Wikipedia Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tijfo098[edit]

Proposed principles

1) Poor quality articles on sensitive topics can easily harm the reputation of Wikipedia, even if written in good faith. Strict content-area policies, like WP:BLP, were enacted precisely for this reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Clearly correct, and I think something like this belongs in the decision, albeit perhaps in slightly different words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I like this. Every edit in article space asserts a good-faith belief that the edit improves wikipedia's quality. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the idea but I'm concerned that this is "breaking new ground" wrt policy. WP:BLP draws a "bright line" asserting that BLP articles are "special" in the requirements for sourcing and editors are granted special permission to immediately revert out anything that is not solidly sourced. The principle as stated here suggests that there is another category that is similar to BLP viz. the category of "sensitive topics that can easily harm the reputation of Wikipedia". Yes, I agree that Wikipedia is harmed by appearing to document antisemitic canards but I think we need to pause and understand why BLP is special and why it is difficult to define what this proposed new category of "sensitive topics" is. BLP is special because erroneous information can harm real, living people. Our standards for biographies of dead people are not as stringent as for BLP because, although erroneous information can harm their relatives, we have (or Jimbo has) decided that this level of harm is not as critical to focus on wrt policy. (NB: Of course, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply to biographies of dead people. It's just that WP:BLP asserts special conditions over and above the standard Wikipedia policies.)

Now, imagine asserting that there is another category similar to BLP of "special" articles on "sensitive topics" such as antisemitism. Well, clearly "Palestine-Israeli" articles are in the same category. And so does just about every other conflict on this globe. All of these articles are subject to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV already but so are other articles on non-sensitive topics. What assertion of special "strict content-area policies" are we asserting here that don't apply to other articles? I really don't think we want to go there. We will forever be trying to define the phrase "sensitive topic" and what can and cannot be done with them.

IMO, Jimbo was brilliant in coming up with the "bright line" rule of BLP. If the guy is still alive, then you gotta be extra-vigilant for keeping crap out of the article. Of course, there should be no crap in any article but BLP articles get the express treatment. Let's not try to create any new categories unless we can assert a similar "bright line".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it was User:WAS 4.250 who came up with that bright line, and who initiated the BLP policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia built its reputation when it was at a much lower level of quality. I believe that the willingness to boldly explore sensitive subjects is vital to maintaining Wikipedia's reputation for openness and inquiry. The BLP policy was passed in part due to significant fears of legal liability for libel, and comes at a considerable cost in terms of the informativeness and neutrality of many articles. It should not be a precedent for additional retreats. Wnt (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of creating more policy. There's existing recognition that there are areas (not just BLP's) where we have to be extra careful to keep crap out of articles. Medical articles are another example (see the first paragraph of WP:MEDRS for some info). While, as we saw in the Husnock arbitration, stuff like Star Fleet insignia isn't of such deep concern. This isn't codified in policy and shouldn't be; common sense should be enough. Seekers of "bright lines" are all too often trying to deny the importance of good judgment in editing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much wish I could stamp out the use of WP:MEDRS to justify deleting references to peer-reviewed primary sources describing new treatments for disease. I think deletionists throw out a whole lot of baby for every drop of bathwater. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) While certain articles necessarily need to present some odious ideas, such presentations need to be tightly integrated with proper framing and refutations from today's mainstream sources, in order to avoid giving the reader even the temporary or cursory impression that Wikipedia unapologetically (or anachronistically) promotes ideas discredited nowadays.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Same comment as on 1 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who defines what is odious? How is this compatible with NPOV? Note that the pillar is NPOV, not M[ainstream]POV. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is a test used in determining whether two product labels are too similar, which involves presenting blurry images of the labels to consumers in order to approximate how they'd be perceived in passing in a supermarket. (The exact name of the test escapes me now, but it's accepted in courtrooms, at least in Europe.) We have something similar here: if a casual and poor-attention-span user (like most AfD contributors in general, I must say) looks at the article for a few seconds or minutes and leaves with the conclusion that it is antisemitic, then Wikipedia has a content problem, even if it can be fixed by just moving around some preexisting blocks of text. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is undue weight, like putting stuff about David Duke (a completely fringe source on Talmud criticism) into articles about Talmud criticism. If David Duke's opinions about the Talmud are notable at all, they should go in David Duke's biography or in some article about anti-semitic loons. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Added: I like the "supermarket test" analysis even though the problems with the articles in question were much deeper than could be fixed by moving blocks of text around. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jclemens that the word "odious" is problematic because it is ill-defined. Let's focus on the policy of not giving non-mainstream ideas undue weight. A well-written principle would assert that a fringe idea needs to be clearly identified as such in the immediately surrounding text (i.e. it's not enough to say somewhere else in the article that most scholars reject the fringe idea). Counterbalancing information, if available, should also be presented in the immediately surrounding text. Above all, editors should be careful not to assume that, just because Source X asserts that Fact A is true and relevant to the topic, the article text can assert that Fact A is true and relevant to the topic. A number of Noleander's errors came from taking an assertion from a source and inserting it into the article without considering whether the assertion was really an opinion or a factoid whose relevance was a matter of opinion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple reference to WP:UNDUE would suffice to cover this. Imbalanced articles should be fixed or slapped with ugly tags, but we don't need any extra ideological prioritization. Whenever editors find them, they will fix them. The usefulness of WikiProjects for correcting errors and improve subject matter (including odious errors) is well established. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) Parodying poor quality articles with ones of even worse quality, written in a tit-for-tat manner, breaches the core mission of Wikipedia, and constitutes disruption, wasting other good-faith editors' time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You might want to take a look at the workshop proposals I offered in the Allegations of apartheid case (this was before I was an arbitrator), which addressed aspects of this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think nothing much has changed since the "Allegations of Apartheid" ArbCom case in terms of tit-for-tat wiki practices. I'm considering proposing some discretionary WP:AE remedies stemming from this principles in order to curb the easy abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet with junk articles (esp. those created on sectarian lines). I'm waiting to hear if anyone else thinks this is a good principle or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff was just pointy. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

