 | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Considering the walls of text on the article talk page and escalating confrontations at ANI, the involved parties are strangely silent here. Could it be they finally took my advice to heart here? If none of the parties are willing to step up and provide evidence, I will before the page closes. I saw a closing date of Nov 6th and now I don't see one. Has the date been extended? Ignocrates ( talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can help the drafting arb pull together evidence if NativeForeigner has any suggestions. It seems to me the following topics should be covered at minimum:
- Discretionary sanctions. This is a possible remedy. Where does the evidence show DS would be a more effective remedy than sanctions against the parties to the dispute?
- Topic ban of Fearofreprisal. This should be reviewed if only to confirm it. Was the ban supported by the appropriate reasoning? I found a ban recommendation based on FoR's name and what that signified about his motives as an editor to be problematic.
- Disambiguation article. Were the correct procedures followed? This could be important as guidance for future editors.
- Dispute resolution at ANI. I think a case could be made here for gaming ANI.
- I will probably focus on the last one. There is plenty of evidence which might be considered misconduct. Context matters here as in most things. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the evidence phase has not been extended; however, sometimes, as the ongoing GGTF case shows, parties wait until the last couple of days before the deadline to offer evidence. That said, please do feel free to provide any evidence you consider useful for the decision of the case.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
09:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be more engaged starting this upcoming Monday. And as per salvio, feel free to provide whatever you think would be of use. NativeForeigner Talk 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the evidence phase has not been extended; however, sometimes, as the ongoing GGTF case shows, parties wait until the last couple of days before the deadline to offer evidence. That said, please do feel free to provide any evidence you consider useful for the decision of the case.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
09:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Some of the summary comments of the involved parties remind me of the Star Wars scene where Luke and Obi-wan pull their speeder into Mos Eisley and Obi-wan uses mind control on the storm trooper, who then says, "We don't need to see his identification, move along, move along." Apparently the same thing is expected of the arbs here. It's also curious that most of the "evidence" provided thus far during the evidence phase is against uninvolved parties. Why is that? Ignocrates ( talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's because Fearofreprisal stated here [1], when he requested this arbitration, that he was NOT appealing his topic-ban, and so involved editors are not bothering to state all the evidence against him yet again? Or perhaps it's because WP:AC/DS states that "the enforcing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles", and with the topic-banning of Fearofreprial, this "acceptable collaborative editing environment" has already been achieved? Or perhaps it's a bit of both? Wdford ( talk) 11:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, others have opened to door on my topic ban, by seeking to reiterate it.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite right. For example, it's possible to take the right action for the wrong reasons. Therefore, everything about the T-ban should be reviewed and incorporated into a finding of fact in workshop.
Ignocrates (
talk)
15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this arbitration is being turned into a topic-ban appeal-by-stealth? If so, then should the true objective not be stated transparently, so that the many involved editors can see what is really on the menu, and act accordingly, while there is still time? @
NativeForeigner, please could you provide urgent guidance on this serious issue?
Wdford (
talk)
17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how I am approaching it.
NativeForeigner
Talk
20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Wdford ( talk) 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how I am approaching it.
NativeForeigner
Talk
20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this arbitration is being turned into a topic-ban appeal-by-stealth? If so, then should the true objective not be stated transparently, so that the many involved editors can see what is really on the menu, and act accordingly, while there is still time? @
NativeForeigner, please could you provide urgent guidance on this serious issue?
Wdford (
talk)
17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite right. For example, it's possible to take the right action for the wrong reasons. Therefore, everything about the T-ban should be reviewed and incorporated into a finding of fact in workshop.
Ignocrates (
talk)
15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, others have opened to door on my topic ban, by seeking to reiterate it.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- The phrases "appeal-by-stealth" and "true objective" sound like you are questioning my motives. We deal with observable behavior here in arbitration, i.e. what can be documented by diffs. NativeForeigner can evaluate whatever he pleases and expand or restrict the scope of this investigation however he sees fit. What is on the menu is that the behavior of all involved parties can be put under a microscope for six weeks if that's what the drafting arb chooses to do. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Finishing up
@ NativeForeigner, we are down to the last day to provide evidence. Is there anything else you want to see here? Ignocrates ( talk) 15:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to add one more sub-section of evidence and will need one more day to fill in the details if that's all right with you.
