR/OAW

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[edit]

Scope of case[edit]

1) Request to clarify and limit scope of case, and parties to the case. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see the scope of the case as the wider branch. It is on the conduct of Stevertigo's edits, but it is also on the obama articles and what has been going on there in general. Let me know if you need further clarification. I dropped the ball and forgot to note this here. Wizardman 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the wider scope was accepted by the community as well, per the acceptance statements and title of case. Wizardman 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Can we please get some clarification regarding which editors, actions, and subjects are under review, and for what? The bounds of the case have been proposed as narrowly as the behavior and treatment of a single editor[1] over the course of several days, to an examination without explicit time, subject matter, or other limits of the entire course of editing of Obama-related pages, a matter that would potentially involve 150 or more articles (Category:Barack Obama) and talk pages, hundreds of talk page articles, hundreds of editors working over the course of a year or more, and hundreds administrative actions having to do with WP:AN/I (and AN, 3RR, BLP/N, etc), sockpuppet reports, WP:AfD, article probation, etc. A wide-open mandate will allow every editor with a grievance against another, or against Wikipedia, to begin posting accusations and making motions, which will quickly become unruly. It is best if we can define this case from the start before people invest the time and angst in gathering evidence and defending themselves against it. Without endorsing any of these, some matters I think are seriously proposed include:

Behavior of editor User:Stevertigo
Reaction of other editors to Stevertigo and treatment of Stevertigo by other editors in connection with the foregoing
Other current disputes, controversies, and behavioral issues on the main Obama pages
Resolved or inactive issues on the main pages
Matters on minor and less directly related obama pages
Terms of community article probation
Overturning, modifying, endorsing, or replacing community probation with arbitration ruling
Enforcement regime for terms of article probation or enforcing new ruling
Past acts of editors to enforce article probation and conduct article patrol
Concerns that Wikipedia favors Obama, censors critics, a cabal of liberals own the Obama pages, etc.

To be clear, I think the only clear present need is to resolve #1 and #2 (though I would have favored an administrative resolution or simply a cup of tea with the editor). #3 is arguable. #4, #5, and #9 are a hornet's nest, and a re-do of already resolved issues that impose unnecessary stress on all involved. #6 and #7 are worth considering, if Arbcomm truly thinks it can craft a solution that is more effective rather than less effective than the current regime, keeping in mind that the community has already reached a decision and Arbcomm is not really a rule-making body. #8 is problematic because Arbcomm does not have resources to enforce its own decisions - it can exhort or request editors to do its bidding but it cannot force people to do article patrol. And confronting #10 head-on is a content issue, and probably would take us off track. Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second this request. This case has changed from Stevertigo's behavior, to Obama POV war, to Obama articles in general. Which is it, why, and who is supposed to be involved? This was originally about Stevertigo's disruption, with just a few involved parties. Now that this is titled "Obama articles" it seems to have nothing to do with Steve and can involve a lot more individuals. Grsz¹¹ 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree in part,~~ Disagree (see section below #More better thoughts on the context of this RFAR) [Though] actually it's good to see the Arbcom treating the matter more conceptually, and I knew it would. It would be good if it also (in addition to Wikidemon's very well-done scope list above) considered this to be an avenue for dealing with site-wide holistic issues such as philosophical and procedural conflicts between policies and processes, along with its usual everyday scope of conflicts between users and hotspot topics. The Founder retired; if Arbcom doesn't, who will? In any case, I'm not the only one who's promoted a greater scope for the Arbcom, and there seems to me at least several ways in which the Arbcom can expand to be more responsive and effective in dealing with certain issues in both abstract and hands-on ways. On a personal note, I would of course love to take the credit for getting that started; especially if I actually did.

Of course part of this case is the review process, in which my actions are being assessed along with everyone else's. There are a couple of other dimensions here, which I hope Arbcom takes note of: Arbcom, AIUI, comments on actions + comments as "behavior", but this conglomerated concept of "behavior" can be unusually subjective, and maybe even hamper Arbcom deliberation, though I can't think of any examples of where things have gone less-than-smoothly. Arbcom should also comment on the merit of the arguments. It already comments on certain kinds of expressions, notably insults and other "uncivility," but why not also comment on other important dimensions, like arguments' fidelity to core values, arguments' logical reasoning, and arguments' responsiveness to others. I welcome such a review of my own expressions in this matter, in addition to my actions (page creation, talk comments, filing ANIs, RFARs, erratic or frustrated expressions) and that's why I filed this RFAR to deal with the issue of my "behavior." It of course in the course of which would have to deal with others, but I actually liked framing the case as one dealing with me personally. A sarcastic way to frame this bruhaha, perhaps, but that's only because those charges appear to be lacking much other way of framing them. and that's maybe why Arbcom decided to change it.-Ste vertigo 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since the scope is the Obama articles in general in addition to the kerfuffle around Stevertigo's edits, do we need to formally add other editors as participants or do we just notify them as evidence on their conduct is added? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any update?[edit]

If I may re-ask the question in a slightly different way, where are we on things? Is this case proceeding and, if so, does the scope go beyond Stevertigo's edits and the reaction of other users in response? There has been very little evidence presented to date on the broader issue of other editors' conduct or the efficacy and enforcement of Obama article probation, except as it affects this one series of incidents. I've already worked pretty hard and probably exceeded my diff quota to put that together. Addressing the wider question would require more evidence about a number of other editors and I do not wish to undertake that unless the committee is interested to see it. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not presenting any additional evidence until ArbCom clears up whether the focus of this case is just on the edits around Stevertigo, or if the focus is the action of editors on Obama related articles, including editors not specifically mentioned on this RFAR. I was going to start presenting evidence to support the Workshop ideas I added below, but decided not to waste my time if this case is only going to cover Stevertigo's edits and the reaction to those edits. If this case is going to be covering the entire Obama related arena, then a lot more names need to be added to the list of participants. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I might do is write a motion saying non-parties are not exempt from possible sanctions in this case. However, if would still be courteous of the evidence writer to inform said user. Wizardman 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment above[2] are you able to say whether "the obama articles and what has been going on there in general" represents the decision of the committee as a whole? I'm trying not to be too rule-bound, just hoping to understand what we as participants ought to be doing for evidence and proposed findings. The issue is easily 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than the brief conflict between Stevertigo and several other editors in terms of number of edits, editors, and time period. We can't possibly review and resolve every single person or incident and I think it would be a mistake to mete out sanctions individually tailored to 100+ editors. But there are a few very recent conflicts that I think reflect the concerns already raised, but with a different subject matter and a different cast of characters. Perhaps we can spot a general pattern. Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the intent is to mete out individually tailored sanctions to 100+ editors, but rather the creation of an over-arching set of principles that could be used to mete out some preventative measures on editors that cross that line. That being said, even if you discount the period following the WND article, I've seen several edit wars occur recently on Obama related articles and they all involve the usual parties to one extent or another and it is that behavior that needs to stop. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More better thoughts on the context of this RFAR[edit]

Wikidemon has a point. This RFAR is meaningless if it 1) tries to do too much and as such 2) adjudicates the matters related to particular parties in a substandard way.

A direct material context for this RFAR would be the Obama criticism of article. A nominal ("not well-thought out") extrapolated context would be to deal with Obama articles in general, and this scope, set by or else just ostensibly implied by this RFAR title, represents a miscategorization of this particular conflict, and a possible temporary misunderstanding by Arbcom of its own mandate to deal with particular issues, even policy issues, and not whole groups of articles as if they were all under the same policy concerns. In fact the idea that all Obama articles fall under BLP is another policy misconception/misrepresentation issue that the Arbcom needs to make clear. I can clarify that concept for Arbcom first, if it yet is not.

With all that out of the way, I do understand that Arbcom can re-re-conceptualize this RFAR anytime it wants to, and deal with each particular point in turn. In fact, Arbcom could, if it were more staffed and creative, take the initiative and step in on its own into conflicts and file its own cases, and get things done that way. It yet does not.

Anyway, if I am indeed central to this case, and judging by all the various comments complaints characterizations criticisms and contrivances, I am, it must be noted somewhere that I've had nothing to do with any other Obama article at all, (except maybe the additions of a couple hello-missile attacks in Pakistan to the Presidency timeline article). So, because I am not largely involved in most of the issues implied by a case with designs on dealing with the Obama articles as a whole, I would ask that this be a separate case from that, or that case be a separate one from this, or that this be simply renamed to a title which deals with the direct material context.

In case my point wasn't well made enough, unless many many more users are added to this RFAR, and many many more issues/diffs are made and referenced, this RFAR is only by logic, reason, and fact confined to just the users who dealt with me in the context of the "criticism of" article and the issues behind these dealings. The direct material context is a superior boundary for this case, and I do (oh so humbly [such as to not make Arbcom feel uncomfortable by complying with my concepts and bending to my will]) suggest that scope. Now that we've all given it a little thought. Just as the "Stevertigo is a disruptive troll" context was too specific (and not to mention absolutely hebetudinous [which is what made it great for an RFAR title; sunlight is the best disinfectant]), so to is the "all Obama articles" context too wide, and not to mention entirely irrelevant to me. -Ste vertigo 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the Arbcom, its self-concept, and its process[edit]

I'll keep this short. It occurs to me that while I'm here I can make a few suggestions to Arbcom with regard to how it handles this case. If valid, they can be rejected, or else if valid they can be accepted. The concept of an Arbcom, as I originally conceived it in 2003, was simply a place where people did Jimbo's job; take complaints, make suggestions, people act on those suggestions, things move on. It was in the context of being pissed off by a particular being and his personal attacks; a nice being in real life perhaps, but a real dick online; that I usurped someone's compilation of said being's attack diffs and transformed it into the first "community case". An arrangement that admittedly didn't last too long, but provided everyone with an idea of what a then-futuristic Arbcom case might look like. Jimbo didn't like it, IIRC. But I did. And everyone else did too. Anyway, the Arbcom was eventually started, and now here you are. I was happy and I went back to doing whatever it is I actually do here.