1) User:Noleander has exhibited poor editorial judgement at times, writing some passages that could reasonably be read as promoting antisemitic canards, at least in isolation, even if these passages were part of articles—mostly written by Noleander—where eventually the credibility and antisemitic stereotypy of those problematic passages was discussed. Examples include Economic history of the Jews and The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think all those presenting evidence agree on this much. Surely, some would like a stronger, unmitigated finding. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

1) For a period of one year, Noleander is restricted from posting directly in the mainspace new articles mainly related to Jews. He may write such articles in his user space, and these articles may be promoted to mainspace by other editors, after reviewing and editing them as necessary. Suggested venues for Noleander to find reviewers and collaborators include the WikiProjects active in this area and the Article Incubator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an interesting alternative to a topic ban. I'm open to a mildly novel approach, but I feel that this would need some work to prevent gaming and partisan feuding. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but all pages in his userspace will need to be ((noindex)). Also concerned that we might see more "fait accompli" articles; this doesn't really pull in the community feedback that it seems will be needed. Risker (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for him, and Wikipedia can still benefit from his efforts. Essentially, this is a combination of mentoring and soft topic ban. Too many bloopers in a sensitive area for my taste. Writing long articles out of sight and then posting them (without pre-publication review) does create a sort of fait accompli where potentially bad content stays in mainspace for quite a while until someone gets to read the whole thing, compare it to sources, etc. Since he doesn't seem to edit war and he engages in talk page discussions in a manner that is not sub-standard for this area (don't make me give you some recent examples of what I see as sub-standard discussions in the area), I don't think that an outright topic ban is needed. But we need to avoid dramas caused by one editor posting long and questionable quality articles, followed by the bivalent AfD logic drawing in the hip shooters and the less than well meaning regulars. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy might be reasonably cast as "advice to all editors: please consider this approach if you're working on something likely to be controversial". As a remedy for Noleander it's completely inadequate. Having somewhat stepped away from this conflict for a couple days it's become clearer to me, Noleander's whole editing plan is just insane and should not be allowed to continue, thus a topic ban is needed. It's predicated on the theory that Wikipedia currently has a systemic bias in the form of not enough negative information about religions J, M, and so forth. Unless there is majority RS about Wikipedia content backing up that theory to REDFLAG stadards, the theory is nasty OR in it own right, no such bias can be presumed to exist, so following the editing plan has the effect of creating systemic bias. It's as if my dog is run over by a Buick, and in my rage over the incident, I start systematically inserting as much negative info as I can find into BLP's of people whose names begin with the letter B. Once it becomes clear what I'm doing I'd certainly get blocked, even if my info is all well sourced. That's something like what we're dealing with here, minus the good sourcing.