Ignocrates (
talk)
09:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you've added some more evidence about the time sequence of reversions, I'm also added some responsive diffs. (Provided the arbitrators don't reject the evidence as not timely filed.)
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The deadline is not rigid and the clerk will let us know if there are problems with adding more evidence. Ignocrates ( talk) 11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you've added some more evidence about the time sequence of reversions, I'm also added some responsive diffs. (Provided the arbitrators don't reject the evidence as not timely filed.)
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of the "time sequence of reversions", I'm going to ask the arbs to review WP:Deletion policy in workshop and discuss what the correct procedure would be if a situation like this comes up again. Ignocrates ( talk) 11:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have completed my additions to evidence and will discuss the implications in workshop. I'm taking a neutral position here and will leave the allegations of misconduct to the involved parties. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- As a node, the last day for evidence is the 13 of November, we moved it back because the end date wasn't listed on the case page, to make more time for those unaware. NativeForeigner Talk 21:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon calls an RfM and AIV that I filed "frivolous." [2] What makes dispute resolution frivolous? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 06:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since Robert McClenon hasn't responded, I'll fill in the blanks. The Wiki-reason is disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I assume that's what he means by "frivolous", but he can explain it. I'll cover this in more detail in workshop. Ignocrates ( talk) 09:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Evensteven: You wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment."
I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but if you're not willing to do the hard work of contributing to the article, you're not really helping. While Ret.Prof has contributed to the article (though several years back) -- Hijiri88 and Evensteven have not. Why are you even here?
The talk page was flooded with walls of text -- much from you and Hijiri88. Yet, as much as you both wrote, you never did a thing to actually improve the article. At that point, neither of you had "contributed" to the article (meaning, adding significant value to the article -- not reverting something, and not fixing small grammar errors.) When I asked "Why are you even here," I wasn't saying "go away" or "shut up." I was asking "why are you here?" Did you just enjoy discussing history and religion? Did you enjoy debating? Did you have friends who were WP editors? I honestly didn't know. My purpose in asking the question was to get you to think about it, and maybe focus more on things that would improve the article, and less on creating walls of text on the talk page. You responded neutrally (apparently not offended.) Hijiri88... not so much.
BTW - responding here because you asked, and I thought you were asking sincerely. This may not be the venue to have the discussion, but it's certainly more appropriate than the evidence page itself. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 19:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- This strikes me as being almost completely at best dubiously relevant. The editor seems to be drawing a rather obvious conclusion, which actually so far as I can tell is not supported by any policies or guidelines, that the only way to improve an article is by making direct changes to it. Such a conclusion seems to me to be almost completely out of step with existing policies and guidelines, and to even be making an unsupported violation of WP:AGF in assuming that people who choose not to make changes before consensus is achieved on them are in some way not contributing to the development of the article. One would think that an editor who has such a lengthy history of editing here as Fearofreprisal has indicated he has would know better than to draw such dubiously rational conclusions by this time. John Carter ( talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was actually requesting (asking) an arbitrator to comment on Fearofreprisal's talk-edit, as a check of my own perception, which closely matches John Carter's.
Evensteven (
talk)
02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, you wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment." That sounded like you were asking me.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I admit that it does. It's how I chose to phrase it at the time, but I don't see now how you could have distinguished. Evensteven ( talk) 17:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, you wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment." That sounded like you were asking me.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@ NativeForeigner: - One of the evidence diffs points to a very lengthy ANI [3]. I copied this page to my userspace, and highlighted the allegations and evidence in color (wasn't easy to do), so that the arbitrators wouldn't need slog through over 13,000 words of unpleasantness to understand the essence of the issue [4]]. I've included diffs to both the original the highlighted pages on the on the arbitration evidence page (see [5].) Is this acceptable, or do you prefer a different way to handle it? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 07:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. I've slogged through the entire thread already but this is a reasonable way to handle it. NativeForeigner Talk 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Pursuant to WP:MC/P#PRIV, Wikipedia policy is that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent dispute resolution proceedings, including Arbitration. See also Arbitration policy on admissibility of evidence, at [6].
