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 may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Rename case to "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Alansohn" upon closing

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is there some particular reason for this request? We don't generally rename cases when closing them. Kirill ^(
prof) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

True, but renames have occurred. In this arb case, "Footnoted quotes" is only the tip of the iceberg. Alansohn is key in every issue (the only user so) and Norton in, I think, all but one. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 00:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Renames have occurred when the scope of the case changed while it was open (eg if an aspect of user behaviour was found on investigation to be entirely above board), and renames have been a response to the change in scope. I think it is premature at this stage, prior to voting, to suggest a rename. If the renaming suggestion is a subtle attempt to influence the focus of the case, then I'm afraid it is unlikely to be effective. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I simply think it's more description of the case. It's in no way an attempt to influence focus. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

If you want to petition Arbcom for some other issue beyond "using the quote function in citations", it would be better to make a request at the appropriate page. Arbom has accepted this narrow case based on a specific petition process. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, see my post on the evidence talk page ".Prior to submitting I asked the arbs and clerk about the scope of the case if I could submit this, no one objected and I was told the title was a mere umbrella of all issues pertaining to the parties." — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure "no one objecting" is equivalent to accepting your petition. Beyond accepting the case of "quotes in footnotes", there hasn't been any activity from Arbcom that I am aware of. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Submitted. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Proposals by AGK

Proposed principles

Editorial process

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Editors are expected to participate in consensus-building where disagreements arise, rather than " force through" their views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We might want to make explicit that this means style issues as well as article content. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a derivative of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Editorial process. Anthøny 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This principle shouldn't be stated in such unqualified terms -- on certain occasions it is necessary to manage possibly good faith, but highly disruptive editing through brute force reversion, and blocking the disruptive editor if necessary. For instance, if someone makes an edit such as this, the proper response is not to have an extended discussion concerning whether it is permissible to violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, but instead to simply press the rollback button. (If I had the privilege, I would also have been sorely tempted to block the offending editor on the spot.) There seems to be a growing perception that blatant WP:BLP violations are to be treated as content disputes, which needs to be stopped. John254 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Consensus is paramount

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes; editors who disagree are expected to work together to establish a consensus, including by utilising the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; open to flexibility on content and title. Anthøny 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This principle has the same problems as the one above -- what if editors form a consensus to seriously violate the biographies of living persons policy? Should we have unsourced controversial conjecture concerning a living person, such as [1], if many editors support it? While there don't appear to be any WP:BLP issues raised by the case at hand, the principle should be qualified so to deter editors from taking it out of context. John254 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP is not weakened by this proposed principle. This principle doesnt negate the existence of other principles; nor does it need to be worded to include a tip of the hat to every other principle. In fact, adding caveats to cater for corner cases causes a principle to be weakened, because then other corner cases which were not addressed are then assumed to be OK. John Vandenberg ^(
chat) 11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Consensus

3) Wikipedia operates through the building of consensus by the engagement of editors in polite discussion. Where a consensus is difficult to achieve and where normal talk page discussion has not worked, the editors involved may follow the dispute resolution process. Nevertheless, any consensus agreed upon must also satisfy Wikipedia policy; agreement is not a "free-for-all" ticket.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a variant of 1) and 2), and per suggestions from John. Anthøny 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I prefer your previous wording. John Vandenberg ^(
chat) 11:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the spirit of what is being said seems reasonable, but I would make a slight grammar revision suggestion per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#However. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Noted, and amended accordingly. That's what I get for not proof-reading. :) Anthøny 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This has it backwards. Policy is formed through consensus, not vice versa. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There is also a distinction between consensus-building regarding editorial matters, and regarding content. The former is separate from the latter, and simultaneously and by extension, is subject to the outcome of the second, if that makes sense. "Consensus", I fear, is an umbrella term thrown around a little too lightly, and is used too often lacking relevant boundaries: article consensus is, for example, very different from administrator consensus, which again is different from policy consensus. This proposal deals with article consensus, and is designed to deal with that only. Anthøny 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting! The between editorial and content kinds of consensus is currently not documented afaik, and I'm not sure what you mean. Could you make a writeup? (user space, Talk page for Wikipedia:Consensus, or even the policy page itself, if you're confident.).

I'm also not sure why you differentiate between "article consensus", "administrator consensus", and "policy consensus" however. The details of that opinion might be interesting to write down too though.

The section of the proposal I disagree with specifically is "Nevertheless, any consensus agreed upon must also satisfy Wikipedia policy". I'm not sure where you're going with that. My understanding of policy/guidelines/essays is that they represent the sum total of said agreed upon consensus. For someone following that approach -and under the current system- it would simultaneously be impossible to alter policy, and extremely hard to reach consensus at all. I'm sure that's not right. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

To answer only your final paragraph, my intention is to indicate that, whilst consensus is essential, it is similarly not a free pass to skirting around Wikipedia policy. Editorial consensus must satisfy policy–that is, the consensus of the community (or, in some cases, the Foundation) as to how Wikipedia should operate–and should not violate it. To give an example, if all editors contributing to the Bill Gates article reach a consensus (ie., an editorial consensus) that the sentence "Bill Gates stole his ideas from Mr. Blobby", does that make the sentence permissible? (I'm not using examples from the realms of absurdity here to hold your argument in a bad light, but rather to avoid making inappropriate comments about a BLP subject). Of course not; it violates policy, and by extension, policy consensus. Am I making some sort of sense? Anthøny 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem with that viewpoint is that it is on those same pages that community consensus is formed. As more people join a discussion, the local consensus (consensus formed by everyone present in one discussion/page/project/etc.) will drift towards community consensus (consensus formed by everyone on wikipedia). If it drifts in a different direction than you expect, then you should adjust your view ( and also the documentation).

The net result of those rules often comes out pretty close to what you say, but not always (and you can get into big trouble if you actually reverse cause and effect).

While the reverse of cause and effect you're mentioning is the kind of lie-to-children some folks find to be very useful to tell new users early on, it might not be the best thing to say during an Arbcom case, especially when people start splitting hairs. :-)

In your example: As more people slowly trickle in to the discussion, they might bring in more and more reliable sources showing that Mr. Gates is really an evil thief, and consensus will drift towards yes, the sentence is permissible. Of course, if no one brings in reliable sources, or perhaps show sources where in fact Mr. Blobby is implicated in the reprehensible deed instead, then consensus will go the other way.

There might also be people present who haven't heard of our penchant for reliable sources, but after a while someone will manage to explain to them why reliable sources are a good idea (perhaps by simply linking to the existing documentation or perhaps by explaining it themselves). Once everyone is on the same page, consensus ensues. ;-)

-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Dispute resolution participation

4) Where differences in opinion over editorial content arise, editors are expected to engage in discussion or dispute resolution in a reasoned and civil manner. " Focus on content, not on the contributor" is an essential component of the editorial consensus-building process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Anthøny 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Discussion

5) Editorial consensus-building is an integral component of article development. Where differences of opinion arise, editors are expected to engage in polite, civil discussion is an essential next step. All discussion subsequent to a disagreement arising must be engaged in fully; talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Anthøny 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Edit summaries

6) Wikipedia operates through the co-operation and collaboration of its editors. All actions must facilitate courtesy towards one's fellow editors: care should be taken by editors to respect the presence of those editing alongside them. It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, and it is expected that editors will strive to do so. Informative edit summaries that are reflective of the changes made facilitate a positive working environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per concerning evidence of inappropriate edit summaries. Anthøny 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Alansohn has misrepresented fact

1) Alansohn ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly made comments during the course of on-Wiki discussion, in which he misrepresented the views of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Either a diff, or a link to the section on the evidence page, would be of assistance to users unfamiliar with the dispute. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per concerning evidence. Anthøny 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

BLP moderation

1) I am currently authoring a rough proposal for a major revamp of the way we deal with troublesome BLPs. It is essentially a system modelled on the idea of discretionary sanctions, but with a focus on "article moderation". The system, which I'm planning on naming BLP moderation, would involve passing a Committee remedy, to allow administrators to place troublesome BLPs on "moderation"; thereafter a BLP has been put on moderation, all troublesome edits can be met with (after a warning w/ link to the decision) an article ban, etc.–essentially, anything permitted by the previously-seen discretionary sanctions remedy.