If arbcom really does want to settle on something of this form, it should still be stronger than Tijfo098's version. Something like "Noleander must announce the userspace drafts of proposed new articles to the appropriate wikiprojects, there has to be a review/discussion/editing period of at least 1 week so other users can raise issues or make changes, AND the article must be judged by talkpage consensus to comply with all WP content policies before its introduction to article space. In particular there can't be any NPOV or other tags in the article at the time of creation--there has to be consensus that none are needed, however long it takes to reach such a consensus." I'd actually see merit to applying something like that to all "hot" areas in wikipedia. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Please also see the tail end of this comment (the second green block in the diff, that starts "The article was not written through the normal wiki process"). Thumperward (in my interpretation, I haven't asked him) even seems to see Noleander's process as a form of gaming the system.[4] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Tijfo098's proposal with 75.57.242.120's amendment. I would further amend it to shorten the period of the remedy to be "6 months with a review for effectiveness at the end of the period; the remedy could be removed or made more stringent at the 6 month mark depending on the results of the review". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Tryptofish[edit]

Proposed principles

Morally offensive views can be encyclopedic.

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views states: "We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is different than saying morally offensive material cannot be encyclopedic, or that an editor adding such material shares its morally offensive beliefs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between neutrally documenting morally offensive views with due weight according to their representation in the universe of reliable sources, and lousy editing that appears designed to create undue prominence for the views of an extreme fringe. The current references section of "Criticism of the Talmud" is cringeworthy all by itself (see the sources it gives priority of placement to), without even having to read any of the article. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this principle. I would go further and say that if you have a source - any source - then there should be someplace in Wikipedia that reviews what it says. This is true even for Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In the end truth stands out from falsehood not because of the preference we give it (more often it ends up on the gallows or the cross) but because of its essence. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre principal! Of course no! How can anyone imply that Mein Kampf or Protocols of the Elder of Zion are of the quality of a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia articles may be on morally offensive views. But Morally offensive views cannot be "encyclopedia;" NPOV expicitly tells us our articles must take a neutral position!

As for the NPOV policy cited, I simply do not see how it has bearing on this case, or the evidence. No one has ever expressed a problem with Noleander simply adding content on anti-Semitic views of others.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slr's comment makes me realize that my wording may have been ambiguous, in an unintended way. I didn't mean that it is encyclopedic to express morally offensive views, but rather, that it is encyclopedic to provide coverage of such views. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by Slr's response - after all, there are articles Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion and they do review what those sources say; and other articles also cover those views when they are relevant. It does no service to the living nor the dead to pretend that people had more enlightened views than they did. Perhaps there is some semantic misunderstanding? Wnt (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wnt, why don't you tell me which part of "NPOV expicitly tells us our articles must take a neutral position" you do not understand?

"Encyclopedic views" are the views of the encyclopedia. We need to distinguish between the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and the viewpoints expressed in Wikipedia articles. The viewpoint of Wikipedia is NPOV. The views expressed in Wikipedia are not NPOV. They can be opposing political views, which is why we have articles on Barack Obama and on Rush Limbaugh; they may be opposing epistempological views which is why we have articles on Evolution and Creationism, and they may be opposing moral views which is why we have articles on Antiesmitism and Humanism. Moreover, the article on Barack Obama must comply with NPOV which means providing all significant views from reliable sources in that article. But this whole system works only if you are able to draw a distinction between the views represented in the encyclopedia, from the view of the encyclopedia. I object to the proposed principle because it erases this distinction. To erase this distinction is to attack NPOV, the core principle of the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I note the unintentional ambiguity to which I referred above, and I appreciate Slr having drawn attention to it. But, Slr, I think what is more important than my draft version of the title of this section is what I quote, what it already says per consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views. That is unambiguously relevant to this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

2) The Arbitration Committee does not normally decide content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough, but the conduct that Noleander is accused of in this case, if established by the evidence, would go well beyond what we would normally describe as an ordinary content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Newyorkbrad: I agree with what you said, but an aspect of the case that I think comes from my evidence is that editors who have content disputes with Noleander may have used AN/I complaints, and indeed this Arbitration, to get an upper hand over Noleander. This seems to me to be a compelling reason for the Committee to be careful not to impose an overly draconian remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2011 (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.