Robert McClenon has used my RfM against me in two ANI proceedings, and in this arbitration. Ignocrates has also included my RfM as evidence against me in this Arbitration.
I believe it would be appropriate for both McClenon and Ignocrates to strike their references to the RfM on both the evidence and workshop pages of this animation. I have done so in my evidence, except for referencing McClenon's violation of WP policy in using the RfM against me in ANI.
Although ArbCom retains jurisdiction over this arbitration, I've notified the chairman of the mediation committee, as he may have an interest or opinion on the matter. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 23:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re WP:MC/P#PRIV, I completely agree as far as statements made during the mediation process itself. However, there is nothing privileged about stating the existence of a request for formal mediation. The mediation was not accepted; therefore, there is no mediation case page to contain privileged communication. Btw, that privilege can be waived upon request to the mediation committee.
Ignocrates (
talk)
01:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee will determine the admissibility of the mediation evidence.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee will determine the admissibility of the mediation evidence.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we have what we need from the MC as far as the extent of privileged communication during mediation: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Privilege. diff Of course, ArbCom may admit or exclude whatever they want. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The evidence presented here by the current rotating head of the Mediation Committee is useful as well. John Carter ( talk) 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. Admittedly I was not aware of that guideline. Thank you for bringing it up. NativeForeigner Talk 00:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that one or more involved parties recruited new editors from an external website to undermine an ongoing RfC, which was then suspended. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence this happened, but I don't see a smoking gun. Maybe someone else does. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This comment indicates that at least one of the participants in the RfC now archived at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 36#RFC_ Full Article, or Shortened Article with Links only came to the discussion because of a post to the /r/atheist subreddit, which is admittedly somewhat surprising to me because (1) me noes nothing bout reddit and (2) those interested in atheist topics and presumably supporting atheism tended to agree with me, who tends to be seen as being on the other side. I would think that given the subject has a rather lengthy article in the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, which is at this point in its old and new editions still the only atheist encyclopedia out there, the article probably qualifies as "Top" importance to the Atheism WikiProject, but I won't to any tagging on that until such time as I get together an article list of the articles in the new and old encyclopedias. John Carter ( talk) 16:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The relevant post to r/atheism can be found here. I still don't see a smoking gun that links this back to one of the involved Wikipedia editors or an uninvolved but sympathetic editor. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: - The evidence I've provided is longer than 1000 words. Should I refactor it, to bring its length down? If so, is 1000 words a hard limit? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the above comment looks to others as much like an attempt at misdirection to distract readers from the topic discussed above it as it does to me. John Carter ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some leeway is often given, but you are at 1685, which is way over the limit, so I request that you cut it back. I am getting ready for a trip, so cannot give it much attention until sometime later tomorrow, but will offer suggestions if you find it hard to cut back. --
S Philbrick
(Talk)
22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have it down to 1173 words. If you have suggestions of how to cut it further, I'd appreciate it. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Wdford is correct when he states that I supported the decision to create a disambiguation article. It had the positive effects of (1) removing content that is mostly duplicated in other articles, and (2) resolving the content dispute. That was my opinion at the time he created it, and, as I said, it was done in good faith. The problem is that decision led to two unintended consequences that were disruptive.
(1) There is no clear policy for how to do this (thus the need to be WP:BOLD), and what one person sees as a good faith attempt to remove duplication another may interpret as railroading the original article by redirect. Although Wikipedia runs by WP:CONSENSUS, it's also the case that policy trumps consensus. A decision to implement this drastic a change should have been based more firmly on policy. I don't know what that policy is, and none was cited, which leads next to a process question.