I had to actually deal with this "Arbcom" at the WP:RFAR/SV, and, motivated more by self-serving personal protectionism than anything else, I suggested a few changes for the Arbcom to maybe make my situation happier. I wasn't quite as skilled at the time at forming expressions, and perhaps for such reason my suggestions were largely or else entirely ignored. But basically I stated that they should be more interactive: explanatory with their observations, directly interrogative with their questions, and open in their deliberations. I don't know what went on behind closed Arbcom emails, and I don't really care to one way or another. But I do know that that case made them unhappy, and I surmise it's because they couldn't adequately separate their own personal characterizations of the being (me) from the arguments given by that being and the others involved. Anyway, for one reason or another, they didn't listen to me, and we all know what became of that.

I do have a few suggestions for this Arbcom, given in the spirit of open discussion (an important point that relates to this case), and fraternal consideration. The most notable issue is the difference in context between that Arbcom and this one. The post-Founder Arbcom is autonomous; it can do what it wants to, including but not limited to: interacting with the participants, forming creative decisions, reforming policy, regard the value of arguments, give weight to such arguments, improve the Arbcom process, open deliberation, express its considerations, be responsive and not monolithic 25px, be proactive, get community assistance, recruit more help, and grow to respond to demands for Arbcom services, etc. -Ste vertigo 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication during RFARs[edit]

I know that Arbcom likes to conceive of itself as monolithic; its not terribly interactive, and carries the air and umbrage of lonely high-court judges who don't like their jobs and don't want to be here. Banning people from a website is serious business indeed, and that's fine, but I'd like to make a couple suggestions about how the Arbcom can handle this case and others as well.

Web annotations - a fancy term for "commenting everything just as you read it." This gives other people an idea of what Arbcom is thinking, and in fact offers proof that Arbcom actually is dealing with it, and that info is helpful both to others and for themselves.
Collaborative writeup : I gave a long list of diffs and explained these with short comments. Wikidemon has done a wonderful job of writing a long writeup about the events, along with diffs. The problem with my version is that its not explantory, and assumes that Arbcom will read all of the diffs and get their meaning. The problem with Wikidemon's version is that its all very rigourous handwaving; its more than 60 percent characterizations and characterization based. Indeed, writing such things is prohibited in mainspace, and I'm thinking the same limitations belong at Arbcom pages too. At least, within one particular section, parties could be required to collaborate on a singular history of the relevant events, employing various formatting tricks to keep things atomic, linear, and therefore something neutral and more honest.
Chat hearing; all parties and Arbitrators can meetup online on a certain day beginning at a certain time, and deal with all their/our issues and questions directly.

I'm not sure if you've considered/done any of these things already, but that's the concept; expressing myself means unsaid things don't go unsaid. Regards, Ste vertigo 07:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comment by others:

Chat hearings are interesting but totally unacceptable unless they were 100% public and logged and posted as Evidence. The web annotations of what they're looking at is interesting, but honestly, the Arbs didn't sign up to do nothing but this 24x7. It's unworkable, and Wikipedia is just a website, not a professional endeavor for any of us. rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile editing environment[edit]

2) I would like to propose that an enforcement mechanism be provided to address soap boxing and aggresive behavior by editors on that page while this case is ongoing. I know there are existing boards, but because the nature of the problem is that minority viewpoints and opinions are attacked, strict and fair enforcement is needed. In the past, editors who have been active on that page have removed and redacted comments with which they disagree, but have not been held to guidelines such WP:SOAP and WP:No Personal Attacks. It's a very hostile atmosphere that makes it difficult to discuss article issues such as content and citationsis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Without merit. We were at a point where there were easily a dozen or two new topics/demands created over 2 days, all on the same or slight variations of the same subject. Subjects covered by Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ and enforced by Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Beating the same horse over and over and over (and these are not new users that were unaware of existing discussions and probations) becomes disruptive after a point. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With merit, actually. Tarc is treating the issues surrounding the direct material context ("criticism of") and, if I may use metaphors here, is characterizing what he and and others did as case of 'dogs get loose sometimes.' He said "..[unaware users] becomes disruptive after a point." Which leads up to some implied excuse like:

people who've had to deal with a lot of orcs and trolls in prior days and weeks can't really be blamed if the next day, still in battle-mode, they wind up beating up a hobbit; in a case of mistaken identity.

Of course, I don't know if he's still sticking to the characterization that I was being disruptive and trolling. If he is, well, you can destroy that argument in various ways. If not, we should note that his argument and that of others has changed. Further we should note now how this change in attitude is relevant to this case and how it has been conceived. Conceivably, Tarc, Sceptre, Grsz, and others can simply state that their personal characterizations were wrong, and we can just go from there into the diffs and what they did. -Ste vertigo 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the very core of this case is your disruptive antics. So yea, I would indeed use that characterization still. "Troll" has a specific meaning in my mind, and IMO this doesn't ride to that. There were a lot of your own POV you tried to push into a mainspace articles, article FAQs, policy pages, DRVs, and so on. When it was clear that your POV was in the minority, and not winning any over to a change, you edit warred to try to ram it into place, and then ran to AN/I on multiple occasions when that failed. When those filings failed, you ran to arbcom (which you have managed to not-so-subtly hint on several occasions as being something you had a hand in creating. We get the point. Really.).

Those sorts of actions are the epitome of what it is to be a disruptive editor. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Hobbit is told repeatedly that the Shire is strict about trolling but chooses nonetheless to lurk under a bridge with a club and demand a tribute from those who cross, he can hardly complain that the mob thinks him a troll. Claiming he is the bridge architect is neither here nor there. There is some mob mentality and gloating over vanquished trolls, and both newbies and established good faith editors can be treated rudely and caught in the cross-fire, particularly when they take a stance that seems trollish. Mobs happen when there are no police. Article probation can and should be improved; if enforcement were swift, predictable, and applied with great even-handedness and decorum by administrators who backed up authoritative warnings with action it could be more effective, and perhaps less frequently ignored. Had a well-respected administrator warned Steve to tone it down, I wonder if this could have been stopped before it started, or maybe we would just be in arbitration three days earlier. I am not sure what ArbComm can do here, it sounds more like a "how to be a good administrator" issue. But perhaps it can help by adjusting the scheme, or lending its imprematur to the affair. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument, and the metaphors within, still stand. These above comments, and the inaccurate metaphors within, appear to be based in and circularly rehashing of the characterization of me as "disruptive" "troll." Simply repeating a characterization doesn't make it true or more substantiated. -Ste vertigo 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments stand as well. The case is not circular. Your edits were clearly disruptive, as this Arbcom case will likely show, something that will be hashed out in the evidence and workshop sections. Trying to achieve a negative POV shift on the main Obama article by edit warring on its talk page, while calling those who disagree "Obamaites" is, on all fours, the very sort of disruption article probation is intended to prevent. It is probably not necessary to reach the question of whether you were trolling, but if we do, a case can be made that it is an apt term. Per Troll (Internet), trolling is posting "controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages....with the primary intent of provoking other users...". Nominating one of the 5 pillars for deprecation as a complaint for not getting one's way fits that bill, as does the repeated creation and editing of essays as a way to complain about other editors one is interacting with. I have already made a proposal in the "remedies" section that Arbcomm hold people on article patrol to a high standard of civility and decorum, even when dealing with disruption. Calming disruption often means ratcheting things down instead of up. So we will probably find that it is best in most cases not to accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries. However, there is sometimes a reason to do so, because it signals something to other editors. A reversion on the merits is different than a reversion of simple disruption, something we might figure out if we get into the best process for what happens to BRD on a probation page if a disruptive editor takes it to BRDR-? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTD[edit]

Demon said "[Stevertigo's] edits were clearly disruptive", which is interesting in a couple ways: His usage of "disruptive" is similar to how others have used it; ie. an adjective that characterizes, hence a characterization of something. Usually, the term is applied to behavior; ie. 'his behavior is disruptive,' and that appears to be the general concept here. Your usage of the term to modify the word "edits," at least has the appearance of being less of a personal attack than a characterization of a particular edit, but in this context (Wikipedia), its often hard to make the distinctions between "a disruptive edit," "[generally] disruptive editing" and "a disruptive editor." Anyway you slice it your accusations appear to rest on a characterization, rather than an actual argument about the substance of the edit. And regardless, the concept that any particular edit can simply be characterized by someone without qualifying it, is largely obtuse. That is why reviewers assigning quality labels to a current version of a wiki page without factoring in reviewer WP:ER (cf. WOT) metrics is almost useless.

The concept of "disruption" is itself too *subjective to use without describing its effects; what does it "disrupt", who does it "disrupt", what does "disruption" in this context mean? That someone, you perhaps, had to put down their tea and boldly revert the change? Certainly, something like my creation of {{tl:Digital library}}, which ATTOTR has nothing on it, might qualify as a "disruption" according to someone who considers stubs to be useless, or templates to be unusable until they are at least nearly perfect. As someone who's edited here since... CamelCase (almost, I think. Hm..), I can assure you (trust me) that the stingy, unwikier concepts people sometimes promote here are *not how WP got to where it is (ATTOTR). If you could understand that point, you would understand why I called the accusations (not necessarily the arguments) "circular" (though it may be hard to distinguish argument from accusation). And by the way, I wasn't "nominating one of the 5P for deprecation", I was suggesting that IAR be itself ignored, as it often has to be, and relegating it to history. Certainly Arbcom does not cite IAR much in deciding cases, does it? I really would love to hear the results of your Arbcom archive search for that.

