Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged

This is a summary of the workshop proposals for principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Enforcement was not included. discussion was kept, only when it seemed neccessary to explain the item.

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing, or unseemly conduct. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

4) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Threats

6) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited.

Administrators expected to lead by example

7) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by others:

Of course, the core dilemma facing Wikipedia; if not, let's just forget any pretense of code of conduct on Wikipedia. We have numerous admins who consistently edit in controversial areas without violating AGF or CIVIL; they show how it's done, that it can be done, that it can be done well, and they don't start fires with newbies by biting, failing to AGF or being uncivil. They write articles; they don't show up in ArbCom cases because they're just out there doing what they should be doing. If Wiki can't or won't deal with abusive admins and enforce behavioral norms on Wiki, the good editors available to write content and deal with the legitimate trolls and vandals will continue to decline and problems will grow. Professional editing is possible and should be endorsed, or we should just all go home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself

8) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

MeatBall:DefendEachOther

9) An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks (or threatening to issue blocks) in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Conduct outside Wikipedia

10) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.

Guilt by association

11) Mere membership by an editor in some external website that has members who have been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.

Compliance

12) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia

13) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists because of the community that creates it and maintains it. Because the community generates the majority of the encyclopedia's content, disagreements between editors occur. The respectful airing and resolution of disagreements is normal and indeed desirable in any such community-led project.

Spirit of the rules

14) The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. (taken from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means)

Edit warring is harmful

15) Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.

Don't meatpuppet, don't canvas

16) Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. (taken from Wikipedia:TEAMWORK) Meatpuppeting includes groups of established editors acting in tandem.

When topic bans are a good idea

17) partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. (taken from Wikipedia:Banning policy)

Admin tools are not for struggling with other admins

18) Sysops should avoid reverting the actions of other sysops without prior discussion and consensus.

For the good of Wikipedia, not personal agendas

19) Sysops tools are not to be used for political feuding or to settle personal scores.

Administrators expected to set a good example

20) Administrators are expected to set a good example for other editors. Repeated actions by administrators in contravention of Wikipedia policies may result in desysoppings, even if no use of sysop tools is involved.

Poisoning of the well

21.1) Administrators are warned to avoid creating situations which cause the failure of a wikipedia process and generate undue prejudice against individuals or groups in their future activities. Where this does happen, any editor may strike-out any comments raised based on this prejudice, with a note as to why they have done so, in line with standing policy of removing unsubstantiated attacks.

21.2) Administrators are warned to avoid creating situations which cause the failure of a wikipedia process and generate undue prejudice against individuals or groups in their future activities. Where this does happen, Administrators are required to take this into account when closing subsequent processes and reporting their results.

Criticism and harassment

22) Criticizing one's actions does not constitute harassment.

Unusual circumstances

23) Editors in unusual situations who wish to avoid scrutiny of their editing or editing relationships are expected to make reasonable efforts to avoid conflicts with other editors.

23.1) Editors in unusual situations who wish to avoid evaluation of their editing or editing relationships should generally limit themselves to the article namespace.

Proposed findings of fact

Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk

1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to several remedies from previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of WebEx and Min Zhu, he was admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. He was warned in the case of Agapetos angel and was instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. In the case of ScienceApologist, he was counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.

FeloniousMonk

2) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([1]) ([2]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([3]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([4]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([5]) ([6]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([7]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([8]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([9]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to findings and remedies in previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of Lyndon LaRouche 2, the Committee made a finding that she engaged in personal attacks, and she was cautioned not to make any personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. In the case of Israeli apartheid, she was admonished not to use her administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. She was also reminded in that case to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

SlimVirgin

4) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([10]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([11]).

4.1) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using her administrative tools [12], and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([13]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([14]).

Rules lawyering

5) SlimVirgin has engaged in rules lawyering. Evidence sections Cla68's, SandyGeorgia's, SandyGeorgia's Summary

Group edit warring

6) SlimVirgin has engaged in harmful revert warring together with groups of aligned editors. This group activity is likely organized by off-wiki communications. Evicence sections Cla68's, Mackan79's

Comment by others:

This is undeniable by any look at the contributions claiming it. The ANI discussion contains recognition of this as well known. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No doubts about the truth, accuracy or wording of the first sentence. While the second sentence is 'likely' true, there's no evidence to support it so it should be omitted. dorftrottel (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

<late comment> Then how come Jayjg accidently mailed the en-wiki mailing list that one time? </late comment> Kwsn (Ni!) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting

7) SlimVirgin communicates off-wiki with groups of aligned editors for the purpose of supporting each other in revert wars.

Topical POV

8) The subject matter of animal rights seems to stir up the disruptive tactics by SlimVirgin.

JzG

9) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([15]) and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([16]) ([17]). He has also engaged in unprofessional commentary ([18]).

Bad blood

10) Viridae has frequently used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. These incidents appear to have been intentional, for the purpose of frustrating and baiting JzG.

10.1) Viridae has occasionally used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. These incidents appear to have been intentional, for the purpose of frustrating and baiting JzG. Substantial bad blood exists between Viridae and JzG.

10.2) Viridae has occasionally used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. Even if these occurrences weren't intentional, the pattern of conduct demonstrated questionable judgment, and had the effect of provoking JzG to behave badly. As a result, substantial bad blood exists between Viridae and JzG.