I'm not going to formally propose this at the present moment, as it's quite lengthy, but I am working on it in a user subpage. In the interim, are there any thoughts on this system/suggestions to how it would operate? Indeed, any outright opposition: is this the correct or an appropriate approach? Comments welcome. Anthøny 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; see statement above. Anthøny 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

So far, I'm more in favour of the proposals worked on by Kirill and myself - but just to clarify; how would yours be different? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems there's an overlap here. I had previously paid very little attention to that proposal, although I had planned to do so. That seems to be exactly what I'm getting at, although it's much more blanket, and less like the discretionary sanctions remedy. I'll chip in there from now on. Anthøny 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Subjecting all BLP articles to the remedy proposed is more likely to be effective, I think, given the level of importance we put on BLP articles. We made modifications to avoid any problems that existed with the discretionary sanctions approach. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposals by John254

Proposed principles

Wikipedia:Manual of Style issues beyond the remit of the Arbitration Committee

1) While the Arbitration Committee declines to resolve content disputes on their merits, the Committee will consider claims that editorial conduct blatantly violates fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. However, disagreements as to the correct enforcement of our Manual of Style are almost always purely within the realm of content disputes, raising no compelling content policy issues. Consequently, the Arbitration Committee will almost never issue findings as to whether particular editors have violated the Manual of Style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I know our revered leader likes analogies with the UK constitution, and I think this falls within one: just as no Parliament may bind its successor, no Arbitration Committee may bind itself. The fact that the committee avoids findings which relate purely to article content does not mean that it is disbarred from doing so; it's simply a matter of tradition that we don't. Also, if a user becomes disruptive by habitually violating the manual of style, then they might be restricted. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent point. Perhaps refining this remedy, to a "reverse form" of the common locus of dispute or scope of case findings, would be more appropriate? For example, "manual of style issues do not fall within the locus of this dispute/the scope of this case". This would communicate that MoS do not fall within the scope of this case, yet does not bind the Committee's future remit and operations. Anthøny 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Never say never.. Manual of Style issues are transient, and it is wise for arbcom to steer clear of them. Wiki technology and the number of hands on deck are two of the many limiting factors for MoS - as these continue to improve, the MoS adjusts. Editors should feel free to experiment, however as articles are currently "live" to the world, I think that other editors are within their rights to tell experimenters to play in a sandbox first if the experiment has a detrimental effect on the work of others. These competing interests can escalate into arbitration cases, but the cause of that escalation will be that the parties involved arnt working together and appreciating what the other party is trying to do. Arbcom needs to focus on why the style issues became the heart of a dispute without making rulings on the style issue itself. John Vandenberg ^(
chat) 11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Edit warring over purely stylistic issues is lame

2) As a corollary to the principle that Wikipedia:Manual of style matters present no substantial content policy issues, repeated reversion concerning purely stylistic questions has no character of content policy enforcement, and lies firmly within the territory of lame edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Edit warring is lame, period. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Naturally; nobody is disagreeing on that point. What I think the niggle here is, is "lame" an appropriate term for an arbitration decision? Is it too informal? Is it the most informative term we could use, to describe edit warring? Perhaps, for example, "edit warring over purely stylistic issues is unacceptable" would be better?

Furthermore, this seems to bind only edit warring over stylistic issues to being lame. That leaves this proposal open to an interpretation, whereby edit warring that is less "lame" is acceptable. I think a general-purpose approach of "all edit warring is lame" (replacing lame with any agreed term), with an example of "over stylistic issues" (eg., "edit warring, including over purely stylistic issues, is unacceptable") as a form of edit warring, is the way to go. Anthøny 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose: "Style" issues may be separate from content policy issues, but referring to lame edit warring is a blatant insult against any editor who has sought to improve an article by improving a "stylistic issue". Stylistic issues are an essential part of making a good article. Stylistic issues make the difference between an article that is understandable and engaging and one that's a sterile and confusing jumble of facts. Attention to stylistic issues show that people who care about quality and professionalism have put serious work into an article. Caring about stylistic issues is the dead opposite of "lame". RedSpruce ( talk) 01:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to John254: You make a distinction regarding "'style' as the term is commonly used on Wikipedia". Personally, I'm not aware of any such distinction; I think you're using "style" to stand in for "trivial issues". If you want to say that edit warring over trivial issues is lame, you should say that.

In an ideal world, edit-warring might never happen. In the real world, edit-warring happens when editors care about an issue. As it stands, your proposal is saying "people who care about style are lame."

More general comment: I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring. If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles. It was with those thousands of articles in mind that I initiated this ArbCom case. RedSpruce ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Norton At last, some discussion on removing quotes and other information in articles. Redspruce in his own words says: "the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring." I believe that this is a synonym for "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". RedSpruce is still edit warring to "make his point", even while this arbitration is in session:

Here he removes the note that Time magazine used a variant spelling of the subject's name in the obituary. This leaves the next person to read the Time obituary to have to redo the research to find out which of the two is correct. It is not a trivial task. When two reliable sources of information conflict, don't throw one away and pray the other is correct. Persuade the reader, and the serious researcher and explain why one is correct and the other is wrong. Note: This posting persuaded him to re-add the information, but he added his own reference, and mine is still deleted.
Here he deletes most of my changes to the article of G. David Schine, while Arbcom is discussing the very issue. (peek at the edit history to see how many times he has deleted the same information)
Here he removes the quote from the source where I have corrected an error in the article while Arbcom is discussing the issue. Now the next person will have re examine the information and decide which is correct.
See here for other examples where Redspruce deletes my additions to articles as "minor dis-improvement[s]" to "force a discussion". I believe this is a synonym for "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". These issues should have been settled during the multiple ANIs, but when consensus is reached to not delete the quotations, or new information at one article, he just moves to another article and starts the process all over again. What has started at Annie Lee Moss moved to Mary Stalcup Markward then moved to G. David Schine and now is at Melvin Purvis and Elizabeth Bentley (peek at the edit histories). Single issue ANIs and RFCs just cause the behavior to move to a new article and the deletion process starts anew. Many, many hours are wasted that could be used for adding new biographies, cleaning up old biographies and other pressing needs. (peek at the edit histories to see how many times he has deleted the same information)

Here are the past ANIs:

RedSpruce ANI against Norton with "moron" incivility

AlanSohn ANI against RedSpruce with result of 24 hour block for 3RR

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to RedSpruce: extremely low-quality editing subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli, is not embraced within the meaning of the term "style" as it is used in this context (note that the findings in the Stefanomencarelli case itself make no reference to "style", or our manual of style, at all) Rather, this proposed principle seeks to describe and condemn edit warring concerning issues of "style" as the term is commonly used on Wikipedia, as in the present dispute concerning quotations in footnotes. The principle is no way intended to disparage contributors who edit articles for style without edit warring. John254 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure about "lame", but agree in principle. Anthøny 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. per AGK Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: "per AGK"? AGK hasn't commented on this proposal yet, and I don't see any connection between any of his/her current comments and this proposal. RedSpruce ( talk) 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Anthony is AGK. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello :) Apologies for the confusion; I sign as Anthøny (my name's Anthony), but my username is AGK. If you click my signature, you will arrive at that userpage. Incidentally, RedSpruce: for future reference, I'm a him :) Anthøny 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

What Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy is not

(3) Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy does not furnish grounds for the removal of well-sourced, fair, and balanced information solely on the basis that the subject of a biography has requested this action:

Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by... the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.(from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Preventing_BLP_violations)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Rlevse has a permanent conflict of interest with respect to editing George Thomas Coker

Comment by Arbitrators:

Outside the scope of the case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support. The only matter that is in the scope of this case is footnotes. Other editors have used this as an opportunity to exact revenge for perceived past injustices. Rlevse has deliberately inserted himself into this matter to falsely claim ownership issues with another article as part of an effort to deflect attention from his own egregious abuses at George Thomas Coker. I would never have considered this appropriate for discussion here without Rlevse's abusive and malicious insertion of his personal agenda into this matter. This abuse by Rlevse, an admin who has shamelessly abused Wikipedia process to provide false and misleading coverage of an individual he is protecting, needs to be addressed. Evidence of this abuse is thoroughly documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#Witch hunt by User:Rlevse / WP:OWN and WP:COI violations at George Thomas Coker

What false coverage? I see nothing Rlevse inserted that is false. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No claim was made that there was anything "Rlevse inserted that is false", a rather curious and telling misinterpretation. Leaving out relevant, reliably sourced material provides false and misleading coverage of an individual. Imagine if Richard Nixon demanded that all references to Watergate be removed how a reader would interpret his article. Alansohn ( talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That's mere toe-tapping, Alansohn. And comparing this Coker issue to Nixon and Watergate is a major stretch. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Leaving in every last detail of Coker's Boy Scout history and omitting his extensive appearance in an Academy Award-winning film is not a stretch, it's just whitewashing. Would this be a good point to disclose your conflict of interest relationship with User:Rlevse? Alansohn ( talk) 05:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment I've never hidden that I know him nor that I have edited the article. If someone has a COI because they know the subject of an article that shouldn't ban them from editing the article or removing material per WP:BLP. This is a WP:HARM issue and needs to be considered in that light. Keep in mind he'd been brutally tortured for 6.5 years, had just been released when that statement was made, and he's still haunted by all those experiences. Including only one sentence from a 10-minute appearance is WP:UNDUE. This whole issue comes down to where one falls in the "do no harm" to "include everything" spectrum, which is why one of my proposals asks the arbs to look into this issue via mediations. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

While anyone can remove obvious WP:BLP violations such as unsourced controversial information, whether well-sourced information nonetheless violates our biographies of living persons policy is a sufficiently subjective issue that editors with a conflict of interest need to recuse themselves from removing the content in question. Editors should never create even the appearance of attempting to burnish their friends' biographies (or of using Wikipedia as a forum for the disparagement of their enemies.) John254 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Rlevse has submitted false and misleading evidence in an attempt to get Alansohn banned

===Asserts ownership of Dane Rauschenberg===
refers to malicious edits and that “further abuse of this article will not be tolerated”

refers to a user’s obsessive monomania

calls other edits “BS”

says “suggestions needed to deal with recalcitrant and unrepentant sockpuppet” and most info is “most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject.” ‘’Note’’ here he’s worried about protecting a living person.

See related ANI thread.

[2]

All of the diffs provided refer to Alansohn's interactions with Runreston ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 207.91.86.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Alansohn's characterizations of these users' edits are accurate, as Runreston and 207.91.86.2 are abusive sockpuppets of Racepacket -- see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), and Runreston's block log. Rlevse could hardly have been unaware of this situation, having closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), and having blocked both Runreston and 207.91.86.2. Thus, Rlevse advances the bizarre conclusion that vociferously opposing editing by abusive sockpuppets somehow constitutes "assert[ing] ownership of Dane Rauschenberg".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not exactly an accurate conclusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Dare I ask why? As my claims are supported by ample evidence, your bare conclusory assertion of their inaccuracy is unpersuasive. John254 16:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You could, and I could answer, but we'd just go around in circles. I'll the arbs take it from here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

A vacuous response, consistent with your indefensible position in this matter. John254 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Just avoiding needless wiki drama. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Something which you should have considered before claiming that Alansohn's strongly-worded criticism of confirmed abusive sockpuppet accounts somehow amounts to an assertion of "ownership". John254 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The case I was involved in was 'likely', not confirmed. And yes, I did consider all factors before becoming active in this case. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The checkuser results with respect to the association between Racepacket and Runreston were "likely" [3]. Fortunately, as clearly described in our checkuser policy, checkuser evidence is not the only means by which we can establish abusive sockpuppetry:

CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not).(from Wikipedia:Checkuser#Hints_and_tips)

When the checkuser finding that there was "likely" an association between Racepacket and Runreston was considered in conjunction with the extensive behavioral evidence of abusive sockpuppetry presented in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), Runreston was found to be an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. John254 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Racepacket has engaged in extensive abusive sockpuppetry on Dane Rauschenberg

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

Rlevse restricted

Comment by Arbitrators:

Outside the scope of the case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the Rlevse has a permanent conflict of interest with respect to editing George Thomas Coker finding. John254 05:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

From WP:COI-"Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." and "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias". My efforts re the Coker article were to follow the wiki guidelines as I interpreted them. It's obvious there are two schools of thought on how to interpret this set of guidelines and I can see how those who are in the other school from me could perceive this. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This proposal connotes and is automatically accompanied by very serious allegations. Without commenting on its validitiy, I will observe that there will, obviously, need to be substantial and clear evidence presented in favour of this; I fully expect this to be presented, should this even be considered. Anthøny 18:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence of abuse by User:Rlevse is thoroughly documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#Witch hunt by User:Rlevse / WP:OWN and WP:COI violations at George Thomas Coker and covers a period of more than two years of preventing even the merest mention of Coker's appearance in an Academy Award-winning film. User:Rlevse has refused to consider inclusion of unchallenged reliable and verifiable material sourced from national publications, written in the most neutral and balanced manner possible, all as part of an effort to whitewash the biography of an individual with whom he has a personal relationship. User:Rlevse admits to removing such material at the demand of the article's subject on multiple occasions. Alansohn ( talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Racepacket banned

2) Racepacket ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the "Racepacket has engaged in extensive abusive sockpuppetry on Dane Rauschenberg" finding. John254 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Rlevse

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not a fan of recycling old remedies exactly a priori, but I think this particular proposal is prudent. Anthøny 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