(2) If you are convinced an article was wrongly blanked and replaced by someone's personal version which is drastically different in content, where do you go for a remedy? An incident report for vandalism is clearly not the answer, but what is the answer, ANI? An incident report was already underway at ANI alleging that Fearofreprisal is a troll (i.e. motivated by malice). On the content side, an RfC was filed after the original article was blanked and replaced, and was initially (mostly) supported by the same editors who were aligned on the original article. (My advice on the talk page to seek a wider consensus was ignored.) So, where do you go? Given the perceived local consensus on the talk page, what was a better choice than filing a request for formal mediation? I don't know the answer, but we should find some answers before this case is concluded. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think Wdford came up with an ingenious solution to an intractable problem. It resolved the content dispute and provided a long-term solution to the extensive duplication that was plaguing the article. Once the policy and process issues are resolved here, it should be reconsidered. As a personal aside to Wdford, there is no need for you to defend this action, which was taken in good faith, against allegations to the contrary by other parties in arbitration. The arbs are very smart people. You can trust their judgement and skill at resolving complex disputes. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved from evidence to the talk page. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- How is Wdford "removing content that is mostly duplicated in other articles" a positive effect? Does WP have a policy, guideline, or any consensus that suggests that the core of an article should be stripped out if it is duplicated in an article about another topic? (I note the irony that Wdford himself actually added much duplicate content to the article in the first place. [7])
- The only WP policy description I could find that matched the result of Wdford's disruptive edit was WP:Vandalism. (Were you to consider only his unexplained removal of the POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, “See also” section, “Notes” section, images, footers, and categories, this would still be the case.) An incident report for vandalism seemed to be a reasonable process to deal with this. Further, the RfC in process merely asked "Should the article on Historicity of Jesus be a full article or a shortened disambiguation article?" (ibid.) It skirted the question of illegitimate blanking or vandalism entirely. My RfM, which asked "Should the blanking of the article be reverted?" directly addressed this issue, and, to my mind, was not in conflict with the RfC [8])
- Before you suggest that Wdford's edit "resolved the content dispute," I suggest you review the RfC. Not the "votes" from the usual suspects, but the extensive arguments made by members of the broad WP community, which lead to the edit being reverted. [9] Fearofreprisal ( talk) 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making these statements for the record or do you really want me to respond? Keep in mind that the less said the better in ArbCom.
Ignocrates (
talk)
21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The content guideline WP:CFORK deals with the problems of having duplicated content. And I acknowledge that the edit "resolved" temporarily the dispute, it is worth noting that it was according to the comments of others in the RfC pretty much only intended as a temporary measure, and that individuals like Ian and others indicated that there was reasonable grounds for trying to develop the content perhaps elsewhere, receiving some consensus in the process, rather than making the article continue to be subject to regular reversions and edit warnings. WP:IAR rarely succeeds as something to cite to defend one's actions to ArbCom, but I think in this case it wasn't necessarily an unreasonable measure taken to help resolve what seemed to many, including me, to be an intractable argument driven more by POV pushing and lack of acquaintance with the topic than any real, substantial, policy and guideline based concerns. John Carter ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making these statements for the record or do you really want me to respond? Keep in mind that the less said the better in ArbCom.
Ignocrates (
talk)
21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop this here and now. The finer points of who did what to whom can be discussed with the drafting arb during the question period when we draft the proposed solution. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Fun fact: There are more than six million people in Arizona, the fifteenth most populous of all fifty sates. Arizona is over a hundred thousand square miles in area, making it the sixth largest state as well.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
02:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
It is worth noting that on Kww's user page he specifically identifies himself as being from Arizona. It is also I believe interesting to note that according to Fearofreprials's history of edits here he also shows a pronounced interest in Arizona-related topics, specifically Andrew Thomas (politician), Joe Arpaio, Tom Horne, and, honestly, so far as I can see, almost all of his other recent edits relate to Arizona in some way. Considering that Fearofreprisal has indicated that he might have an alternate account, I find that very interesting. I would also suggest that Fearofreprisal make some effort to actually understand policies and guidelines regarding personal information, which he rather clearly does not understand, as he here and here, and here seems to indicate that discussing an editor's history is in some way discussing "personal information." John Carter ( talk) 15:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|
| This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Considering the walls of text on the article talk page and escalating confrontations at ANI, the involved parties are strangely silent here. Could it be they finally took my advice to heart here? If none of the parties are willing to step up and provide evidence, I will before the page closes. I saw a closing date of Nov 6th and now I don't see one. Has the date been extended? Ignocrates ( talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can help the drafting arb pull together evidence if NativeForeigner has any suggestions. It seems to me the following topics should be covered at minimum:
- Discretionary sanctions. This is a possible remedy. Where does the evidence show DS would be a more effective remedy than sanctions against the parties to the dispute?