NuclearWarfare reminded

1) NuclearWarfare is reminded that Wikipedia:Blocking policy requires that blocks normally be preventative, not punitive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not necessary, in my view. I find the rationale for the block perfectly understandable, whether or not it ultimately attained consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I couldn't figure out what that block was about. It seemed like a weird lapse by an otherwise good admin. Maybe arbcom could inquire with NW privately about what he was really thinking, and give him advice as appropriate. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. If the Arbitration Committee wants to give me advice, they are free to do so publicly. NW (Talk) 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I do think it should be noted that NW self-reverted the block. But I feel, at the same time, that blocking users is a proverbial "big deal". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

2) Editors are reminded that Wikipedia:No personal attacks indicates that editors need to exert great caution about calling other editors anti-semitic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors reminded

3) Editors are reminded that the dispute resolution process is not to be used to get the upper hand in content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noleander restricted

4) For a period of one year, Noleander is restricted from posting directly in the mainspace new articles related to stereotypes, canards, or criticisms of Judaism or the Jewish people, broadly construed. He may write such articles in his user space, and discuss their content on talk pages of related existing articles or WikiProjects, but he must attain consensus from other editors before moving the material into the main article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I intend this proposal to be a variation on the one provided above by Tijfo098. I agree with the basic approach. Arbitrators may perhaps want to combine these proposals in some way. I think that an editing restriction along these lines is a reasonable way of ensuring that the problems leading to this case do not continue. At the same time, I strongly object to any proposal that would amount to a topic ban, of any duration. I have presented evidence that the editing atmosphere at these pages is highly charged. ArbCom should not pick winners in content disputes. Any sort of ban on the basis of the existing evidence would be unprecedented in preventing edits by an editor who is capable of contributing positively in response to demands by those on the other side of a content dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is better than Tijfo098's proposal but I note that people are still working on evidence. There's just a difference of opinion on whether there's already enough. Obviously if the "opponents" are editing tendentiously they should get banned too. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some concerns about this, mostly (1) it doesnt address the fact that other editors have in the past refused to engage in productive dialog; (2) it prevents me from editing existing material that has already been added with consensus; and (3) it doesn't include the proviso that "other editors cannot unreasonably withhold consensus"' which (although it goes without saying) should be written down. In my Proposal section below, I've added an enhanced version of Tryptofish's proposal which addresses these issues. --Noleander (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander - I wonder if you are misreading Tryptofish's proposed remedy or if you are responding to Tifjo098's proposed remedy in the wrong place (i.e. in the place for responding to Tryptofish's proposed remedy). Tryptofish's remedy reads "Noleander is restricted from posting directly in the mainspace new articles related to stereotypes, canards, or criticisms of Judaism or the Jewish people, broadly construed." This, like Tijfo098's original proposal, generously eschews the harshness of a topic ban and focuses on a mentoring process for "new articles" specifically related to anti-Jewish topics. I don't see how either of the two proposals "prevents (you) from editing existingmaterial that has already been added with consensus.

I also would counsel you to avoid trying to wikilawyer the terms of the remedy. You should consider that, based on discussions at ANI and here, there might be other editors who would advocate a topic ban on all articles related to the criticism of any religion. If Tijfo098 and Tryptofish can prevail in limiting the remedy as they propose, you will have come away from the RFARB with a very good result. Don't screw it up by overreaching and insisting on your "rights". There will surely be ways to appeal if any editors unreasonably "withhold consensus". It should be clear that there are editors such as Tryptofish and myself who feel that you should not be judged too harshly in light of your positive contributions. However, if you insist on negotiating in these kinds of phrases, it will not reflect well on your understanding of what other editors (and arbitrators) are trying to tell you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Richard said. Exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems dangerously vague on how Noleander "achieves consensus". It is possible that he might achieve consensus on one talk page or on his own user talk page, but then be accused of breaking the ban because consensus in another place ran against him. I think you should tighten up that criterion to avoid future disagreements. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm receptive to that suggestion. I'm not sure how to word it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors cautioned