All that said, I do notice, having actually read your comment now, that your'e actually trying to deal with the general concepts; "that Arbcomm hold people on article patrol to a high standard of civility and decorum" - "and "decorum" too eh? People who ignore that WP:DECORUM policy sure get me mad to. I note you're not quite giving up the characterizing language: "even when dealing with disruption," etc. In your wisdom you also note that "calming disruption often means ratcheting things down instead of up." Interesting. "So we will probably find that it is best.." Wait, qualifier coming" "..in most cases.." Ah. "..not to accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries.." I just said that. (a la..). Demon continues: "However, there is sometimes a reason to do so.." What? Assemble the concepts:

"However, there is sometimes a reason to [..] accuse people of things like vandalism or trolling in edit summaries [..] because it signals something to other editors."

Yes it does. It signals that you are incapable of using actual arguments and are instead using characterizations. That you cannot "handle" an individual editor by yourself and therefore you are "signal[ing] something to other editors." Certainly you could also hang out at IRC and talk about BSG reruns all day until something comes up, but you might consider doing other things. Demon states that "a reversion on the merits is different than a reversion of simple disruption" Eh? Certainly there are different types of reverts, and different ways to characterize these types. But these are not well defined, and no reverting editor AFAIK has ever reached the conclusion that their reverts themselves (usually with little discussion)were disruptive. I for one am fond of using the WP:NINJA characterization, when actual arguments fail. Continued: "[]..something we might figure out if we get into the best process for what happens to BRD on a probation page if a disruptive editor takes it to BRDR-?" I see, so general principle-related concepts like undue characterizations and accusations, along with reverts based on such, according to you, need to be defined specifically in the context of BRD and then also BRDR? This concept of yours fails certain cognitive tests, in my mind anyway. -Ste vertigo 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo, please refrain from disparaging my reasoning abilities or trying to deconstruct my explanatory style. This is an arbcom case about your actions, not about my IQ or lack thereof. The simple fact, as detailed painstakingly and at length in the evidence page, is that you caused trouble unnecessarily for the project and a number of its volunteer editors during a period of heavy disruption to the Obama articles. Call it what you will - disruption to prove a point, trolling, soapboxing, edit warring. Those are just descriptive terms. As far as I can tell they all apply to the behavior under review here. You have presented excuses, justifications, and criticisms of other editors. You protest about being treated harshly, when you have not even begun to acknowledge that it is your own far more aggressive behavior that triggered a necessary response. I think it is reasonable that Arbcom clarify the type of response that is appropriate in the face of disruption to article and talk pages on probation, but the crucial issue is that it is a response to the disruption, it is not the cause of the disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not "disparage your reasoning abilities." Read it again. I simply pointed out that your argument had certain logical flaws in it, and was, coincidentally, based on a somewhat irrational concept. 2) this is not "an Arbcom case about my actions" - If it was, my original suggestion of calling this "SV's disruptive trolling" would have been accurate. 3) "..You caused trouble unnecessarily for the project" Bah. "..And a number of its volunteer editors" Blah. "During a period of heavy disruption to the Obama articles" OK, well, on that one you got me. I didn't much care for or consider the context that there was actual controversy focused there. Or did I? Hm. Not really. But is WP:BB in the context of "disruption" (cf. "controversy") a "bad" thing? Certainly, if the editing itself is "bad." But that would be a subjective "description," wouldn't it? Hence we are here, to determine if my creation of a subpage draft, commenting in favor of its keeping, changing the text of a FAQ, and reporting irregularities to ANI were each or all "bad." Likewise we are here to deal with the concepts of people not me, and whether these were each or all "bad,"** and, less importantly, their related behavior. Here's an idea: Instead of calling it "trolling," "disruption," "forum-shopping," or "soapboxing," you could just call it "bad." That way there's no issue of descriptive ambiguity or characterizing subjectivity. -Ste vertigo 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: **A few examples: A misconception of WP:SUB as the basis for deleting a draft subpage (instead of moving it to talkspace). A misconception of NPOV and BLP as being definitively against controversy/criticism sections and articles. A misconception of WP:CONS as a concept local to the article in question, rather than site-wide consensus issues. A misconception of BLP as controlling for all articles related to a particular person. A misconception of UNDUE as applyied to a particular subject, and not to others. A misconception of TALK to justify the manipulation of other people's comments. A misconception of PROB such that justifies violating any of the superceeding principles and policies. A misconceived reference to non-related matters as being motivated by the typical characterizations. A refusal to deal with actual arguments, such as my request for evidence that Arbcom has ever based a ruling on IAR. Indeed, a 5P that can't actually be referenced for anything. -Ste vertigo 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:[edit]

ChildOfMidnight, currently, I don't see the merit in your suggestion - this is covered under Obama Article Probation per Tarc. Why do you think your concerns fall outside of Obama Article Probation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be covered in the probation, but it's not being handled. Perhaps because the issues involve political differences, guidelines regarding personal attacks, soap boxing, and other policies are systematically being ignored. Taking them to noticeboards simply plays into the partisanship and neutral parties are badly needed to enforce the rules. The atmosphere of partisanship isn't constructive to editing and improving the article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your concerns may be legitimate, I'm still not sure what you're expecting when it's already covered (but not being handled). ArbCom cannot force anyone, including administrators, to do something that they don't want to - whatever the reason may be. This is why I expect more individual editor remedies in line with the probation remedy to guide administrators on precisely how stringent they may be in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they (Arbcom) can (instruct people to do what has to be done). -Ste vertigo 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed editors[edit]

3) Editors that are not specifically named as participants in this case are not exempt from any injunctions, principles, findings of fact, or remedies. However, if an editor is specifically mentioned in any part of this case, they should be notified if they have not already been notified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposing per Wizardman's suggestion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Temporary injunction: non-interference with relevant policy and other related guidance for the duration of this case[edit]

1) Parties to the Obama articles ArbCom case should stop their efforts to rewrite guidance or otherwise push guidance to reflect their views, pending the conclusion of the ArbCom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This could be something to look at doing. Feels odd for us to ask them to stop editing in areas just barely in this case's scope, but I'll ponder this one more. Wizardman 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The editor proposing this injunction may wish to lay out the evidence, and explain their role in the matter, because it is not immediately obvious what is happening. Both Sceptre and Stevertigo were active at CFORK before their disagreement on the Obama pages. Was this the product of an earlier policy dispute that spilled over to a new subject area? Further, Francis Schonken was revert warring against Sceptre, apparently to make a change in CFORK, immediately before that page was protected. One issue in this case is that editors should not fight over meta-pages to win support for their content proposals. Perhaps Arbcomm can clarify at what point an editor has exceeded the reasonable bounds of policy advocacy and instead entered the territory of policy gaming. Now that the matter is in arbitration, continuing to edit war over the pages at stake in the case is unfortunate, and a signal that the parties will not stop if left to themselves. ~~But need that be remedied by an early injunction, or could that wait for a resolution of the case? It could take some work to sort it all out. Wikidemon~~ (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse after further investigation, and fast. See evidence I gathered here. - Wikidemon(talk) 23:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Grsz¹¹ 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I am/have been too involved in policy/process development (WP:CIVIL, WP:CU, WP:WP, WP:DRRא etc.) to comment. In fact the diffs all speak for themselves; particularly so on those rare occasions when I've stated things plainly. Regards, Ste vertigo 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

proposed - already suggested w.r.t. Sceptre's interference with WP:CFORK (including a forum shop at WT:NPOV), see WT:CFORK#Prior history; now this night there was Stevertigo's flurry of edits to WP:SUBPAGE, WP:CRITICISM, WP:Summary Style (and others) - all with the main purpose to support their take on this case.

Maybe it would be useful to point out to these participants that traditionally policy and other guidance is taken "as is" at the outset of the case, so their last-minute changes won't (or shouldn't) have any effect.

My main objective is to have WP:CFORK unprotected soon (currently protected indefinitely), which would not be possible unless a temporary injunction like the one above (or a similar one) comes into effect. I don't think it would be a good idea to have WP:CFORK protected until after the conclusion of the Obama articles case, but I realise that (and related) guideline(s) would have to face considerable turmoil unless the parties to this case are told to keep out temporarily.

I happen to have quite a few of these related guideline pages on my watchlist, but have no involvement whatsoever in the Obama articles case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to WP:Controversial articles yesterday might be an example; I'm just bringing it up because it's a relevant page I watchlist, not because I'm taking a position. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:Sceptre[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) The neutral point of view policy is a a fundamental policy that is understood to be beyond dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Foundation issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons 1[edit]

2) The biographies of living persons policy is a fundamental policy that is understood to be beyond dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Foundation issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Your link, just above, lists the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issue s. This doesn't seem to be one of them. I also wouldn't say BLP is beyond dispute, as it's disputed all the time; arbitrators have differed on just how it applies. It's a policy. --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons 2[edit]

3) The biographies of living persons policy applies to any material about a living person; not just biographies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Foundation issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The framing of your statement is not neutral. Many editors feel the story exposed bias and censorship issues that are real. Others feel the actions of the journalist resulted in the manufacturing of a controversy that doesn't have a basis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not neutral, arguably not factual, and will open a whole can of worms in the media (both mainstream and otherwise) if the ArbCom were to ever adopt a statement specifically calling out a media source (be it left or right leaning), probably resulting in a much greater edit war than we are seeing right now. The ArbCom should comment on specific user conduct, not on article sources. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and WorldNetDaily 2[edit]

3) Since the publication of the WorldNetDaily article, Obama-related articles have seen an upsurge of allegations of bias by users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious per the Obama talk page, which per my evidence on the evidence page saw a ten-fold increase in editing volume, mostly from new accounts, within an hour of the story. The page went from 37 to 320K, and my reconstruction here of what the page would look like without removing the disruption shows conclusively that they were there to complain, soapbox, fight perceived censorship, edit war, etc., in response to the Klein article (which was cut-and-pasted three times, and linked to several more). Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Any time a story is covered in outside media and garners attention on noticeboards around Wikipedia editors will take a look. Usually the efforts to improve articles and address concerns are successful. In this case because of the partisan issues, there was hostility even to experienced and good faith editors. It's also worth comparing how the article was edited and what was removed from only a month or two before (such as any mention of Wright, and other notable content). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, article has been the source of high visibility for a long time and will continue to be, just like George W Bush was when Bush was President. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from Fringe science RFAR --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that "have been described as germane to the subject matter by coverage in a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet WP:WEIGHT and relevancy concerns" - nearly every item in the Obama article can be supported by hundreds of published sources; a minority viewpoint covered in only a few reliable sources, or a well-documented viewpoint that does not bear directly on the subject of the article, are both inappropriate in the biography of a hyper-notable individual. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2a) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