POV and BLP

2) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities and to balance the needs of the encyclopedia with WP:BLP issues. Key to this, as BLP states, is avoiding harm. If the subject of the article feels that the content in the article does not properly reflect them then it is important for us to take that into consideration, especially those who are relatively unknown. Including quotes from a biased source violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongest Possible Oppose. User:Rlevse is proposing that we grant carte blanche to article subjects and their supporters to manipulate article content as they see fit, authority which he has already arrogated to himself for more than two years to present truthful, relevant and accuarte information from being included in the article in question. George Thomas Coker is a genuine American hero for his actions as a POW for more than six years. To exclude thoroughly-documented and supported neutral information about an article subject with no ability to counteract these demands will turn Wikipedia into a worthless pile of puff pieces. In this case, User:Rlevse has persistently obstructed efforts by multiple efforts to whitewash Coker's appearance in an Hearts and Minds, in which he makes statements about his captivity and his captors, information which could not be any more relevant in an article about someone whose notability derives primarily from his status as a POW. WP:NPOV demands the inclusion of all relevant information, good and "bad". Granting a public figure a "presumption of privacy" that trumps NPOV in any and all circumstances as User:Rlevse demands will make Wikipedia articles anything but encyclopedic. This should be opposed by any individual who has a genuine interest in making Wikipedia a genuine encyclopedia. Alansohn ( talk) 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Where did I say "grant carte blanche to article subjects and their supporters to manipulate article content as they see fit"? I said use NPOV, BLP and avoiding harm principle. Elsewhere on this very page Kirill has said something similar to what I said. Also on this very page Kirill says "I think it's implicit in this that BLP should take precedence, since we're authorizing people to use "any and all means" to comply with it.". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That others agree with you does not undermine the damage to the credibility of this encyclopedia if your agenda is pushed through. I do not claim that you used the words "carte blanche". The statement that "If the subject of the article feels that the content in the article does not properly reflect them then it is important for us to take that into consideration, especially those who are relatively unknown" grants a veto power to an article subject to exclude any and all relevant information deemed negative, regardless of the sources provided. You have persisitently demonstrated a willingness to remove the most neutrally worded mention of Coker's appearance, without demonstrating any balance whatsoever towards inclusion. WP:BLP is already cynically manipulated and abused to remove relevant articles and to whitewash inclusion of publicly available material using the "presumption of privacy" as an excuse. If Mr. Coker wants to write an article about himself and to frame his background as he sees fit, he is free to sign up on MySpace. If we are to produce an encyclopedic article about a notable individual, we need to include relevant sourced material about the subject. The actions you have aleady taken over a period of years to take the subject's word as trumping all other efforts at NPOV, BLP and the avoiding harm principle is the perfect demonstration of the damage that will inevitably be caused to Wikipedia's credibility. Alansohn ( talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain on principle for now. Note - I changed the spelling of than -> then. Hope it is ok. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

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. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, paying attention to what others say, correctly applying policy, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Any form of disruptive editing or discussion is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

While discussion is certainly important, when you do the numbers, in the overwhelming majority of cases consensus is actually reached through wiki editing. (I guess the folks who wrote the foundation issues intuitively grasped this, and that's why it's foundation issue #3 ;-) ). So my argument is that you want to be very careful where you lay the stress here. It's actually a lot easier to effectively be disruptive by forcing talk page discussion (as you can then filibuster endlessly), and it is actually fairly hard to be more than transiently disruptive by simply editing. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC) In extremis: An endless filibuster on the talk page of a protected article is much more damaging than a single reverted edit. Hence bold editing is encouraged. reply

Concretely: "Any form of disruptive editing or discussion is prohibited" sounds nice,but is actually fairly difficult to substantiate. If that's removed, this principle is much stronger. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Integrity of content

4) The project has always aspired to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. The ongoing growth and prominence of the English Wikipedia, which is now one of the top ten websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when research is done on a topic, makes these goals even more important. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing off-wiki controversies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Ownership of Dane Rauschenberg

1) User:Alansohn has asserted ownership of Dane Rauschenberg.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. It is surely a disturbing sign that User:Rlevse, an admin who has abusively blocked addition of reliably sourced material to the George Thomas Coker article in clear violation of WP:OWN and WP:COI, could level a charge regarding Dane Rauschenberg. Despite the actions of several sockpuppets making hundreds of edits to add false and defamatory information to the article in contravention of WP:BLP (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), and especially Runreston's block log, where User:Rlevse imposes blocks for sockpuppetry), I spent months ensuring that every single statement in the article was reliably and verifiably sourced, and worked to ensure that no false, misleading or defamatory statements were included. User:Rlevse's efforts to twist the circumstances of this sockpuppetry and to use this as an excuse to justify his far more egregious abuse of both WP:OWN and WP:COI at George Thomas Coker are unacceptable from any editor, let alone an admin. Alansohn ( talk) 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose -- please see the "Rlevse has submitted false and misleading evidence in an attempt to get Alansohn banned" proposed finding. John254 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Seeing how I provided several diffs, I find your characterization as "false and misleading" quite bizarre (to use your own phrase). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, you provided several diffs of Alansohn stridently opposing edits by abusive sockpuppet accounts. If I were dealing with such extensive sockpuppetry, I might be quite upset as well. John254 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Tag-team editing

2) User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ~~, and to a lesser extent User:ChrisRuvolo~~ have acted as meatpuppets and have engaged in tag-team edit warring in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support: Regardless of what you call it, when two or more editors automatically support one another and join disputes in support of one another, this makes honest and meaningful discussion impossible, and subverts the process by which content disputes are supposed to be resolved in Wikipedia. RedSpruce ( talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Supporting the same concept of including quotes in references across multiple articles is not "tag team" editing, its supporting the same concept across multiple articles. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose: I don't automatically support anything. There have been occasions where I have agreed with Alan and Richard, but there are also occasions where I have disagreed. I resent the fact that this RFA was brought without any notification to myself. I request that you either 1) support your accusations by citing specific edits by myself or 2) withdraw my name from this RFA. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The evidence is on the evidence page. I'm sorry for forgetting to notify you, that is my error. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The only place I see my name mentioned on the evidence page is here. There you do not show any evidence of 3RR violations or tag-team editing by myself. I do not dispute that I posted to the Coker talk page and joined the discussion. While my userbox joke was perhaps in poor taste, it was neither a 3RR violation or tag-team editing. Up until April 30, 2008 I had not edited the Coker article itself (only its talk page). My edit of April 30 was to provide some NPOV balance. There was one subsequent revert, and those edits have stood to date. So, again, either please provide evidence of a 3RR violation or tag-team editing by myself (specific diffs please), or remove my name from this RFA. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I have removed ChrisRuvolo from the proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for fairly considering the evidence. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The fact that it has stood for a week or so does not mean users agree with it. I for think do not want to start an edit war during an arb case. I'm going to state that on the talk page of that article. If I rv'd again, would you rv back? Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I had not heard any objection from you after my revert until now. If you changed it, I would not revert it again. I might change it with new proposed wording, but until consensus is reached, I wouldn't expect those proposed changes to stick around. Edit wars are pointless IMO. There's no reason we can't discuss this on the talk page instead of having a revert battle. Cheers. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Seems a bit harsh; cooperation and agreement is not necessarily sock or meatpuppetry. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: It depends on your definition of meatpuppetry. If it is strictly defined as recruiting outsiders to Wikipedia to support your arguments, no, of course not. It strikes me more as a WP:CANVASS violation. RGTraynor 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. If they aren't meats by a particular definition, they've still circumvented 3RR and tag-teamed. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: Agreeing is one thing, when you run it to 3RR limits, it's tag team editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with your sentiment - but I think in the Fof, or in the principles, it needs to be specifically explained; running an article to its 3RR limits is tag team editing. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Mis-leading edit summaries