- Topic ban of Fearofreprisal. This should be reviewed if only to confirm it. Was the ban supported by the appropriate reasoning? I found a ban recommendation based on FoR's name and what that signified about his motives as an editor to be problematic.
- Disambiguation article. Were the correct procedures followed? This could be important as guidance for future editors.
- Dispute resolution at ANI. I think a case could be made here for gaming ANI.
- I will probably focus on the last one. There is plenty of evidence which might be considered misconduct. Context matters here as in most things. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the evidence phase has not been extended; however, sometimes, as the ongoing GGTF case shows, parties wait until the last couple of days before the deadline to offer evidence. That said, please do feel free to provide any evidence you consider useful for the decision of the case.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
09:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be more engaged starting this upcoming Monday. And as per salvio, feel free to provide whatever you think would be of use. NativeForeigner Talk 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the evidence phase has not been extended; however, sometimes, as the ongoing GGTF case shows, parties wait until the last couple of days before the deadline to offer evidence. That said, please do feel free to provide any evidence you consider useful for the decision of the case.
Salvio
Let's talk about it!
09:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Some of the summary comments of the involved parties remind me of the Star Wars scene where Luke and Obi-wan pull their speeder into Mos Eisley and Obi-wan uses mind control on the storm trooper, who then says, "We don't need to see his identification, move along, move along." Apparently the same thing is expected of the arbs here. It's also curious that most of the "evidence" provided thus far during the evidence phase is against uninvolved parties. Why is that? Ignocrates ( talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's because Fearofreprisal stated here [1], when he requested this arbitration, that he was NOT appealing his topic-ban, and so involved editors are not bothering to state all the evidence against him yet again? Or perhaps it's because WP:AC/DS states that "the enforcing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles", and with the topic-banning of Fearofreprial, this "acceptable collaborative editing environment" has already been achieved? Or perhaps it's a bit of both? Wdford ( talk) 11:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, others have opened to door on my topic ban, by seeking to reiterate it.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite right. For example, it's possible to take the right action for the wrong reasons. Therefore, everything about the T-ban should be reviewed and incorporated into a finding of fact in workshop.
Ignocrates (
talk)
15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this arbitration is being turned into a topic-ban appeal-by-stealth? If so, then should the true objective not be stated transparently, so that the many involved editors can see what is really on the menu, and act accordingly, while there is still time? @
NativeForeigner, please could you provide urgent guidance on this serious issue?
Wdford (
talk)
17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how I am approaching it.
NativeForeigner
Talk
20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Wdford ( talk) 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how I am approaching it.
NativeForeigner
Talk
20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this arbitration is being turned into a topic-ban appeal-by-stealth? If so, then should the true objective not be stated transparently, so that the many involved editors can see what is really on the menu, and act accordingly, while there is still time? @
NativeForeigner, please could you provide urgent guidance on this serious issue?
Wdford (
talk)
17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite right. For example, it's possible to take the right action for the wrong reasons. Therefore, everything about the T-ban should be reviewed and incorporated into a finding of fact in workshop.
Ignocrates (
talk)
15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, others have opened to door on my topic ban, by seeking to reiterate it.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- The phrases "appeal-by-stealth" and "true objective" sound like you are questioning my motives. We deal with observable behavior here in arbitration, i.e. what can be documented by diffs. NativeForeigner can evaluate whatever he pleases and expand or restrict the scope of this investigation however he sees fit. What is on the menu is that the behavior of all involved parties can be put under a microscope for six weeks if that's what the drafting arb chooses to do. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Finishing up
@ NativeForeigner, we are down to the last day to provide evidence. Is there anything else you want to see here? Ignocrates ( talk) 15:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to add one more sub-section of evidence and will need one more day to fill in the details if that's all right with you.