10) Due to the nature of politics, and American politics in particular, it is possible for minor relationships and events in regards to a politician's biography to become major issues during a campaign. These events/relationships should be covered in relation to the campaign, not the politician's biography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This one is most related to the whole Bill Ayers controversy, but I've seen this play out across all politician's articles, so figured a general principle would be a good thing to add. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a content decision left up to editors in main space and guideline space to decide. If the editors have made this decision, so be it. If not, that is a content decision too. The decision is only relevant to this case if we get into the wider question of whether it is okay for editors like Stevertigo to act on their own to edit war against consensus on the self-determination that they have a better grasp of policy than others and that policy overrules consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is a sound editorial principle, but probably outside the remit of ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is, but something needs to be said about the biographical and campaign portions of politician articles and how they are treated. The root cause of the edit warring on Obama's article is how to handle biographical information (minor or major) that becomes "major" campaign issues. There is a constant tug-of-war over whether or not campaign controversies should be included at all in the Obama article and whether or not presenting those controversies are a BLP or Undue weight violation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is not the purview of the ArbCom and such a broad stroke will inadvertently affect many other articles adversely. Content organization should be done at the article level and otherwise with consensus of editors in another forum, not in an ArbCom case. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

10) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Barack Obama 2[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modified version of Sceptre's 1) FoF per Ncmvocalist's request. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Obama and WorldNetDaily 3[edit]

2) In the week following the publication of an article in WorldNet Daily accusing the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama of bias, there was an influx of new and established editors that edit warred over the inclusion of negative aspects of Obama's biography that necessitated full protection of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another modified version of WorldNet Daily FoF. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heart of the matter really. First came the cannon fodder; the one-offs, the WP:SPAs, the anons, many of which earned blocks of varying lengths. Then came users who were already established here to pick up and carry the same torch, albeit in a (comparatively) more measured, more civilized manner. The disruption caused by the former and the latter were equal in measure, though. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be moved from my section to your section, Bobblehead. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'm a douche. Done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I disagree with this proposed finding as arguably unfactual. As stated above, such a finding could lead to a much greater edit war and unwanted media attention (from both sources mainstream and sources otherwise). Secondly there is no reliable evidence, just anecdotal injecture, supporting this proposed finding. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are plain and the evidence simple. The World Net Daily article (this is the scrubbed version) was posted at 10:54 8 March 2009.[3] The first edits reasonably traceable to the WND article are at 0:04[4] and 0:11[5] 9 March 2009. Beginning at that moment the Obama article and talk page volume jumped abruptly (it was not a gradual ramp-up) by more than ten-fold, and did not subside for two days. The pages have not seen that kind of swing in editing volume from any other source. All of that is readily understandable from the talk page history, and I have provided diffs to that in my evidence section. A high proportion of the edits were attempts to introduce disparaging material, insert fringe theories, vandalize, edit war, and allege whitewashing, bias, and censorship. Many new editors, and many existing editors who had not edited the article or talk page recently or at all, were doing it. The relevance to this case is that Stevertigo, and a few other established editors who are not parties, jumped in and edit warred during this period of instability. You would have to ask the admins why they edit protected, but the immediate cause of article protection seems to be a revert war on the main page, the participants of which can be seen in this edit history,[6] and a revert war by Stevertigo on the FAQ page.[7] Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but your evidence is speculative at best. Bringing WorldNetDaily into the ArbCom ruling is unnecessary and will cause much greater problems than a simple edit war with 4 or 5 editors that really hasn't even spilled over to the main article page. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the new editors admitting that the reason they were editing the article was because of the WND article that the evidence is speculative.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they said it over and over again, and even cut-and-pasted the entire article, per this reconstruction. Wikidemon (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should ArbCom hide the names of external entities that are, beyond a reasonable doubt, involved in this? (I fixed a typo in the statement above: "inclusion negative" -> "inclusion of negative".) Tempshill (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed area[edit]

3) The dispute concerns articles whose primary topic is Barack Obama and coverage of Barack Obama as a secondary topic within other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

May need to be rephrased as the edit war hasn't spilled over to the main Obama page with these parties. But in whole, I support. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy[edit]

4) Advocacy of specific points of view has repeatedly taken place in the disputed area. Both promotion and suppression of negative aspects of Obama's biography have occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. Not relevant because there have been no real documented edit wars on the main article with the parties, surprisingly. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this all comes down to the scope of this RFAR and whether or not it is limited just to the named parties or the Obama articles as a whole. Based on the name of the RFAR and comments by the arbitrators when accepting the RFAR it would appear the intent is to explore more than just the conduct of those specifically named, but the actions of all editors across all of the subject of Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith disputes[edit]

5) Many of the disputes in the area do not appear to be good faith attempts to reach consensus on the proper neutral coverage, but attempts to promote or suppress points of view in articles. Accordingly, much of the discussion has been adversarial rather than collaborative and prevents reaching consensus rather than working towards it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. Vague and violates WP:AGF. May have been applicable to prior ArbCom case, but not applicable here. Personally, I feel all the editors and administrators involved have good faith; some of them are just misguided. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling effect[edit]

6) The vehemence, and far-ranging nature, of the disputes have had a strong negative effect on the ability of neutral editors to participate effectively in the editing process, and has driven away or pilloried editors who do not subscribe to either of the polarised points of view being warred over.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well said (er, "lifted" that is). --Ali'i 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there is no evidence of this. This case is much different from the fringe science case. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized problem[edit]

7) The warring over the disputed area of Barack Obama is endemic. A large number of editors have behaved inappropriately to various extent and to various degrees to support one of the two extreme positions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Direct lift from fringe science RFAR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This case is not the same and there are not just two extreme positions. In fact, Stevertigo is a self-admitted Obama voter. I don't know of any identified McCain supporter who is involved in this dispute. This dispute, frankly, has very little to do with personal political beliefs and more to do with "Wikipedia" beliefs, IMO. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Wikidemon[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Article talk pages[edit]

1) The purpose of talk and meta-pages is to propose and discuss improvements, to pose pertinent questions, and to take care of routine housekeeping details, concerning the main page(s) to which they apply. Talk pages are not forums for general discussion, or for airing grievances about editors, groups of editors, the subject of the article, or Wikipedia as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Or something like that...an expansion of WP:TALK Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Closing discussions[edit]

2) Talk page discussions that are resolved (as in rejected or accepted proposals), that have gone off topic or grown uncivil, or that no longer appear to have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in any improvement to the article in question, may be concluded by any editor. If possible they should be preserved as a "closed" discussion rather than deleted. Editors should re-open closed discussions only if they reasonably believe that continuing the discussion would reasonably and directly lead to an improvement in the article in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a high-traffic article where the talk page is subject to the same discussions again and again that will at some point sooner than a more legitimate discussion run out of meaningful discussion, the section can be "archived" with {{hat}} or {{discussion top}}. These sections include BLP issues, attempts to disrupte, etc. A quick look at Talk:Barack Obama shows just one of these right now: "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" by Daniel Pipes. Endorse this proposal as standard practice. Grsz¹¹ 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh evidence. Compare this page with this mess. The first is the actual Obama talk page after dozens of closures, deletions, and moves. The second is what it would have looked like without them, with closures in green and deletions in yellow. Which would you prefer? Does Arbcom really want to prohibit turning #2 into #1 and, if so, do we just accept chaotic talk pages or can Arbcom think of a better way to do it? Wikidemon (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose, in direct contradiction of WP:TALK. WP:TALK does NOT forbid inquiring about positions that have consensus. Suppressing talk activity, so long as it is not obscene or a personal attack (and personal attack must be properly and narrowly defined), then this will adversely harm the project. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already routine practice on Obama and other high-traffic / high disruption articles, so asking Arbcom to acknowledge the realities of talk page patrol is not a proposed change. At the moment Stevertigo made his first edit[8] the Obama talk page was in a heavily pruned state. There were twelve collapsed discussions, several that were moved and consolidated, and countless posts had been deleted. If anyone seriously means to propose that Arbcom forbid this I would be happy to mock up what the talk page would have looked like if it had been left to deteriorate - probably completely unusable. I do understand the concern that things remain open and transparent, and tend to agree with JustGettingItRight that deleting comments should be kept to a minimum (I would add a few more categories: blatant racism / homophobia / etc, legal threats, spam, vandalism, process forks, trolling, socking, and a few other like matters). For that reason I've found it better to use the {{hat}} / {{hab}} templates to collapse clearly pointless discussions rather than simply removing them or allowing them to spin out. If an editor wants to continue they can always un-collapse in their own browser, and if there is support for continuing the conversation then it can be reopened, judiciously and within reason. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense dictates that allowing the same "OMG BIRTHERGATE" and such stuff to come up 2, 3, 4 times a week is what would be truly disruptive for the Obama-related articles. Nip it in the bud before it festers into a real battleground. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-pages[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.