3) User:Alansohn has posted several misleading edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Misinterpretations

4) User:Alansohn has often misinterpreted and/or misjudged user statements, user intent, and wiki policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorsed. RGTraynor 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Although using this as an example, this proposal could be more strongly worded. RedSpruce ( talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

Mediation

1) Issues regarding George Thomas Coker, Dane Rauschenberg, G._David_Schine, Joseph McCarthy, Army-McCarthy Hearings, and Hearts and Minds (film) shall be resolved by mediation with a mediator approved by arbcom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: There is no, and to my knowledge never has been any, long-term dispute or anything that could be called an edit war at Army-McCarthy hearings. RedSpruce ( talk) 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment History page shows recent activity by the parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Mostly Support. Not so sure of the two McCarthy articles, but the others definitely need outside, neutral, knowledgeable help. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Remark. I'm wary of this proposal, simply because it could imply the parties are being "forced into" a mediation, which fundamentally undermines the Wikipedia mediation model. Whilst I do believe that a measure with the aim of "forcing the parties' hands" to pursue civil dispute resolution requires implementation, this approach does not strike me as the best method by which this could be achieved. Anthøny 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment I see your concern here Anthony, but the mediation I proposed was ignored by Alansohn and he did not propose an alternative mediation; he was only willing to accept his version of the issue. So, I see no alternative left but arbcom imposing some sort of settlement or settlement process. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Reject - mediation cannot/should not be forced. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose as the proposed remedy relates to Dane Rauschenberg -- please see the "Rlevse has submitted false and misleading evidence in an attempt to get Alansohn banned" proposed finding. John254 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Would mentorship work instead? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

BLP ban

2) User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) are banned from any BLP and their talk pages for one year

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose You seem to be confusing BLP concerns over libel and rumors, and applying them to unflattering information from reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a hagiography. If everyone removed information that was factual and unflattering, Wikipedia would not be useful as a source for unbiased, comprehensive information. I don't even consider his statement unflattering to him, its a product of the time. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose No one has ever accused me of adding false or defamatory information on any article at any time. I have carefully sourced and documented hundreds (more likely, thousands) of BLP articles, adding reliable and verifiable sources to support neutral and unbiased statements. That User:Rlevse, an admin who has persistently abused Wikipedia policy to prevent neutral information being added to an article he owns, can propose preventing editing of any article about any living person as a remedy, is evidence of the clearest possible bad faith on his part. In the unfortunate Coker case, my repeated efforts to add neutral, objective and reliably sourced facts about Coker's appearance in an Academy Award-winning film was persistently obstructed by User:Rlevse, despite multiple reliable and verifiable sources from national publications and carefully neutral wording of his appearance and statements in the film. As to why I made a comment on Talk:George Thomas Coker after the article had been edited by User:ChrisRuvolo: Bizarrely, the article is on my watch list. It was my mistake to propose on the talk page that years of obstruction by User:Rlevse be resolved once and for all. That's not a conspiracy, that's how conflict resolution is supposed to work, but has been maliciously twisted into evidence of malfeasance by User:Rlevse. Alansohn ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose, as this remedy is not supported by any of the evidence currently submitted. There is no specific explanation as to how any particular edits by these users constituted WP:BLP violations sufficient in magnitude to warrant the proposed remedy. John254 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

CommentThere are several pieces of evidence on the evidence page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's consider some this "evidence" of alleged WP:BLP violations by Alansohn. There's

George Thomas Coker, Alansohn in dispute, RAN and CR join in. After a 3-month calm, CR restarts 30 Apr and AS restarts on the talk page. ‘’Note’’ BLP issues here where AS wants to insert material whereas on Dane Rauschenberg he wanted to keep material out.

(1) Diffs of specific edits by Alansohn alleged to constitute WP:BLP violations

(2) Specific explanation(s) as to the particular manner in which the diffs in question are alleged to violate the biographies of living persons policy. Note that edit warring to insert material into a biography of a living person, even if established, would not, ipso facto, prove a WP:BLP violation.

Other "evidence" of asserted WP:BLP violations is even more tenuous:

* Talk:George Thomas Coker where his summary says "the burden to justify exclusion must be made under some Wikipedia policy, and has not been made". This is contrary to Wikipedia policy BLP which states: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." To be clear, it is the person who adds or restores who bears the burden, not the person who deletes.

However, Wikipedia does not take politically repressive states as the model for its governance: merely making a statement that is alleged to express disagreement with a policy does not itself automatically constitute a violation of the policy in question. Only actual content edits that violate the biographies of living persons policy in a substantive and articulable manner are sanctionable as WP:BLP violations. John254 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Posting all the diffs in question would be a huge listing and the arbs in such a case often prefer to just to look at the histories in question, rather than wade through long lists of diffs. At any rate, they know where to look. If they do that on this arbcase, that's fine. If not, then I upon their request I'll post it on the evidence talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You don't need to provide a diff of every alleged WP:BLP violation, just a representative sample. Even more important, however, is explaining how the edits are claimed to violate the policy -- we can't infer a WP:BLP violation from " Alansohn wants some material added to a biography of a living person, but some other editors object to its inclusion." The explanation need not repeat the substance of the material in question -- statements such as "inadequately referenced controversial information", or "undue weight given to criticism" are acceptable. John254 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose as "any" seems a excessive. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sort of Support. Something needs done here but I'm not sure what. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

BLP ban alternate

2a) User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) are indefinitely banned from editing George Thomas Coker and and Dane Rauschenberg.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose You seem to be confusing BLP concerns over libel and rumors, and applying them to unflattering information from reliable sources at the article on Coker. Wikipedia isn't a hagiography. If everyone removed information that was factual and unflattering, Wikipedia would not be useful as a source for unbiased, comprehensive information. I don't even consider his statement unflattering to him, its a product of the time. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Tag-team editing

3) User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for tag-team editing, are advised that running an article to its WP:3RR limits violates that policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose I support no one automatically, I am an independent thinker with over 40K edits. Do I have commons concerns with other editors? Yes, we all do. I want to see references added that are as complete as possible. I do not agree 100% with anyone. My first encounter with Alanson was arguing over the designation of unincorporated areas of New Jersey which raged for weeks. When I leave a message on any editors talk page, its goes on my watchlist, so I see when others leave arguments there, the same goes for RedSpruce, now I see when people leave messages for him on articles and I read that article. That is not a conspiracy, its a function built into Wikipedia social networking. The people you leave messages to, then become watchlist additions, and increase the likelihood you will interact again. Agreeing or disagreeing with another editor is the concept of consensus. Any of the top 200 editors are going to run into each other again and again, and again. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support These editors automatically support one another, and on lightly-trafficked articles, that makes any attempt to reach true "consensus" impossible.

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support tag team editing violates the spirit of 3RR. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocking for disruptive editing including misrepresentation

4) User:Alansohn may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for disruptive edits, including but not limited to misrepresenting other editors' positions in content disputes and including personal attacks and lack of assumption of good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support Misrepresenting other editor's positions or motivations is Alansohn's favorite method for attempting to bully them. RedSpruce ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Alansohn is on one year civility parole

4) User:Alansohn is on one year civility parole for personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. He is also strongly advised to seek mentorship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Who said these things? Can anyone tell me? Any guesses? It wasn't AlanSohn, it was RedSpruce:

"You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you"
"It's obvious now that you don't know how to read ANY English at all. That being the case, you should not be trying to edit the English language Wikipedia. Please go away."
"Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder."
"It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting."
... Norton at least makes an effort to support his claims, however dishonest and misguided those efforts may be.
Since there were at least three ANIs against RedSpruce and his incivilities, and no action was taken. Calling someone a moron and an idiot, is now acceptable with the tacit approval of Wikipedia moderators. The bar has been set at that height and is the new acceptable community standard. So AlanSohn would have to do worse than call someone an idiot and a moron to even be considered for incivility charges.
- If you want to identify a cabal of meatpuppets look among the people voting here. Anyone voting to censure Alansohn and ignore Redspruce's incivilities is ipso facto a meatpuppet.