Ignocrates (
talk)
09:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you've added some more evidence about the time sequence of reversions, I'm also added some responsive diffs. (Provided the arbitrators don't reject the evidence as not timely filed.)
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The deadline is not rigid and the clerk will let us know if there are problems with adding more evidence. Ignocrates ( talk) 11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you've added some more evidence about the time sequence of reversions, I'm also added some responsive diffs. (Provided the arbitrators don't reject the evidence as not timely filed.)
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of the "time sequence of reversions", I'm going to ask the arbs to review WP:Deletion policy in workshop and discuss what the correct procedure would be if a situation like this comes up again. Ignocrates ( talk) 11:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have completed my additions to evidence and will discuss the implications in workshop. I'm taking a neutral position here and will leave the allegations of misconduct to the involved parties. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- As a node, the last day for evidence is the 13 of November, we moved it back because the end date wasn't listed on the case page, to make more time for those unaware. NativeForeigner Talk 21:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon calls an RfM and AIV that I filed "frivolous." [2] What makes dispute resolution frivolous? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 06:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since Robert McClenon hasn't responded, I'll fill in the blanks. The Wiki-reason is disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I assume that's what he means by "frivolous", but he can explain it. I'll cover this in more detail in workshop. Ignocrates ( talk) 09:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Evensteven: You wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment."
I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but if you're not willing to do the hard work of contributing to the article, you're not really helping. While Ret.Prof has contributed to the article (though several years back) -- Hijiri88 and Evensteven have not. Why are you even here?
The talk page was flooded with walls of text -- much from you and Hijiri88. Yet, as much as you both wrote, you never did a thing to actually improve the article. At that point, neither of you had "contributed" to the article (meaning, adding significant value to the article -- not reverting something, and not fixing small grammar errors.) When I asked "Why are you even here," I wasn't saying "go away" or "shut up." I was asking "why are you here?" Did you just enjoy discussing history and religion? Did you enjoy debating? Did you have friends who were WP editors? I honestly didn't know. My purpose in asking the question was to get you to think about it, and maybe focus more on things that would improve the article, and less on creating walls of text on the talk page. You responded neutrally (apparently not offended.) Hijiri88... not so much.
BTW - responding here because you asked, and I thought you were asking sincerely. This may not be the venue to have the discussion, but it's certainly more appropriate than the evidence page itself. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 19:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- This strikes me as being almost completely at best dubiously relevant. The editor seems to be drawing a rather obvious conclusion, which actually so far as I can tell is not supported by any policies or guidelines, that the only way to improve an article is by making direct changes to it. Such a conclusion seems to me to be almost completely out of step with existing policies and guidelines, and to even be making an unsupported violation of WP:AGF in assuming that people who choose not to make changes before consensus is achieved on them are in some way not contributing to the development of the article. One would think that an editor who has such a lengthy history of editing here as Fearofreprisal has indicated he has would know better than to draw such dubiously rational conclusions by this time. John Carter ( talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was actually requesting (asking) an arbitrator to comment on Fearofreprisal's talk-edit, as a check of my own perception, which closely matches John Carter's.
Evensteven (
talk)
02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, you wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment." That sounded like you were asking me.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I admit that it does. It's how I chose to phrase it at the time, but I don't see now how you could have distinguished. Evensteven ( talk) 17:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, you wrote "I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment." That sounded like you were asking me.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@ NativeForeigner: - One of the evidence diffs points to a very lengthy ANI [3]. I copied this page to my userspace, and highlighted the allegations and evidence in color (wasn't easy to do), so that the arbitrators wouldn't need slog through over 13,000 words of unpleasantness to understand the essence of the issue [4]]. I've included diffs to both the original the highlighted pages on the on the arbitration evidence page (see [5].) Is this acceptable, or do you prefer a different way to handle it? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 07:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. I've slogged through the entire thread already but this is a reasonable way to handle it. NativeForeigner Talk 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Pursuant to WP:MC/P#PRIV, Wikipedia policy is that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent dispute resolution proceedings, including Arbitration. See also Arbitration policy on admissibility of evidence, at [6].