Stevertigo[edit]

1) Stevertigo counseled to abide by terms of Obama article probation, and policies and guidelines regarding civility, consensus, and edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Any disruption caused by Stevertigo was in my opinion relatively minor, not in bad faith, and does not indicate an inability or unwillingness to contribute productively, particularly in light of his longstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. Instead, the main issue is a lack of respect for, and willingness to recognize or abide by the wishes of fellow editors. We do not need to punish, prevent, or shame here. As long as he can stay with the program I do not see that any remedy is necessary; if he does not, simple administrative remedies should suffice. Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would not've taken the case if the behaviour wasn't sanctionable. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that Stevertigo has been making a number of wide-ranging structure / policy / process changes that seem to be in good faith and are overall to the benefit of the encyclopedia: setting up templates, clarifying guidelines, organizing policy pages. He works fast, often editing multiple related pages at a rate of an edit every minute or two until all of the pages collectively support an improvement or clarification to how we do things, without taking an incremental approach or obtaining consensus first or after. A great example is Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution, which he just created in less than 24 hours. One gets the sense he loves the project and is not doing this out of any personal agenda. Perhaps this is how the encyclopedia was being built 7 years ago - he is not the only old-timer with this approach. That makes him a great asset, and someone I would be reluctant to reign in, as long as he is on the right track; when he goes off course the effect is to steamroll over people who question or disagree. The "criticisms" section issue is a case in point. Some people approve of criticism sections and articles, many people do not, and lots of people in between accept them in the right place, in moderation. Gone are the days when a single editor can simply declare on a topic of this magnitude how he thinks things should be, or what he thinks consensus is, and make it so through forceful editing. I cannot tell if Stevertigo's stated desire to add negative material to the Obama article and fight what he considers whitewashing and censorship there derives from his conviction that criticism sections and articles are a good thing, or vice-versa, or perhaps they are unrelated. Maybe we can just ask him what he's after rather than going through such a laborious process of documenting everything. Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Article patrol[edit]

2) Editors patrolling articles under Obama article probation are instructed to stay civil, maintain a sense of decorum, use proper forums for resolving disputes, and avoid personal attacks. Abusive conduct by any editor may be considered a violation of article probation terms, even if the editor believes they are acting to prevent disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A number of editors, most not parties to this case, have engaged in abuse (e.g. taunting, mocking, insulting, using profanity) against parties who made questionable edits to Obama articles. Something like this, if enforced, should reduce the instance of alleged WP:BITE-y conduct, and the sense by those holding minority viewpoints that Wikipedia and the Obama-related areas are stacked against them. Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An excellent suggestion. Reverting inappropriate edits on deems inappropriate does not require rudeness. A lot of good faith and experienced editors got caught in the cross fire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Proposals by Ncmvocalist[edit]

Template[edit]

tbd) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Enforcement by topic ban[edit]

tbd) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction on Obama-related articles, then that user will also be considered topic-banned from Obama-related articles. The ban will take effect once an uninvolved administrator has posted a notice to the user's talk page with diffs of the violations, and the ban will expire 2 weeks after the most recent violation given in such a notice. All bans must be logged at .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If they don't get it by now, even after both probation and a case, then they clearly should not be editing in that area for 2 weeks after the violation, even if their block has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Wizardman[edit]

Comment by others:

I don't think this is needed here. Also, if this were to a major issue in a future case, this could be developed as a more broader principle not limited to clean-up tags. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good-faith participation welcome[edit]

8) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus[edit]

9) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change[edit]

10) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While I like the sounds of this, may I ask about those who continually bring up the subject over and over repeatedly in the hope that consensus might change? In the past this tactic has been used almost daily at times and is less in an attempt to discuss then a disruption. The majority of these disruptions are in the hopes to "tip the scales" their way and claim consensus for their POV. (All you need to do is look at the Obama talk page archives from the time of the election to see hundreds of these type disruptions.) Brothejr (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share deep concerns and reservations, similar to those raised by Brothejr. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

11) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing[edit]

12) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Talk pages[edit]

13) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This may not be the place, but it would be very helpful to formulate in more detail (or restate, if it is already clear) what is and is not appropriate for the talk page. That will help the regular editors know where they should jump in and participate, versus which discussions should be ignored, wrapped up, archived, etc. In addition to proposed changes, fair topics for the discussion page might include reasonable questions or clarifications about the article, notices of discussions elsewhere, and meta-discussions about article and talk page organization. On the flip side, other inappropriate uses of the talk page include accusations or complaints about other editors and their edits, whether by name or not, individually or as a group. Complaints about the article that do not have any reasonable likelihood of leading to improvement (e.g. "this article is a biased piece of nonsense") are inflammatory and may lead to dispute rather than productive discussion. Brief statements and requests are sometimes appropriate as well in response to talk page comments that fall outside the list of valid talk page uses. For example, if editor A says "Editor B is a sockpuppet back to his old tricks", editor C's best approach is probably to leave a reminder on editor A's talk page that such accusations should be made elsewhere. But if several editors have already responded, editor C might fairly say something like "folks, could we please conduct this discussion elsewhere - we're not supposed to use the talk page for accusing other editors of things". Wikidemon (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Needs to be more specific; more often than not, we need mere "personal views" in assessing the quality of an article. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page FAQs[edit]

14) The purpose of a FAQ for more active talk pages is to answer often asked questions about the article, so as not to weigh down the talk page with answering the same questions repeatedly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages[edit]

15) An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism articles[edit]

16) All criticism articles must follow the same guidelines as other articles and use reliable sources. they are not to be used as POV forks or attack pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I suggest adding a caveat that this only applies where criticism articles or sections have gained consensus to exist, so that this is not taken as an endorsement of them. They are generally disfavored for a wide range of articles. Wikidemon (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples to support your assertion that it is generally disfavored? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that too strongly. Per the text of WP:NPOV, WP:CFORK, WP:PACL, and Template:Criticism section (which presumably have consensus) and the influential essays WP:ATM and WP:CRIT, criticism sections and articles are often either inappropriate or do not have consensus. It would be hard to make generalizations about where they do and do not tend to gain consensus, but the word "always" in the statement from CFORK, There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork, implies at the very least that those articles are often POV forks. Wikidemon (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Deletion process[edit]

17) The deletion process is the Wikipedia process involved in recording and executing the community's decisions to delete or keep a page. If an editor is unsatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in regards to a deletion discussion, it may be brought to deletion review. The DRV closer generally has the final word on the state of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article sanctions[edit]

18) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not really sure why "may be" is used; they "are" as specified in the terms of probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanning the flames[edit]

19) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) The Barack Obama article and related articles were placed on article probation July 29, 2008. Since then, a myriad of administrative actions have been logged, as well as users officially put under probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement of prior remedies[edit]

4) Although the aforementioned probationary measure has been very effective for a reasonable period of time after it was implemented, during this year, it has proved difficult to enforce. While some sanctions have been applied under it, a number of noticeboard discussions have generally been intractable and unproductive, with many descending into arguments amongst disputants. Some editors have expressed concerns that the measure has failed to address, at least, some of the underlying issues, while others have suggested that there is a reluctance to enforce the remedy in some cases.[25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Arguments among disputants" fails to address exactly what happened. Good faith reports of actionable disruption regularly degenerated into side accusations by the reported party and others against the reporters and third parties, which created a toxic editing environment and made the reports difficult for neutral administrators to understand and enforce. Although AN/I and other forums can serve as a good outlet where all claims are heard, an excess of patience for unfounded accusations and incivility against good faith participants rendered these forums ineffective. Wikidemon (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Page activity[edit]

5) The main Barack Obama article and Talk:Barack Obama are two of the most active wiki pages, with over 17,000 and 29,000 revisions, respectively.[26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts[edit]

6) During the WorldNetDaily influx of traffic, as well as during times outside of March 9, many IPs and new accounts have contributed to the main article and talk page of the Barack Obama article, often behaving disruptively.[27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stevertigo[edit]

7) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and engaged in edit summary attacks on the Obama FAQ,[36].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to mark WP:IAR historical, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.[37][38]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sceptre[edit]

8) Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring[39][40][41] and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ.[42][43] and engaged in edit summary attacks.[44]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I fail to see what's a personal attack. The word "fuck"? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that I reverted Stevertigo out of the Obama FAQ because he was being disruptive. I mean, seriously. Am I to be admonished for reverting someone who was trying to tag IAR as historical? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion of Stevertigo were appropriate, as acknowledged in other proposals that the material removed was pointy disruption. The problem here is uncivil edit summaries. Wikidemon (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a Yorkshire habit to say what you think with blunt frankness". Sceptre ^(talk) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I see no reason to chastise Sceptre here. PhGustaf (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11[edit]

9) Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivil edit summaries during the edit warring.[45][46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia isn't censored. Nor is my usage here particularly offensive. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations justified or not, and harsh language, are unhelpful in edit summaries and could be seen as uncivil, so it's a reasonable request that this be avoided in articles subject to probation. If you want to call that censorship you can, but NOTCENSORED applies to article content, not expectations of courtesy. I agree that these aren't particularly bad, but nevertheless they're an illustration of going too far.Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikidemon[edit]

10) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, teaming with Sceptre in removing comments,[47][48] including adding comments back on a user talk page removed by the user.[49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

~~No evidence is offered that I have edit warred.~~I have made a great many edits to maintain the stability and integrity of these articles and at all times tried to do what is best. What I removed here was Stevertigo's bogus procedural proposal to deprecate WP:IAR, not a comment. I see now that I should have simply closed it, as this editor did,[50] rather than deleting it. As background, Stevertigo was among the dozens of editors, both new and old, who converged on the Obama articles to vent, complain, insult, and disparage in the aftermath of the World Net Daily affair. The regular editors were working on the fly, doing everything they could not to let things go completely astray. Serious editors got some patience ideally, but those just causing trouble got a firm hand when they could not be ignored, and that seemed to work best. In our experience (borne out here), editors who became problems on several watch listed pages were likely problems elsewhere. It was a round-the-clock group effort, and no one editor could do it alone. That is not stalking or teaming, it is minding the encyclopedia. Stevertigo had attracted a lot of attention and 2 AN/I reports at this point. Before the IAR proposal he had already proposed to add a criticism section to the Obama article, accused the "Obamaites" there of whitewashing, wrote a new essay to criticize these editors, started a criticism WP:FORK of the Obama article, messed up and edit warred over the format of the Obama talk page, edit warred over an AfD closure notice, edit warred over a formatting mess he created in a WP:DRV, edit warred to manipulate the Obama FAQ, edit warred headings and format of AN/I, and edit warred on another related essay. He was on a tear. Observing this behavior I saw three common themes: (1) edit warring, (2) incivility, and (3) idiosyncratic procedural messes. Beyond that we had nothing to distinguish Stevertigo from all the others. He seemed to be provoking other editors with off-kilter procedural moves rather than seriously trying to improve the encyclopedia. The IAR proposal, his last stop before Arbcom, had no chance of succeeding. It had already confused some editors who took it seriously. Per WP:SNOW the outcome is clear. It was in that spirit, to close a pointless procedure invoked as disruption, that I deleted the proposal, not what I would normally think of as edit warring. Looking at it now the only thing I could have done differently is to close the proposal. I expect taht Stevertigo would have edit warred over the closure just as he edit warred over everything else in the past week, but at least that would have been a correct edit on my part. Restoring my comment on Stevertigo's talk page was the same thing, resisting disruption. I was in a discussion with four other editors over what to do about Stevertigo's behavior, commenting that a simple administrative block/ban was more efficient than to Grsz's suggestion to file an Arbcom case. Stevertigo deleted my comment to "give him a taste of his own medicine". That seemed like procedural disruption to be reverted, not entertained. My understanding was that Stevertigo did not own his own talk page, and he is out of bounds to mess up the discussion there out of spite. Elsewhere, editors routinely revert disruptive accounts that are messing up their own talk page out of spite, so I thought that was warranted here. I can accept that I may not have handled these two matters in the way that Arbcom wishes, and look forward to any clarification that may come about how we are supposed to handle this kind of disruption in the future. However, it seems out of proportion and is discouraging to me as punishment for all my hard efforts, to admonish me for what looks at the most to be a minor mistake among hundreds of good edits, particularly when the rules are not yet established. Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

10.1) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them.[51][52][53][54]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikidemon's rationale illustrates my reasons for opposing this finding of fact. Wizardman 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The premise here is wrong, and these four edits were good ones. Deleting (and more helpfully, archiving) inappropriate talk page comments is not against talk page guidelines. Please review the extensive evidence here and here on the rationale, instances, and results for these and other tools used to stabilize of the Obama talk page. All four diffs cited were good edits. What specifically is wrong with them? The first removed (archiving would have been better) a screed by Axmann8, a disruption-only SPA now indeffed for racist provocation, that Obama is a non-citizen and his birth certificate fake. Using the Obama talk page to soapbox fringe conspiracy theories - this particular one is was what started the entire Aaron Klein debacle. Experience shows that quickly removing those the several dozen times they have been made was the only way to avoid a free for all. The second removed a non-sequitur personal attack by a problem editor (I should have archived instead of deleted, and used a less humorous edit summary) that had nothing to do with article improvement. If you'll review my evidence links above you'll see that this comment resulted in a heated argument until it eventually was archived again. The third simply consolidated a random pointless accusation in an already archived section. The last one was to remove a WP:COPYVIO, something we are instructed to do, not prohibited from doing. As I've posted elsewhere, this is what the talk page would have looked like without having been patrolled on March 9-10. As I said above, I welcome Arbcom's guidance on how to maintain article stability, and hope that any ruling will create a more effective, not less effective way to deal with the disruption I was dealing with. However, I cannot imagine in any plausible ruling that the four disruptive edits I was dealing with would be allowed to remain on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tarc[edit]

11) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries.[55][56][57]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I raise a mild objection to the middle one, because the subject matter of that specific talk page sub-section was the Wikipedia and how it is used/taught/cited in school. Quite cheeky, sure, but IMO falls short of straight incivility. The others, yea, those few days it was rather difficult to stay cool. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

11.1) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them.[58][59]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The removals cited were both appropriate - the first was to move a collapse tag so as to include a redundant soapbox added during the Aaron Klein disruption to an already closed/archived discussion about the fringe theory that Obama's bith certificate was fake, the 10th or 20th time the same claim was made in a 2-day period. The second was to delete a piece of derogatory trivia sourced by an IP editor to a personal politics blog. The problem with these two edits, rather, were that both edit summaries were uncivil. Additionally, because the second deletion occurred during a calm period it would have been better to assume good faith, offer a patient explanation, and then close the thread after a period, rather than simply deleting. Deleting was not a violation, but the approach could have been more welcoming to the IP. Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, the IP was a one-off post traced to a Hungarian service provider, almost certainly likely a hack or an open proxy. I highly doubt a legit foreign user is going to have that detailed and timely info from a partisan source close to a period of worldnetdaily-fueled hysteria. There was nothing legitimate to welcome here, or to assume good faith of. Tarc (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the edits were legit. But even when dealing with a bad faith editor, edit summary language like "turd blossom" and "drive-by hysteria" is more likely to cause trouble than prevent it.Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight[edit]

12) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and/or refactored comments made by other parties on the Barack Obama talk page,[60][61][62][63] engaged in attacking the actions of other editors,[64], and has templated other parties to the case (or at least shown the appearance of doing so)[65][66]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

12.1} ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result.[67]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is true but only one incident, a tiny fraction of the overall extent of edit warring. The most telling events IMO were the edit warring on March 10 that lead to full protection of the Obama article, and the renewed edit warring after the block.[68][69][70] But there were many more. Wikidemon (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scjessey[edit]

13) Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility and personal attacks,[71][72][73] templated established editors,[74][75][76][77], removed pieces of an AfD discussion,[78] and appeared to stalk ChildofMidnight’s edits.[79][80]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not quite sure of the appropriate procedure for responding to these, so please excuse me if my method is incorrect. I'd like to respond to the given diffs individually:

[81] - This sarcastic comment came during a period when there was an alarming increase in troll-like behavior from sock puppets and new editors, and the comment from the "new editor" seemed to be of the same ilk. I admit that this was a failure of mine to assume good faith, but I think the difficult period goes some way to explaining why I made this bad assumption.
[82] - This was a direct response to a bit of over-the-top soapboxing by an individual (also a named party) with a proven record of agenda-driven editing and disruption.
[83] - I must confess that I do not know why this diff was listed. I cannot see how this could possibly be interpreted as either incivility or a personal attack. As far as I can tell this was just a description of Wikipedia's policy with respect to dealing with criticism in BLPs.
[84][85][86][87] - Both editors concerned had ignored dozens of previous templates and pleas to conduct themselves on Wikipedia appropriately (a problem which continues). WP:DTTR is not a policy or a guideline of Wikipedia, and I thought (and still think) that a standardized template is far more effective than a personal comment in cases such as these - particularly as both recipients have responded negatively to talk page comments from me in the past. How else should I respond to repeated editor violations?
[88] - I did not remove anything from an AfD discussion except a list that had been duplicated in numerous places elsewhere. My mistake was in refactoring keeps and deletes. As soon as I found out this was not the correct form, I apologized. This was not sufficient for User:ChildofMidnight, who proceeded to make a big deal out of my mistake with this discussion at WP:ANI (where I again apologized).
[89][90] - Per guidelines at WP:HOUND, I occasionally monitor the editing habits of problem editors who I see as disrupting Wikipedia (usually if there is a string of disruptive edits). If this is considered inappropriate, I will be happy to receive guidelines on how to better approach this problem.

My behavior has not always been perfect. I'm not the most diplomatic editor you will meet and I am easily provoked, but my intent has always been to do the best I can for the good of the project. I would like to continue to edit productively within the Obama-related articles if possible, and if the arbitration committee deems that restrictions of some kind are necessary I will accept them without further complaint. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without considering on most of the specific edits, not all the examples are correct but it is true that Scjessey has on a number of occasions been unnecessarily uncivil, which at times has backfired or limited his effectiveness as a patroller of Obama articles, and in turn occasionally hurt things rather than helping. WP:DTTR is an essay and thus not binding, but it would be a good idea to follow as part of a broader program of trying to engage and counsel rather than simply oppose and castigate editors who are being unproductive. We should keep in mind that all of these edits were done for the cause of dealing with disruption, not causing it, so this should be evaluated in the context of proper methods of enforcing article probation, and not as disruption in its own right. Scjessey is absolutely right, that editors who have caused long term trouble on multiple related articles need to be watched. That is not stalking, that is maintaining order. However, it is generally unhelpful to be extra harsh on an editor in one place simply because one thinks he has made bad edits in another place. Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

13.1} Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, and was blocked during the case as a result.(Under “Blockery” tab)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have received two blocks for edit warring (see my block log). The first time was when I reverted the inappropriate edits of a highly-disruptive (and now indefinitely blocked) problem editor, and the block was removed because another administrator disagreed with the block. The second time I was blocked for edit warring was even stranger, as my subsequent comment demonstrated. As in the previous instance, the block was lifted by a different administrator. I am great believer in talk page discussion and consensus-building discourse, and on those few occasions when I have performed content-based reversions I have done so without an intent to start or perpetuate an edit war. I would also like to point out that the so-called incidences of edit warring revolved around the restoration of consensus language in the face of what I (and others) perceived to be agenda-driven edits by editors who eschewed talk page discussion and or attempts to build a new consensus. It seems reasonable that these circumstances, essentially performed in defense of the project, should be considered in any judgment. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it was a legitimate block, I think the block was a little too eager, and unnecessary. Keep in mind that Scjessey was reverting disruptive edits, not seeking to make them. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Baseball Bugs[edit]

14) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility,[91][92][93] and removed talk page discussions[94][95][96] while using the talk page as a forum himself.[97][98]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Editors encouraged[edit]

3) All involved editors in the Obama articles, parties or not, are encouraged to try and collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing the other side of misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure what that means. Of course collaborative constructive contributions are expected. But article probation and patrol involves, among other things, finding and dealing with behavior problems like edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry, trolling, vandalism, etc. When there is misconduct, which has clearly occurred, it should be treated as such. The point is that such accusations should be made in the proper forum rather than article talk pages or edit summaries, only with reasonable basis, and only if there is some reasonable expectation that something can be done. Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stevertigo admonished and restricted[edit]

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is the editing restriction necessary? Stevertigo is an experienced editor who, although derisive of non-administrative editors who tried to engage him, has shown no behavior that indicates he would ignore a request from Arbcom. Why not simply put him on some kind of parole for a year, wherein if he edit wars or makes tendentious content edits any administrator may then impose the restriction? Also, shouldn't this remedy be limited to Obama-related articles or politics-related articles? Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

My proposals were incomplete, but I would've proposed something more restrictive, even though less counts of misconduct were used in the Fof proposals here. Obama articles were subject to probation, and the fact that his conduct spilled elsewhere suggests that this is an absolute minimum measure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre admonished and restricted[edit]

5) Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Sceptre is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Sceptre is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Sceptre exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose as target: we shouldn't restrict people trying to enforce BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that 1RR per week would leave me unable to enforce any NPOV/NOR/V/etc violations on articles I actively watch and edit because, being about fiction and being not protected, they tend to get their fair share of unsourced additions. For example, articles such as 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who), Karen Gillan, Matt Smith (actor) get this about four times a week, and that's with the guaranteed spike in edits not going to happen for another seven months. When that happens, I don't want to have to jump through hoops and have to ask/wait for other editors to revert blatant violations of NPOV, NOR, or V just because of some edit restriction imposed because I tried to stop disruption to one of our most highly visited BLPs. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unduly restrictive. Scepter has gone too far with reverts and incivility in the name of enforcing article probation, but it was intended to deal with disruption. Taking an editor off article patrol in this way, without offering further help, may tend to destabilize rather than improve things. I would suggest a simple admonishment, but allow any administrator to impose this restriction if there is any further problem. Also, any restriction should be limited to Obama-related articles. Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Grsz11 reminded[edit]

6) Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikidemon admonished[edit]

7) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What part in edit warring? I hope and intend to continue the effort to keep order on these articles, diligently and effectively, under whatever article probation enforcement rules are enacted. As I do now, I will try very hard to avoid edit warring. An admonishment that I have edit warred and should stop is not something I can understand or act on because I don't believe I have. If there is any specific conduct of mine that arbcom wishes me to stop I will certainly welcome the guidance. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a little more specific. I recognize that several times in my history of maintaining the Obama articles I acted alone or in concert with others to revert to the status quo process violations by editors I considered to be acting disruptively. Some examples cited here for me and the other article patrollers include Stevertigo's gaming of policy pages, posting format-busting markup in discussion pages, and attempts to re-open closed discussions. Although not quite vandalism, these are not content proposals but are rather process changes. More often done by trolls, socks, and vandals than serious editors like Stevertigo, these process disruptions rarely result in a consensus change, and can seriously disrupt the encyclopedia to allow them to remain while under discussion. Arbcom appears to be ready to rule that Stevertigo's proposal to deprecate IAR was a WP:POINT violation, and thus was not an appropriate matter for discussion on the IAR talk page. Does that mean that removing it is edit warring? If so, what is the alternative? To allow a full discussion to proceed despite the certainty that it would be disruptive and the joke misunderstood? To report it to AN/I? A motion to close? If not simply reverting, what's the right way to respond? Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tarc reminded[edit]

8) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight topic banned[edit]

9) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Without commenting on wisdom of this particular remedy, if it is chosen there should be a statement on whether "Obama-related articles" is to be broadly construed, it applies to Obama-related subject matter rather than articles, or if it applies only to a specific set of articles that are formally marked for article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight topic banned[edit]

9.1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for three months, including talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight admonished and restricted[edit]

9.2) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, ChildofMidnight is subject to an editing restriction for one year. ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should ChildofMidnight exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support:

To run concurrently. Wizardman 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment by parties:

I will not voice support or opposition, because my frequent run-ins with this editor would cast doubt on my impartiality in advocating for a remedy. However, if this option is chosen it should be limited to politics-related articles and subjects (I say politics rather than Obama related because ChildofMidnight has shown a similar pattern of incivility and edit warring on other politics-related articles such as Barney Frank). Nonetheless, ChildofMidnight is a very productive, good editor on a wide variety of other subjects, and does not seem to have any problem with non-political articles. It would be unfair to ChildofMidnight, and a disservice to the encyclopedia, to restrict his/her editing on these other subjects. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scjessey topic banned[edit]

10) Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scjessey topic banned[edit]

10.1) Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for three months, including talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am currently on a self-imposed break from Obama-related articles, with the exception of these arbitration-related pages. This is more about enjoying the Pennsylvania summer than anything else. I will still revert vandalism or BLP-related violations discovered in the course of recent change patrol, but I have none of the Obama-related articles watchlisted. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Noted; though I would've preferred between 1 and 3 months, a break would be useful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey admonished and restricted[edit]

10.2) Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Scjessey is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Scjessey is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Scjessey exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Clarification needed - Is this proposed restriction limited to the Obama-related articles (being the subject of this process), or is this extended to cover all of Wikipedia? Also, the presented diffs show very little evidence of edit warring, and as was noted I received "punishment" in the form of blocks. What is the reason for this additional punishment/restriction? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, BLP enforcement should not be met with restrictions. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Sceptre but I should be more precise. There are limits and restrictions to article patrol, even dealing with perceived BLP violations. Scjessey has many times voiced a minority position on BLP whereby material about Obama that others would simply call non-consensus or POV violations, Scjessey has reverted as BLP vios. However, even though he has gone too far we need all the help we can get to patrol Obama-related articles. Taking diligent editors off the task hamstrings that effort, and could worsen instability. The outcome of this must be that if Scjessey wishes to continue he must avoid incivility and be less inclined to edit war. I don't think this particular editing restriction will achieve that. Further, as with other similar proposals I think we need to limit this to Obama-related articles. Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted[edit]

11) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Why not? Scjessey has a valuable role on article patrol. If ChildofMidnight engages again in nonconsensus editing, edit warring, etc., Scjessey should be free to deal with it according to whatever regime is in place as long as he can do so civilly and without edit warring. Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the valid concerns posed by Wikidemon above, I would think this would be extremely difficult to enforce. I can imagine some future instance where I might revert some change made by ChildofMidnight that may have gone through previous iterations of reversions (or partial reversions) by other editors. This could conceivably require either of us to check back through article history on every reversion we make on any article to make sure we weren't reverting one another. Perhaps the scope of this restriction could be more narrowly defined and time-limited? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted[edit]

11.1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On reflection and after reviewing the entire context here, I have no objection. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Baseball Bugs reminded[edit]

12) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That is fair. Bugs is one of our most diligent and enthusiastic article patrollers, but has sometimes done so with excess exuberance. I would suggest replacing the somewhat vague "when dealing with users" with a more specific "in addressing other editors while patrolling articles on probation" so that this can serve as a guide for other editors on how to behave. Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Grundle2600 admonished and restricted[edit]

13) Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Grundle2600 is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Grundle2600 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Grundle2600 is an interesting case, a seemingly good faith (although accused otherwise) editor who has caused some trouble through lack of understanding of policies regarding sourcing, POV, consensus, etc. I'm not sure that this remedy fits the problem, which recently has been the making of proposals to add trivial, poorly sourced, derogatory, and impertinent derogatory content to Obama-related articles. User:Bigtimepeace has warned Grundle2600 he will be blocked if he continues. However, Grundle2600 seems to understand that he should propose such things on the talk page first and not edit war on them. Thus, he is not doing anything covered by this restriction but it would help if we can find a way to improve his editing approach. Wikidemon (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Articles semi-protected[edit]

14) All articles relating directly to Barack Obama and their talk pages are to be permanently semi-protected, to be interpreted narrowly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Shortcut

WP:RFAR/OAW/SV

Proposed principles[edit]

Comment: I am deviating from the standard modality of Arbcom cases, such that unnecessarily reference already omnipresent principles as being *particularly relevant here: How would any of them be not? -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Improvement principle[edit]

Certain issues with regard to the conceptualization of this case indicate the need to highlight the concept that the "improvement principle" applies to everyone, including Arbcom. The fact of the matter is that the community elects Arbcom members not to be figureheads of decision, but individuals whose opinions on matters of policy and guidelines are considered valuable. Despite the fact that a vote-based process produces a certain kind of interaction, in reality Arbcom can make casual suggestions that would be regarded with just as much authority as a drawn-out formalized opinion, and such suggestions would be welcome by the community.

Comment: If Arbcom does not fulfill certain minimum requirements, it must be said to be failing in this regard: 1) it must be interactive, 2) it must act in a timely fashion, 3) it must keep to principles of openness 4) it must be able to conceptualize problems with facileness and precision. In each of these counts Arbcom's self-concept deviates from the ideal: 1) its members appear to think interaction doesn't fit the model, or that it doesn't work for them, or else is somehow beneath them 2) its slower than mammalian evolution ("backlog") 3) its closed-list deliberations represent an anti-open philosophy 4) the current case's mis-conceptualization as a kind of macro-topical mine-sweep is ineffective and indicates a greater problem with conceptualization. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should get along[edit]

Though conflicts happen, we must pursue modes of *interaction which increase community and consensus and repudiate manners of *action that diminish this principle.

Comment: In reality, none of the edits I made were particularly controversial. Even considering the view that any incarnation of a "criticism of" article is controversial, my being treated as a criminal, or a conservative republican, indicates certain flaws in people's understanding of our highest social principle. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens[edit]

Sometimes things happen. The community needs to get better and more helpful with solving conflicts and correcting errors, rather than be focused on dispensing blame.

I suggest this principle in two parts, the first ("Sometimes its hard to tell the difference") being to deal with the claim that '[my] edits were seen in the context of a larger pattern of vandalism, and as such any incivil actions were acceptable or nominal.' The second ("Apologies will be accepted") is something I actually agree with. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes its hard to tell the difference[edit]

Paraphrased: "[user] may have been mistreated, but this was because of vandals, and [user's] similarity to vandals, not our behavior."

Comment: I listed this as an example of an apparent "principle" among certain participants. Its an excuse, nothing more, and I think dealing with it this way (sunlight) sufficiently destroys it (=disinfectant). -Ste vertigo 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies will be accepted[edit]

It is a particularly important concept that we indicate that a simple acknowledgment of error and taking certain correction are almost as good as not committing the infraction to begin with.

Comment: Of course, the fear is that I might take such an apology and rub it in. I reserve that right, given all the hassles and paperwork I've had to deal with. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, are you under the impression that you are deserving an apology from someone here? Tarc (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not you in particular, though you are on the list. Do you want me to cross you off the list? -Ste vertigo 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to learn from the experience[edit]

We can dispense with dispensing obtuse punishments and useless admonitions on people. Instead what we can do is clarify the core misconceptions and indicate through simple comment where each party has operated under those misconceptions. A simple acknowledgement is both required and sufficient.

Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing the zealots corrected in a prudent and timely manner, rather than wait for some ill-conceived hammer to come down months later (now) when nobody cares. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ours is not the way of deletionism[edit]

Regardless of the merits of varied arguments, the deletion without open discussion of an article represents an obtuse manner of conduct such that conflicts with the openness at the heart of WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ENC.

Comment: The main issue of course that our adherence to BLP does not mean we violate DBAD. This principle works in several dimensions —from the citation of policy, the "enforcement" of policy, to "private_consensus" for special case handling (articles and people), etc. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge is to improve oneself[edit]

Every party involved has already learned a thing or two about the importance of self-improvement in various editing aspects : 1) interactions 2) clarity of arguments 3) clarity of policy 4) conceptual thinking.

Comment: The important thing is people improve. I'm not interested in dispensing blame as much as I am interested in a certain elementary validation of my actions and expressions, as well as a certain straightforward repudiation of incorrect actions and incivil expression. We can then move on from behaviorism to dealing with how to improve site policy and people's concepts of such. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies should be clear[edit]

The ambiguity with regard to "criticism of" articles needs to be resolved, and not just in a way that defers to convention, or else legitimizes views which oppose such convention. The concept that "criticism of articles are always bad" must be rebuked, and replaced with clear policy that exceeds Jimbo's non-committal and now somewhat outdated statement.

Comment: A central issue in this case has been the view that "criticism of" articles are all invalid, even if they exist in other topic areas. This inconsistency of principle, concept, and application is attributable to Wikipedia and its inability to yet reconcile policy with convention. The promotion of an inconsistent application as policy, or else as a basis for deletion or other action is an error attributable to individuals, and their inability to deal with more rational arguments. The 'criticism of articles shouldn't exist at all, but I'm only going to apply this concept to this topic, and am not going write this concept up as macroscopic policy' ('because I know it will fail') argument has been all too central to those in my opposition. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

People resorted to using characterizations instead of rational arguments[edit]

Self explanatory.

Comment: Should be fairly easy to deal with. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts centered around accurate interpretations of ambiguous policy[edit]

Of notable bearing is the scope of BLP and how it relates to WP:NOCRIT, and how NOCRIT has any bearing at all when it's neither definitive, nor consistent with real-world conventions.

Comment: Conventions appear to have found that "criticism of" sections and articles are a fascile and acceptably neutral solution, particularly where the "integration of criticism" conjecture is only idealistic. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Reform Arbcom to make it interactive[edit]

Self explanatory.

Comment: Apologies if this exceeds certain concepts of case scope, but subsequent remedies rely on intelligent interaction by Arbcom. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom comments freely based on its observations[edit]

Self explanatory.

Comment: Comments from esteemed contributors are welcome. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participants acknowledge Arbcom's insights and suggestions[edit]

Self explanatory.

Comment: Note that acknowledgement is only meaningful if it can lead to interaction and improved participation. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom makes suggestions for improvements[edit]

Arbom is composed of people who have been elected because they have, over the course of a history of participation, gained the respect of the community. It is therefore incumbent on them to employ this good will in a manner which is makes expressive use of their intelligence and facilitates greater far-reaching improvements.

Comment: The community has expressed its trust in Arbcom members to deal with conflicts, including those amongst themselves, in an exemplary manner. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom implements action methods[edit]

"Methods" include policy integration/correction/updating/reform.

Comment: By methods, I mean effective solutions that go beyond simply dispensing with individuals, or dealing with behaviors. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Negated. Wikimedia's mandate is openness, collaboration, neutrality, civility, egalitarian contribution, the sharing of knowledge and Wikipedia adds to these neutrality. "Enforcement" in this context is instead a self-negating concept founded on similar sensibilities.

Comment: In reality, Arbcom can simply say what it thinks in the most terse and informal way, and these will be respected and implemented in various ways. Simply formalizing a dispute in an abstruse way, without meeting other conditions, does not serve Wikipedia's mission. -Ste vertigo 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Ali'i's evidence: "Article probation has failed"[edit]

It seems that the editor presenting this evidence seems to assume that article probation is a be-all and end-all of all problems on the Obama articles - that's not the way it works. As I stated on 24 July 2008, what "previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator" through article probation. That said, nearly all sanctions imposed have been blocks.

This measure, like any other measure, cannot compel any editor or administrator to regularly patrol Obama-related articles and their respective talk pages and deal with every instance of misconduct. (This is especially in light of the fact that such users haved ended up burned out after doing it for a period of time). All it was designed to do was give administrators the tools to deal with conduct that they deemed sanction-worthy, when that conduct has been brought to their attention.

In effect, Ali, your title and first sentence is blatantly inaccurate - the blame or the failure rests, not with probation, but with 2 groups of people: the editors involved for not reporting it promptly & succinctly, and the community for not enforcing it in cases where it was reported and sanctions were needed. That said, some of the involved editors did bring it to administrators attention and sanctions were handed out by the community as evidenced at Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ali'i's entire entry into Evidence is bunk, honestly. Yes, I certainly did use the phrase "you lost an AfD" in the midst of a discussion. The user in question (Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) was edit warring with several editors in an attempt to insert material from a recently closed AfD into another article, an action which was soundly rejected. Perhaps worded sharply, but I'm not exactly a warm and fuzzy individual, and this user was the primary editor of the deleted article, and contributed several times to the AfD. His actions showe da vested interest in getting this material onto the Wikipedia somehow, somewhere, and I called him on it. To compare that to Severtigo's antics, that is wholly without merit.

As for the rest of it...meh. Article probation works just fine. People cross the line, they get warned of the probation. Cross it again, and the sanctions begin to pile up. Article probation, IMO, isn't intended to be a rehabilitative effort; it isn't a Betty Ford Clinic for problem users. It is there to pluck the worst offenders out of the waters and give the overall setting a chance to proceed with (relatively) calmer voices). Tarc (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis/commentary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I stand corrected. Article probation has worked great, is all we need, and there are no more problems with Obama articles! Superdeeduper! Let's close this request then. Hooooooooray! --Ali'i 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the usual way you respond to legitimate criticism - resort to sarcasm and evade the concern to such an extent that you've misstated the point (saying something that is directly contradictory to my first sentence)? It's certainly not appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite often. You said I'm wrong when I say that article probation hasn't worked to fix the hostile editing culture surrounding articles related to Barack Obama. I say that if someone thinks it has worked, then that someone is ripe for sarcasm. I don't think that article probation is the be all and end all, which is why I am urging the Arbitration Committee to do something. Because the probabtion is ineffective. Which is what I stated, and which you seem to disagree with. Mahalo, ncm. --Ali'i 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sound as if you're thinking article probation makes everyone sing songs, hold hands, and eat granola. There are many, contentious "hotspots" around the Wikipedia, from liberal-conservative to Palestine-Israel to Kosovo-Serb, fringe science, Scientology, abortion, on and on and on. Your never going to fully, 100% remove tension or acrimony from any of these, as it is simply human nature. What probation does is remove the offenders from the playing field, either temporarily or permanently, as their behavior warrants. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no. I'm saying you're wrong to expect article probation to "fix the hostile editing culture", and to then state that it failed to accomplish such a mission - it's unreasonable to expect this probation measure to accomplish such a mission when that wasn't the reason it was made. All it was intended to do was give administrators the individual ability to remove editors who edit disruptively in the area (for a period of time) rather than force the community to discuss at length at a noticeboard before being able to do the same thing. So...it has succeeded in its goal.

The reason the hostile editing culture has not been fixed is because either (i) problems are not being brought to uninvolved admins' attention when they arise, or (ii) the community is not willing to enforce probation for some reason. So in essence, that's why we have a case - so ArbCom can deal with a chunk of the problems in the area (and guide the community on probation enforcement, as there is an unwillingness to enforce it for some reason). But both reasons i and ii don't show that probation is a failure; they show that the community has failed. In any case, I don't see how any of this warrants sarcasm; it's plainly unconstructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's where the difference lies then. You (and Tarc, above) think that the goal of article probation is to "remove problem editors". Call me naive, if you wish, but I think that article probation should help "remove problems"; article probation should serve as a type of deterrent (hence all the "to avoid a remedy" material on the page). I acknowledge that it is the editors involved that cause the issues, and not probation itself, but think that if probation has not helped resolve the underlying issues, then why do we pretend that it's useful? There will be a never-ending stream of problem editors, and blocking/banning, etc. will be a neverending process until the underlying issues have been addressed. An endless stream of blocks just doesn't seem constructive. Has it so far made a difference in the editing culture? I don't think it has, and therefore believe that article probation has failed. Not that it has failed to get people blocked (that is obvious), but that it has failed to do anything towards helping gain a solution to the problems. If it hasn't helped address problems (and has only succeeded in getting problem users blocked), then what's the point? Giving "administrators the individual ability to remove editors who edit disruptively in the area" hasn't solved the problems, and therefore has ultimately failed, in my opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, re-reading this, I may have outdone myself on redundancy. :-) I guess that's what I get. --Ali'i 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]