-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This proposal is about Alansohn. If you like you can open your own proposed remedy on that other user. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, to be fair, this Arbcom case is about "quotes in footnotes", maybe you should petition Arbcom for a ruling on incivility. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I interpreted the statements added a bit differently. I see an admin whose zeal for payback demonstrates a complete inability to see who the individual is here that has a infinitely more genuine incivility problem, only including the one individual with whom you have a personal grudge. This continued hypocrisy only further undermines your minimal credibility, as evidenced by intruding here to push your agenda regarding George Thomas Coker and to seek revenge for my daring to add neutral, relevant and properly sourced information to an article that you have taken ownership of. I do thank you for continuing to prove my point. Alansohn ( talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support Some editors lapse into incivility when they're provoked. Alansohn has repeatedly shown that threats, bullying and insults are his default mode of communication with anyone who disagrees with him. RedSpruce ( talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) RedSpruce ( talk) 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support as I would support permanent civility parole for this user, for the reason RedSpruce already mentioned. Note: I've fixed a typo above, guess it's okay. Hús ö nd 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support agree with Husond. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support: ... although as above, I would support permanent probation. What I took from the wake of the RfC a year back was that Alansohn will never wrap his head around WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; to quote the late, great Clarence Campbell, "The time for probationary lenience has passed, whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority of the game does not matter." After hundreds of incidents, the likes of which have gotten newbies blocked fifty times over, the time for lenience has passed.

As far as Norton's comments go, I agree that some of those quotes from RedSpruce are incivil. I would be more impressed if his position was "Alansohn should be sanctioned for his many incivilities, and RedSpruce should face discipline as well." RGTraynor 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I would be equally impressed if you had brought RedSpruce up on incivility charges, but the community standards for incivilty are set very high. Calling someone an "idiot" and "moron" were not deemed incivil by the community, and Redspruce was encouraged in the first ANI against him to continue his behaviour. Whatever standard you hold Alansohn to, has to be viewed by the community standard set by RedSpruce. If an ANI is brought and the community says its ok, then that becomes the new community standard. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Blocks

1) Violations of any of these rulings are enforceable by blocks of up to 1 week, after 5 occurrences blocks may be extended to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Bans

2) Mediators and admins involved in settling the issues of this case may impose topic and article bans as deemed appropriate for a period of up to three months initially. Upon subsequent incidents the bans may be extended an additional nine months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

An unorthodox proposal that has the capacity to radically change the structure of on-Wiki mediation, but one that is, perhaps, required at this juncture. I intended to propose a remedy of this sort, and most likely will do so; that proposal, however, will simply refine the spirit of this, which I tentatively support. Anthøny 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You might want to ask medcom and/or medcab for input here, so they don't get surprised. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree with Anthony. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Serious BLP violations and circumstances

3) Any serious violation of the remedies in this decision or any related BLP circumstance affecting the well-being of the project and its contributors should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm unsure about the technical accuracy of this proposal. It seems to suggest that violations of remedies implemented in this case should be reported directly to the Committee, which deviates from the standard course of actions in such situations. Generally, if an editor violates a decision of an arbitration case, the violation is reported on Arbitration enforcement. Have I misinterpreted this proposal, or is a refinement required? Anthøny 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment Arbcom, AFAIK, does get involved in major BLP issues, but I may be wrong. I think something needs done in that area and the wording of this may need tweaked depending on how arbcom wants to proceed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

My point, however, is that violations of a remedy of the Committee is generally reported to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, rather than directly to the Committee, for action. Is this remedy suggesting that that be circumvented, and that all violations of a remedy be handled by them directly, or have I misinterpreted? Anthøny 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposals by User:Sumoeagle179

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.

BLP task force

1) Arbcom shall form a task force to look at BLP issues and policies, especially how relates to articles such as those in this case. Note: Something needs done here, there is too much leeway in the various wiki policies, too much room for disagreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the net effect of the P-I working group, I'd say this is unlikely to be my first choice for dealing with such matters. I do agree that something needs to be done, though. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Apologies, but I'm not familiar with the term "P-I working group". Are you referring to the Committee's working group on cultural and ethnic edit warring? Anthøny 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That's the one. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This proposal seems to be similar to the #Working group remedy established in Palestine-Israel articles, which I hesitate at offering support to, primarily because the working group approach is currently in a "trial phase". That is to say, the working group has not yet concluded, which means that it, as the test case for approaches to areas with a wide scope such as edit warring, or, as in this case, BLP, has yet to yield any results as to whether it works. Perhaps remedies implementing a task force, working group, brainstorming group, or similar approach should be left alone until the work group has had a chance to show whether it is an efficient method of solving long-term fallacies of our on-Wiki operations. Just my two pence. Anthøny 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Biographies of living people

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Collected from various principles in the Badlydrawnjeff case. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The last line (or the last part of the last line) is too vague. I've suggested 1.1 below to clarify this - please delete it if you meant something else. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps. I've noted the more practical aspect of it from Badlydrawnjeff; but the general rule really encompasses a wide range of behavior. Kirill ^(
prof) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree now. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This ignores the current exception for material being well-sourced and thus public knowledge, and would in practice allow stonewalling in biographical articles (unrelated to actual "harm") by ardent minorities of users in order to exclude information they simply don't like. This overglosses the current BLP policy which, while a tad circumspect, tries to take those factors into account. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Decorum

2) 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree but in this case more teeth are needed to the remedy. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Casting aspersions

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly not needed as a separate principle. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not convinced that this is needed at this stage, nor whether it is sending the right message to editors (my concerns are again with the last line, or the last part of the last line). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's the standard wording, but that bit can be chopped off if needed. I doubt this particular principle will be used anyways, particularly if the case moves towards being a general one on BLP matters. Kirill ^(
prof) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Role of the Arbitration Committee

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Applicable insofar as there may be a legitimate dispute regarding what should and shouldn't appear in a footnote. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Nice clear explanation too. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Compliance

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Of course. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Novel approaches

6) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As preface for some of the other proposals. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wow, that is actually fairly scary. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Kim-yes, but true. Too many of arbcom's cases don't have enough teeth to them. This proposal is needed. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Problems with biographies of living people

1) There continue to be significant problems with the implementation of the biographies of living people policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases. There is considerable hesitance on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could go into more detail, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's worth rehashing all the BLP fights of the recent past. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. I think (after reconsideration) it may be worthwhile mentioning them for the record (and due to the proposed remedy for all BLP issues). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree, this is understated though. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Special enforcement on biographies of living people

1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of biographies of living people policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance. Further, they may impose sanctions on any editor working on biographies of living people if that editor substantially fails to comply with the BLP policy after being warned of the consequences. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary.