Robert McClenon has used my RfM against me in two ANI proceedings, and in this arbitration. Ignocrates has also included my RfM as evidence against me in this Arbitration.
I believe it would be appropriate for both McClenon and Ignocrates to strike their references to the RfM on both the evidence and workshop pages of this animation. I have done so in my evidence, except for referencing McClenon's violation of WP policy in using the RfM against me in ANI.
Although ArbCom retains jurisdiction over this arbitration, I've notified the chairman of the mediation committee, as he may have an interest or opinion on the matter. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 23:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re WP:MC/P#PRIV, I completely agree as far as statements made during the mediation process itself. However, there is nothing privileged about stating the existence of a request for formal mediation. The mediation was not accepted; therefore, there is no mediation case page to contain privileged communication. Btw, that privilege can be waived upon request to the mediation committee.
Ignocrates (
talk)
01:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee will determine the admissibility of the mediation evidence.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee will determine the admissibility of the mediation evidence.
Fearofreprisal (
talk)
01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we have what we need from the MC as far as the extent of privileged communication during mediation: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Privilege. diff Of course, ArbCom may admit or exclude whatever they want. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The evidence presented here by the current rotating head of the Mediation Committee is useful as well. John Carter ( talk) 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. Admittedly I was not aware of that guideline. Thank you for bringing it up. NativeForeigner Talk 00:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that one or more involved parties recruited new editors from an external website to undermine an ongoing RfC, which was then suspended. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence this happened, but I don't see a smoking gun. Maybe someone else does. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This comment indicates that at least one of the participants in the RfC now archived at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 36#RFC_ Full Article, or Shortened Article with Links only came to the discussion because of a post to the /r/atheist subreddit, which is admittedly somewhat surprising to me because (1) me noes nothing bout reddit and (2) those interested in atheist topics and presumably supporting atheism tended to agree with me, who tends to be seen as being on the other side. I would think that given the subject has a rather lengthy article in the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, which is at this point in its old and new editions still the only atheist encyclopedia out there, the article probably qualifies as "Top" importance to the Atheism WikiProject, but I won't to any tagging on that until such time as I get together an article list of the articles in the new and old encyclopedias. John Carter ( talk) 16:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The relevant post to r/atheism can be found here. I still don't see a smoking gun that links this back to one of the involved Wikipedia editors or an uninvolved but sympathetic editor. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Sphilbrick: - The evidence I've provided is longer than 1000 words. Should I refactor it, to bring its length down? If so, is 1000 words a hard limit? Fearofreprisal ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the above comment looks to others as much like an attempt at misdirection to distract readers from the topic discussed above it as it does to me. John Carter ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some leeway is often given, but you are at 1685, which is way over the limit, so I request that you cut it back. I am getting ready for a trip, so cannot give it much attention until sometime later tomorrow, but will offer suggestions if you find it hard to cut back. --
S Philbrick
(Talk)
22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have it down to 1173 words. If you have suggestions of how to cut it further, I'd appreciate it. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Wdford is correct when he states that I supported the decision to create a disambiguation article. It had the positive effects of (1) removing content that is mostly duplicated in other articles, and (2) resolving the content dispute. That was my opinion at the time he created it, and, as I said, it was done in good faith. The problem is that decision led to two unintended consequences that were disruptive.
(1) There is no clear policy for how to do this (thus the need to be WP:BOLD), and what one person sees as a good faith attempt to remove duplication another may interpret as railroading the original article by redirect. Although Wikipedia runs by WP:CONSENSUS, it's also the case that policy trumps consensus. A decision to implement this drastic a change should have been based more firmly on policy. I don't know what that policy is, and none was cited, which leads next to a process question.
(2) If you are convinced an article was wrongly blanked and replaced by someone's personal version which is drastically different in content, where do you go for a remedy? An incident report for vandalism is clearly not the answer, but what is the answer, ANI? An incident report was already underway at ANI alleging that Fearofreprisal is a troll (i.e. motivated by malice). On the content side, an RfC was filed after the original article was blanked and replaced, and was initially (mostly) supported by the same editors who were aligned on the original article. (My advice on the talk page to seek a wider consensus was ignored.) So, where do you go? Given the perceived local consensus on the talk page, what was a better choice than filing a request for formal mediation? I don't know the answer, but we should find some answers before this case is concluded. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think Wdford came up with an ingenious solution to an intractable problem. It resolved the content dispute and provided a long-term solution to the extensive duplication that was plaguing the article. Once the policy and process issues are resolved here, it should be reconsidered. As a personal aside to Wdford, there is no need for you to defend this action, which was taken in good faith, against allegations to the contrary by other parties in arbitration. The arbs are very smart people. You can trust their judgement and skill at resolving complex disputes. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved from evidence to the talk page. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- How is Wdford "removing content that is mostly duplicated in other articles" a positive effect? Does WP have a policy, guideline, or any consensus that suggests that the core of an article should be stripped out if it is duplicated in an article about another topic? (I note the irony that Wdford himself actually added much duplicate content to the article in the first place. [7])
- The only WP policy description I could find that matched the result of Wdford's disruptive edit was WP:Vandalism. (Were you to consider only his unexplained removal of the POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, “See also” section, “Notes” section, images, footers, and categories, this would still be the case.) An incident report for vandalism seemed to be a reasonable process to deal with this. Further, the RfC in process merely asked "Should the article on Historicity of Jesus be a full article or a shortened disambiguation article?" (ibid.) It skirted the question of illegitimate blanking or vandalism entirely. My RfM, which asked "Should the blanking of the article be reverted?" directly addressed this issue, and, to my mind, was not in conflict with the RfC [8])
- Before you suggest that Wdford's edit "resolved the content dispute," I suggest you review the RfC. Not the "votes" from the usual suspects, but the extensive arguments made by members of the broad WP community, which lead to the edit being reverted. [9] Fearofreprisal ( talk) 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making these statements for the record or do you really want me to respond? Keep in mind that the less said the better in ArbCom.
Ignocrates (
talk)
21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- The content guideline WP:CFORK deals with the problems of having duplicated content. And I acknowledge that the edit "resolved" temporarily the dispute, it is worth noting that it was according to the comments of others in the RfC pretty much only intended as a temporary measure, and that individuals like Ian and others indicated that there was reasonable grounds for trying to develop the content perhaps elsewhere, receiving some consensus in the process, rather than making the article continue to be subject to regular reversions and edit warnings. WP:IAR rarely succeeds as something to cite to defend one's actions to ArbCom, but I think in this case it wasn't necessarily an unreasonable measure taken to help resolve what seemed to many, including me, to be an intractable argument driven more by POV pushing and lack of acquaintance with the topic than any real, substantial, policy and guideline based concerns. John Carter ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making these statements for the record or do you really want me to respond? Keep in mind that the less said the better in ArbCom.
Ignocrates (
talk)
21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop this here and now. The finer points of who did what to whom can be discussed with the drafting arb during the question period when we draft the proposed solution. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Fun fact: There are more than six million people in Arizona, the fifteenth most populous of all fifty sates. Arizona is over a hundred thousand square miles in area, making it the sixth largest state as well.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
02:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
It is worth noting that on Kww's user page he specifically identifies himself as being from Arizona. It is also I believe interesting to note that according to Fearofreprials's history of edits here he also shows a pronounced interest in Arizona-related topics, specifically Andrew Thomas (politician), Joe Arpaio, Tom Horne, and, honestly, so far as I can see, almost all of his other recent edits relate to Arizona in some way. Considering that Fearofreprisal has indicated that he might have an alternate account, I find that very interesting. I would also suggest that Fearofreprisal make some effort to actually understand policies and guidelines regarding personal information, which he rather clearly does not understand, as he here and here, and here seems to indicate that discussing an editor's history is in some way discussing "personal information." John Carter ( talk) 15:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|