Cla68's RFA

11) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to meat puppetry coordinated by User:SlimVirgin.

11.1) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to opposition by a group of editors coordinated by User:SlimVirgin.

11.2) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to false accusations (well poisoning) by User:SlimVirgin, and opposition from editors associated with her.

Poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

12) There were anomalies and conduct in Cla68's RfA that, even assuming good faith, led to undue prejudice and "poisoning of the well" for future RfAs.

Acknowledgment of evidence and apologies for suboptimal behaviour by the parties

13) Of the involved parties, Cla68 (link) has acknowledged parts of the evidence presented against his behaviour as valid, recognised his own behaviour in several instances as inappropriate, and apologised for it accordingly. JzG has addressed concerns regarding his behaviour (link), acknowledged part of them as valid, explained it, and pledged to improve.

FeloniousMonk (link)

SlimVirgin (link)

Viridae (link)

Harassment has occurred

14) SlimVirgin and JzG have been and continue to be the targets of on-wiki and off-wiki harassment and abuse.

SlimVirgin and JzG have mislabeled criticism as harassment

15) SlimVirgin and JzG have wrongfully accused some people of harassment (stalking, trolling, personal attacks, etc.) when they have offered legitimate criticism of their actions.

The involved administrators have misused the tools

16) The record shows that, notwithstanding many instances of proper and laudable use of administrative tools, FeloniousMonk, JzG, SlimVirgin, and Viridae have all misused administrative tools. The frequency of misuse is higher than can be justified as a reasonable error rate given their administrative workload.

Proposed remedies

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

FeloniousMonk desysopped

1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

1.1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.

1.2) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole

2) FeloniousMonk is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

SlimVirgin desysopped

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, but must demonstrate that she can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

3.1) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

SlimVirgin placed on civility parole

4) SlimVirgin is subject to an editing restriction for six months to one year. Should she make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Please don't wikilawyer

5) The ArbCom stronly encourages SlimVirgin not to belabor the fine points of policy pages in discussions, and not to look for loopholes justifying inappropriate actions.

SlimVirgin 1RR

6) For edit warring, SlimVirgin is placed on 1RR.

Serial tandem edit warring probation

7) Those who edit closely aligned to SlimVirgin are on notice that group edit warring will not be tolerated.

Topical bans may be useful, probationary period

8) SlimVirgin is warned that repeated edit warring over the same subject matter may be subject to topical bans. This warning period lasts for one year.

JzG Administrative privileges

9) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may not reapply via the usual means. He may only reapply by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

9.1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

9.2) JzG's adminship is suspended for 30 days.

JzG placed on civility parole

10) JzG is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

JzG banned for one month

11) JzG's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one month.

JzG and SlimVirgin restricted admin functions

12)JzG and SlimVirgin restricted admin functions. They may use their admin abilities in only non-controversial aspects of the project for 1 year.

SlimVirgin and JzG restricted from alleging harassment

13) SlimVirgin and JzG are indefinitely enjoined not to accuse any editor of harassing, trolling, stalking, or provoking them. Exceptions: they may report such behavior on AN/I, arbitration pages, or on an uninvolved administrator's talk page, and they may link to the accusation from the accused editor's talk page as a courteous notification.

13.1) As above, except that grievances are to be handled first by a special master appointed by the Committee, who will address the concern or escalate to the proper dispute resolution process.

Use of admin tools in Intelligent design, pseudo-science, and animal rights articles

14) All administrators who frequently edit articles related to intelligent design, pseudo-science, or animal rights (all broadly interpreted) are are instructed not to use the administrative tools in any controversial way with an article, category, or image relating to intelligent design, pseudo-science, or animal rights articles or with another editor of the same. Any administrative action taken in violation of this restriction may be overturned without prejudice by any uninvolved admin.

14.1) Users who are party to this arbitration are instructed not to use the administrative tools in any way beyond dealing with vandalism with respect to any article, category, or image relating to intelligent design, pseudo-science, or animal rights (all interpreted broadly), or with respect to an issue involving another editor of the same. All other users who frequently edit articles related to the above topic areas are cautioned to take care to act in a neutral way when using the administrative tools with an article, category, or image relating to intelligent design, pseudo-science, or animal rights articles or with another editor of the same. Any uninvolved administrator may reverse any administrative action taken in violation of this remedy that they feel is inappropriate. (Added 6/6/2008)

Viridae Warned

15) Viridae is warned not to involve himself in JzG's business, and not to undo administrative actions without prior discussion and consensus.

15.1) Viridae is instructed not to revert, in whole or in part, any administrative action taken by JzG.

Reversal of poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

16) Cla68 is granted adminship.

16.1) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. During discussion of the RfA, any editor may strike-out negative comments against Cla68 not supported with evidence.

16.2) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. On closure of the RfA, it is strongly advised that opposition to the RfA only be taken into account if it is supported by evidence.

16.3) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. Editors who made comments based solely on the misleading 'poisoning of the well' of the prior RfA shall be excluded from the process.

Nothing to see here

17) Everybody is encouraged to continue to improve Wikipedia. Everybody is encouraged to grow a thicker skin. If in doubt assume good faith. De-escalate, don't escalate. Don't be a dick.