Where reasonable, administrators should try to use the normal processes to effect compliance with the policy, and to counsel editors on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area. However, this does not preclude the use of emergency measures where appropriate, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures on their own discretion.

All actions taken under this provision may be appealed to the Committee, or to any body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such actions without the Committee's explicit approval. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

1.1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.

Administrators should counsel editors that fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.

This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.

Appeals

Administrative actions taken under this provision can be appealed in two ways:

Appeals may be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future.

Involvement

Administrators with direct involvement in an article may not take action regarding it under this provision. Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.

Logging

All actions taken under this provision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. All logged sanctions should be accompanied with evidence of the sanctioned editor being counselled and warned, as per the above. Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modeled after discretionary sanctions, but adjusted somewhat. We really do need to ensure that BLP is properly implemented, and this is one way to move towards that (albeit not very gently). Kirill ^(
prof) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: 1.1 above is a modified version of Ncmvocalist's proposal below. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment Excellent start, but this begs questions, as you alluded to immediately above--"There is considerable hesitance on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear."--which policy takes precedence in policy conflicts, just where does BLP fall in the "do no harm" to "include everything" continuum, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it's implicit in this that BLP should take precedence, since we're authorizing people to use "any and all means" to comply with it. As far as what the BLP policy itself calls for, I'd prefer that the precise lines be up to the community as much as possible; while it would be possible for the Committee to rule in more detail on what BLP really entails—as we did, in the past, when we stressed that "do no harm" was a key principle—I'd prefer to minimize the need for us to do so if at all possible. Kirill ^(
prof) 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

With the idea, I totally agree - but I think a few things should be specified (will add them in my proposal within the next 24 hours). Overall, I think this is one of those approaches that can be tweaked to work. It is an excellent start. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll be looking forward to your proposals. Kirill ^(
prof) 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There are some cases where admins don't provide adequate education or warnings for certain conduct that is considered unacceptable. I might add a small mechanism where it is more difficult to abuse this admin-privillege of sanctions, yet, a mechanism where administrators who act with sound judgement can be bold in helping address this BLP problem. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, that's roughly what I was expecting from finding 6 above. Any and all means? This basically says that since you can't get your way, you're in favor of abusing the arbcom to force your way? So much for friendly governance reform proposals if that's what you're going to go with. Of course you still have plenty of time to edit and improve your thoughts, so I'm going to assume good faith for now. -- Kim Bruning ( talk)

I must concur; this, without specifics, is deeply troubling. What do we do about an admin who declares that her version of an article, and no other, is BLP-compliant and blocks anybody who disagrees? This, as phrased, would permit the admin to disregard and overrule all dispute resolution methods until ArbCom or its (not yet designated) deputy got around to dealing with the content dispute.

I would hope that, at the end of that process, the admin would be at least desysopped; but does ArbCom really want to make itself the sole dispute resolution method in all such cases? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

An admin should not be doing blocks and protects on something they're involved with in the first place. Another admin could fix this expeditiously. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Saying that may be enough. Let's see a draft including it, perhaps as a qualification to Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such actions without the Committee's explicit approval, which the POV-pusher will quote as forbidding such action. (I have no real doubt that ArbCom would agree in practice that it is not intended to; but it is preferable to foresee how remedies can be abused before enacting them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added a note regarding involvement in 1.1 above; I'm not quite sure if this is what you were getting at, or if you were concerned about a different scenario. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree with 1.1 - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Agree, like where this is headed. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't the first sentence read "every Wikipedia page" instead of "every Wikipedia article"? WP:BLP expressly applies to "any page" (italics in the original). Sandstein 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It does, yes; but I'm not aware of there being any intractable problems (i.e. something needing this big of a hammer) with its implementation outside of article space. The bulk of the violations are in articles, in any case. Kirill ^(
prof) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It would certainly allow further for the protection of the good character of users who edit with their real name if the first sentence is changed to match the living persons policy. I see no reason why "User:Fred Smith" should not be afforded the same protection on the administrators noticeboard as "Paul Jones" gets in his biographical article. Both are living people, both have their full name showing up in Google searches. Is there a difference? Daniel ( talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The former is, however, a willing participant in Wikipedia, and (somewhat more importantly) may be subject to disciplinary proceedings here. I do not want, in other words, to construct something here that will be used to dispose of inconvenient RFCs, RFARs, etc. as "BLP violations".

So while applying this measure project-wide would be possible, I think the added complexity would largely erase the benefits of doing so, at least in this context. Kirill ^(
prof) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

My thoughts exactly (except I probably would not have been able to word them or explain them as well as this). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Proposed principles

Biographies of living people

1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From the same case. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Special enforcement on biographies of living people

1) Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of biographies of living people policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.

Where editors fail to comply with biographies of living people policy, administrators must counsel editors on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area and ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where such editors still fail to comply with BLP policy, administrators may impose sanctions on them. The sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary.

However, this does not preclude the use of emergency measures where appropriate, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.

Appeals

Actions imposed under the provisions of this decision can be appealed.

Appeals may also be made to the appropriate administrators’ noticeboard. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without the Committee’s explicit approval, unless there is community consensus at the noticeboard to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Appeals may also be made directly to the Committee, or any other body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future. But, the Committee will give priority to special appeals, including those where affected editors have already made an appeal to the community, and after a reasonable time, community consensus was difficult to determine.

Logs

All actions imposed (including emergency measures) under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at [[]] (to be specified before close of case). All logged actions must be accompanied with evidence of the sanctioned editor being counselled and warned, as per the above provisions. Where an action has been reversed or modified, these should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval by the imposing administrator (or the Committee), or of consensus from the community at the administrators’ noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems fairly reasonable so far. Kirill ^(
prof) 13:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The appeal portion looks reasonable, with a few exceptions:

I explicitly left out appeals to the imposing administrator from the original. In a number of BLP-related cases, admins have been the targets of harassment as a consequence of their actions; I'd prefer to avoid setting up a system where individuals may feel motivated to unduly pressure the original admin to acquiescing to their demands.
I don't think there's any need or benefit to specify how the Committee will prioritize appeals, and I doubt such a formalized system would be sustainable in practice anyways.

Kirill ^(
prof) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah ok, seems reasonable. Only reason I put the note about priority is to strongly encourage some sort of discussion at the AN prior to asking about it here - particularly to avoid every single case being appealed here. But there is probably a better way of encouraging that. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Still working on it (particularly appeals), but anyway...~~ Proposed. Education/warnings is necessary, and there are sometimes too many cases where this is treated as an optional part of enforcing blocks and the like. Therefore, I've added this as a requirement (and it must be included in the logging). ~~Appeals is something I'm still thinking about.~~ I've changed the ordering of the sanction-examples in order of escalation. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Appeals section completed now, I think. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Much more reasonable; we should not encourage the use of emergency measures, even when we permit them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It might help to add references to other existing dispute resolution methods; i.e., once the alleged BLP violation is out of article space, encourage discussion. ( WP:Mediation would be especially approptiate, since it is a private, off-WP forum, so the discussion of the issue need not itself violate BLP.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by RedSpruce

Proposed principles

Repeated edits contrary to correct style and consensus are appropriate grounds for ArbCom action

1) When an editor is making literally thousands of edits that are contrary to correct style and contrary to clearly expressed consensus, this becomes a matter suitable for attention and remedy by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed This is the underlying point that I hoped to have answered--one way or another--by the ArbCom when I requested this Arbitration. RedSpruce ( talk) 13:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment Please see arguments here -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits

1) RAN is misusing the "quote =" parameter available in citation templates in thousands of his edits. He adds quotes for no good purpose, simply taking a quotation from the source without considering whether that quotation adds information to the article or simply repeats information already in the article. At times his quoted text is completely irrelevant to the footnoted portion of the article. Evidence that he does this, and that this is contrary to correct style and contrary to consensus, is covered in the evidence page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Please see arguments here -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have engaged in spurious discussion for the purpose of stonewalling

Notably in Talk:G. David Schine#footnotes 1, 2 & 3, but elsewhere as noted in the Evidence page, Alansohn and RAN have engaged in insults, threats, non-sequitur, circular arguments, willful illogic, willful ignoring of points put to them and various other forms of obstructionism. RedSpruce ( talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Oppose Here is a good summary of RedSpruce's incivilites. Please take his argument above and switch my name for his, so that I am accusing him of the same things he is accusing me of. The difference is the evidence:

"You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you"
"It's obvious now that you don't know how to read ANY English at all. That being the case, you should not be trying to edit the English language Wikipedia. Please go away."
"Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder."
"It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting."
... Norton at least makes an effort to support his claims, however dishonest and misguided those efforts may be.
Here is a good summary of his multiple reverses of information added to articles against consensus, including thos while Arbcon is ruling on them.

Oppose: User:RedSpruce has provided us with a clear, concise and well written summary, unfortunately of his own actions and policy violations in this matter. About the only thing he has left out in describing his own actions is gross incivility and a streak of personal attacks. As with User:Rlevse and his ownership violations at George Thomas Coker, tag-team editing by Rlevse and User:Sumoeagle179, and claims of "stonewalling" here by RedSpruce, we have perfect examples of the phenomenon of psychological projection by individuals who have actually perpetrated the Wikipedia violations that they claim others violate. A wonderful example of this is RedSpruce's claims at G. David Schine. Among the claims documented in the article was a source showing that Schine, an heir to a hotel fortune, was a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings. In response to demands by RedSpruce that sources be removed, Wikipedia policy statements were provided to support the use of these sources. After extensive discussion, RedSpruce's final willful ignorance of points put to him and various other forms of obstructionism was this classic example of collaborative editing: "Okay, I guess we're done here. It's obvious that no matter how absurd and irrelevant your statements have to be to avoid answering me, you'll just keep typing them out. I could continue this just for the entertainment value of watching you squirm in place like a speared fish, but that would be uncharitable", followed by this revert to what he has decided is "a better version". I do agree with RedSpruce that there is a distinct problem here with spurious discussion and stonewalling and as soon as RedSpruce is banned from dealing with these articles and his obsession ended, the problem will be solved. Alansohn ( talk) 15:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Proposed principle 1

Redspruce should not be deleting information from articles to " force a discussion ... through edit warring". I believe this is the same as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He should not be deleting information from articles just because it has been added by people other than himself as he does here multiple times. He can't even wait for the arbitration process to be complete. He is removing information while Arbcom is ruling on the topic:
Here he removes the note that Time magazine used a variant spelling of the subject's name in the obituary. This leaves the next person to read the Time obituary to have to redo the research to find out which of the two is correct. It is not a trivial task. When two reliable sources of information conflict, don't throw one away and pray the other is correct. Persuade the reader, and the serious researcher and explain why one is correct and the other is wrong. Note: This posting persuaded him to re-add the information, but he added his own reference, and mine is still deleted. Again, performed during the Arbcom.
Here he deletes most of my changes to the article on G. David Schine back to his version, despite an RFC, and two ANIs, and an active Arbcom.
Here he removes the quote from the source where I have corrected an error in the article, again during the Arbcom.
Here he stubbornly reverts the image caption against consensus, during the active Arbcom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I fully support the proposal that I should not be doing these things. That's why I've never done them. RedSpruce ( talk) 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed remedy 1

Administrative action should be taken against User:RedSpruce. Multiple ANIs and RFCs have had no effect on modifying his behavior, they have just caused the same behavior to move to new articles to avoid scrutiny. What has started at Annie Lee Moss moved to Mary Stalcup Markward then moved to G. David Schine and now is at Melvin Purvis and Elizabeth Bentley and on Monday now William Remington (peek at the edit histories). Single issue ANIs and RFCs just cause the behavior to move to a new article and his deletion process starts anew. He has called me a "moron" and an "idiot" and recently called my work "dishonest and misguided"

See here for incivilities and continued reversions:

RedSpruce ANI against Norton with "moron" incivility
AlanSohn ANI against RedSpruce with result of 24 hour block for 3RR
Last attempt at RedSpruce Norton mediation
Here is a summary of his removal and multiple reversals of information from reliable sources, added to articles. Included are removals while Arbcom is deciding the issue.

Lack of enforcement has now set the community standard for incivility higher. It was deemed ok, in multiple ANIs for RedSpruce to call me an "idiot" and a "moron", with no action taken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principle 2

Once Arbcom accepts a narrow case, such as "quotes in footnotes", all discussion should be on "quotes in footnotes". The US Supreme Court does not agree to hear arguments for Roe v. Wade, and then allow arguments for Brown v. Board of Education, and Bush v. Gore, and a dozen other cases. It stays focused, hears argument and makes a decision on what it has agreed to hear. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbcom is not a legal proceeding. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

According to Wikipedia "legal" or "law" is "a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions." How is this not a legal proceeding? Are there no rules? Or is there no enforcement? Or are you just wrong? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I must agree with Sumoeagle179 in this case. "Fishing expedition" or "payback time" may be a more accurate description of what is happening here. The complete and utter inability to focus these proceedings (sorry, if that sounds too legalistic) on the alleged subject at hand -- Footnoted quotes -- only undermines the validity of the entire process. The choice to allow any editor with a grudge to chime in with their own personal attacks without disclosure of their personal biases turns this into a game. I'd love to see a discussion here of the merits of using quotes in footnotes and use this opportunity to have Arbcom weigh in on the matter, but none of the individuals jumping in to participate here seem to have any valid interest in the matter other than pushing their own personal agendas. Alansohn ( talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This is how ArbCom hearings generally go. The reason is simple human nature: Editor A makes a complaint about editor B. Editor B fights back by making a (usually unrelated) complaint about editor A. Other editors join in with related or unrelated complaints about A or B.

In this particular case, it was you, Alansohn, who spoke up on RAN's behalf and started the unrelated-charges ball rolling. See here if you've forgotten. RedSpruce ( talk) 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The most pathetic aspect of this whole "process" is that the one thing that was supposed to be addressed -- Footnoted quotes -- still hasn't been addressed, let alone any valid justification for your abusive removal of any and all quotes that do not meet your WP:OWNership standards. While User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has done an excellent job pounding away at your incivility and your obsinate refusal to work cooperatively on the most trivial issues, I must admit that there is plenty of malfeasance on your part that has not been given its due. Thanks for the reminder. Alansohn ( talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed principle 3

Small groups of people agreeing on a local issue and gaining consensus do not override global and national Wikipedia policy. If there is consensus by five people against two, that say that using a quote in the reference is a copyright violation, it does not ipso facto make it a copyright violation. Global and national Wikipedia policy are set at a higher level, and a higher level of consensus than 5 to 2 is required for major policy shifts. What if 10 people agree to call all people from one nation a disparaging, but well known term in articles. Would that consensus override national and global Wikipedia policies? It shouldn't. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by ...

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: