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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by power~enwiki

To what extent does the committee want evidence regarding editors other than Philip Cross? On Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and related topics, any of Slatersteven, Alssa1, Garageland66, Tanbircdq, Icewhiz, Absolutelypuremilk and יניב הורון might have enough diffs to justify some action, but it would take a significant amount of time to gather the evidence. Some of these concerns may end up being more related to Israel-Palestine issues than British Politics issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

At this rate the entirety of Wikipedia will be under general sanctions :-( Guy (Help!) 23:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(after an email discussion) I plan to provide a few diffs to attempt to show that PC's edits on this topic, while not perfect, aren't exceptionally bad compared to those of other editors. I don't plan to make a case against any of the previously named editors here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For something completely different: Are there rules regarding the creation of templates like {{Donald Byrd}} or {{J. J. Johnson}}? I personally don't like them, but I don't see any reason that PC's addition of these is problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No rules, as such. It's expected that a navbox will not be created unless there is compelling evidence of importance of the parent subject, and a decent nuimber of articles (oh the fun I have had with spammers who create navboxes for three articles) but it's largely a matter of whatever anybody can be arsed to create. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Five Filters

@FiveFilters:: Generally if an edit is still visible in Wikipedia (even if it's reverted), it's ok to go ahead and use it. If something is deleted (so you can't see it, like that Mojito Paraiso "biography" of PC), it's ok to refer to it in general terms but don't mention any of the deleted content that might have been private (attempts to out people, etc). You can still email that type of info/evidence to the arbitration committee privately if it's unsuitable for posting. See WP:ARBCOM#LISTS for addresses. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added: Oh I see now, you mean your two online articles that contained some diffs. I think it's best to write up the diffs in the evidence section. Arbcom has seen the online versions but you can email them the urls anyway, if you want them to be part of your evidence submission. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement regarding recently removed evidence

The Arbitration Committee would like to respond to claims of "censorship" over the past couple days. At the top of the evidence page, there is a large notice that states "The Arbitration Committee reminds participating editors that any off-wiki information should be sent privately to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org rather than being posted publicly on case pages. Arbitration clerks have been instructed to remove and revision delete any material related to off-wiki information from case pages." We are strictly enforcing this rule, as one of the major reasons this case was accepted was due to privacy concerns. All off-wiki material must be forwarded to the Committee privately via email rather than posted publicly. This does not mean that we are ignoring the material, but rather that we are protecting the privacy of all editors involved in this case. All material submitted privately by email will be fully reviewed by the Committee and weighted no differently in our decision-making than if it were posted publicly. Off-wiki evidence posted publicly will continue to be removed, and editors who persistently add such material may be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee or an Arbitration clerk. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That seemed pretty lame, given that the linking was pretty benign, the links are all over the wiki already, and to some extent the "complainant" in this case is those off-wiki posts. I linked to Craig Murray's post in my own presentation, answering one of the claims he made. If someone wants to redact my link then fine, but it's silly if you ask me. I wish arbcom+clerks try to use a bit more finesse about this. Also I'd be interested to know if you've gotten any private evidence that you consider relevant (not asking what it is, just whether it exists) if you don't mind saying that. By "private" I mean stuff that's not in those public off-wiki web pages. I feel like evidence presentation in this case is going to be pretty thin with those two editors gone from it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Staring the Arbitration clerks and the Arbitration Committee in the face is an off-wiki link by the very first person to post evidence, ianmacm. In case you can't see it, it's called the "goons tweet". Can you see it now? In your eagerness to delete evidence by KalHolmann, why have you not located and removed this? I thought you were "strictly enforcing this rule"? I am afraid that it really isn't a good look, when KalHolmann continues to be disparaged and threatened, as he or she has been bullied and threatened throughout this whole process, and then other people escape with no sanctions. Please could you put this right - and an apology to KalHolmann for inequitable treatment wouldn't go amiss, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.188.208 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Likewise with off-wiki link by 173.228.123.166. I have pointed them out for you now, since you can obviously easily identify off-wiki links when they are inserted by somebody troublesome to Wikipedia admin, like KalHolmann, and gives you an excuse to threaten and anger him or her, but you are unable to spot them in other people's evidence. Don't bother to thank me. You're most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.188.208 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect linking the public communication between Cross and Galloway was a bit "hotter" in terms of privacy than the Craig Murray post that I linked to. But it has already been acknowledged on-wiki by Cross iirc. And the large amount of recent revdelling looks heavy-handed given how widely posted the links are, both on-wiki and off. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's quite a simple rule, and reasonably easy to understand. External sites are not subject to Wikipedia's privacy policy or our rules on civility. It's not as if this is an article: they would all fail WP:RS for inclusion as sources. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't the rule that is objectionable. Throughout this process, KalHolmann has immediately been attacked with a sledgehammer for getting procedures wrong. He has been treated with the most remarkable discourtesy - by you, especially: for example, you called him a "whistlebellower" and then dismissed him with contempt when he objected to it. The same pattern obtains here. Jumped on instantly and threatened with a ban, while the clerks and/or the Committee obviously could not care less about off-wiki links from other people, or cannot be bothered to check. Very poor show, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.188.208 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I called him no such thing. I invited him to check the difference between "whistleblower" and "whistlebellower" in the specific context of purported "whistleblowers" creating attack articles. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s amazing that an apparent senior Wikipedia administrator can utter such blatant falsehoods and expect them simply to be accepted. Let’s look at the actual conversation.

First of all, you didn’t “invite” KalHolmann to do anything. He was not part of the original dialogue, which was with 121.72.186.141, until you insulted him, which prompted him to join it.

121.72.186.141 said the following, all of which is accurate: “Yet he takes an active part in adjudicating the complaint, *promotes punishment of the whistleblower*, guards against the creation of the inevitable Philip Cross page and misleadingly frames the proposed arbitration case as about Mr Galloway. And this seems to be seen as ordinary. But how do you think it will go down when exposed to hostile public scrutiny?”

The reference enclosed in asterisks is quite clearly and obviously to this proposal, by yourself:

“Regardless of the merits of anything else here, I think KalHolmann should be topic banned from any further mention of user: Philip Cross, other than in the context of any potential ArbCom case. He is not helping.”

Your response to 121.72.186.181 was this:

“You may wish to check the difference between ‘whistleblower’ and ‘whistlebellower’.”

The plain and simple meaning of that sentence is, therefore, that KalHolmann is not a “whistleblower”, but a “whistlebellower”. And it is obvious that that is precisely how KalHolmann took it, because he then joined the conversation to say this:

“User: JzG, have you now stooped to schoolyard name-calling? I presume it is I whom you denigrate as a "whistlebellower." If so, your conduct as a Wikipedia Administrator is deplorable.”

If that was not, in fact, your meaning, which is what I and any other reasonable person would plainly infer from your words, then I think an apology and explanation to KalHolmann might have been in order. Is that what he gets from you? No, far from it: what he gets is arrogant dismissal:

“I am disinclined to assist with your comprehension issues at this time, but thanks for asking.”

That is quite typical of your general attitude, and it is not at all surprising that KalHolmann has left. This is not the only time you have treated him in this manner, and he has also had it from NeilN. I think you should recuse yourself, actually. Your behaviour has been unbecoming of an administrator all the way through this. I recommend that the Arbitration Committee examine the conversation for themselves to see if my characterisation is accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Earlier_complaint

As this is not an article, WP:RS indeed does not apply. We can look at stuff and apply our judgment to it directly. If there's a significant privacy issue that's one thing, but I agree with 46.208.188.208 that this is going overboard. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked 46.208.188.208 as an IP sock of a blocked sockmaster. The details have been sent to the Arbitration Committee as a whole. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

recent redactions

There's been a bunch of recent "redactions of off-wiki evidence" example where the redacted links don't point to anything about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors and the removals come across as POINTy. The diff I gave took out a bunch of Guardian articles about the British Labour party.

I'd like to ask that these redactions be left up to the arbitrators and clerks, and for others to please stop doing them, unless there are obvious issue of editor privacy (the reason for this case's having the restriction on off-wiki evidence), or maybe even then (assuming it's the same stuff we've all already seen: we don't want to immortalize it on the permanently visible evidence page, but it won't matter if it stays around a few extra hours). The arbitrators and clerks are good at this and we can trust them to handle it. I also request a clerk to undo the diff that I posted. Thanks! 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

See above. There is a bright-line rule in force for this case. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the interpretation and enforcement of that bright-line rule up to the arbs and clerks. The diff I posted was ridiculous. The stuff that was removed was perfectly fine even by your own earlier extreme formulation, since it would have been considered RS in mainspace. It had no direct bearing on the case participants or any Wikipedia edits, i.e. it wasn't evidence about user conduct in any way, but rather it was context about the general state of a content area as documented by RS. I'd appreciate if an arb or clerk could comment. Meanwhile I see that another editor has re-restored the info and templated the user. I think their reasoning is correct but again, it would be better to let the clerks handle it instead of edit warring. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As the diff involves my statement I'll weigh in. All the references provided do not mention any Wikipedia editor (or maybe they do, MPs might have accounts, after all). But the point is, they do not relate to on-wiki activity, nor mention Wikipedia. There is no privacy issue at all. The statement by Rob makes it quite clear that the bright line rule is to protect privacy. In fact, I redacted another editor's evidence to enforce privacy, because the redacted parts were basically a repeat of links previously brought at AN, and clearly violated the privacy of Philip Cross. Of course, I'll defer to the Arbs on the final outcome of my statement, but it seems strange to me that a Single Purpose IP used exactly the same edit summary as I did when redacting, to redact my statement. I can't see that as anything other than POINT. .166 makes a very good case for keeping my statement whole, the only thing I will add is that the context is potentially useful to other editors, who may not be British. Hence I think it helps the case to keep my statement public. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166 is correct. I'll be reaching out to individuals involved in this soon. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In an ideal world, the evidence would have been passed by us first, but obviously it isn't what we intended to exclude from public portion of the case. It's fine to be left up. Evidence removals should only be performed by arbitration clerks or arbitrators. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Evidence phase

How is the evidence section still open, it's almost two days past 22 June? @L235:. --Pudeo (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Closed. Sorry about the delay. The evidence does close at the end of the day of the deadline, so we weren't that late, haha :) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pudeo (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)