5) AzureFury, Camelbinky, Jayjg, Mbz1, and SilverSeren are cautioned to comment on edits, and not on editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not seeing why Camelbinky is included. As far as I can see, the only piece of evidence in which his name appears is this lone diff, almost a year ago. Between 28 October 2010 and 7 April 2011, he's made only two edits under this username, one of which was to add a ((retired)) notice to his talkpage. If this is the comment in question, I don't personally see it as directed at any one editor, but as a general statement of his personal wiki-philosophy. – iridescent 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe that this is warranted by the evidence, but more serious sanctions are not. I suggest that including SilverSeren here may be an appropriate alternative to other sanctions proposed elsewhere on this page. (Note: I can propose findings of fact if the Committee decides to accept the motions to add parties.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here? Please see the Evidence page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the Evidence page, and I think this "cautioning", as minor as it may be, is overkill, at least in some of the cases. User:Jayjg, for example, is claimed by you to have "cast aspersions" on other editors for having fewer edits. I don't believe this is the case. His mention of fewer edits was in the context of Noleander making accusations of poor editing at more experienced editors. It was not "casting aspersions", but rather responding to a specific claim. User:Camelbinky is claimed by you to have "denigrated editors", but I see no evidence of that whatsoever. He made a correct, if impassioned, plea to use correct terminology in the context of the article, and didn't mention other editors at all, let alone in a denigrating manner. And your claims that User:Mbz1 has been uncivil seem more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. I don't see the incivility. If you'd like to present evidence, you need to do more than make a bald claim and follow it with diffs that don't support the claim. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, as I've said elsewhere, I debated a long time before bringing these proposals forward. I originally presented the evidence as indicating a battleground environment, and only later concluded that the case was at risk of only looking at the conduct on one side of the dispute. If the Arbitrators decide to decline some of my proposals, that's fine. As for Jayjg, it wasn't Noleander to whom he was responding, and it is a deep concern of mine when administrators tell other editors that some members of the editing community are more valued than others. Tell another editor that they were mistaken to criticize your editing: that's fine. To frame it as I'm an administrator and you aren't is unnecessary and dead wrong. Responding to a specific claim, as you call it, does not require commenting on anyone's relative experience or standing, only on the specific edits. As for Camelbinky, I've said below that I recognize the editor has not had much recent activity, and I've discussed the context in detail in the Workshop talk. As for Mbz1, I've said above that I was mainly concerned with the page move, and I've also said that I would be perfectly content to be shown to have been mistaken. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, after looking into this more, I respectfully suggest that if you want to include the above editors, you include yourself as well. Calling other editors fools is uncivil in the extreme, even if you only do it by citing a verse. Perhaps you should reconsider at what point a "caution" is called for.

That said, I don't think it's helpful to point to single comments from a year ago as being relevant to the specific case here. Do we really want to bring up everything an editor may have written -- ever -- any time they're involved in any case? That seems like it could overwhelm the system, and I think we should avoid it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I didn't call them that. I used a passage from Proverbs to serve as the same thing as a blue link to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent: I, too, hesitated about adding that user. Based on the editing inactivity, I nearly didn't, but I observed a recent return to editing despite the "retired" tag. As the talk page shows, I hesitated before adding any of these proposed parties. I ended up deciding that I would like you and your fellow Arbitrators, and not me, to decide who should or should not be a party, and so I made the motions above. I most definitely won't take it personally if some of those motions are declined, but I believe it to be fair to the existing parties to consider all of those motions, and unfair not to consider them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish asks the question "Here?" and the answer is: "Yes, of course here." Are you not proposing a "remedy" here? If this is not a poposed "remedy," then what is it? If it is a proposed remedy, well, surely you agree that rememdies should be based on findings of fact. Are you suggesting that remedies not be based on findings of fact? Can you explain to us why you think remedies should not be based on finding of fact? Or do you agree with me that rememdies whould be based on findings of fact? Well, if you agree with me, please indicate the findings of fact that support this. As you know, one of the important purposes of this workshop is to propose findings of fact. Surely you read the instructions, at the top of this page. Surely you read as I did that one purpose of this page is to propose indingds of fact. The "Evidence page" is not the "Workshop page." The "Evidence page" is a page where just about anyone can post just about anything they consider evidence. I have read the evidence page and I did not see anything to justify lumping these five editors, none parties to the arbitration, together. As far as I can tell, some of them commented on editors, and some of them commented on edits. Before we can discuss any rmedy we need a finding of fact. What you need to do is propose a finding of fact and point to the precise evidence that you think supports your proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your question to be about evidence, as opposed to being about findings of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unnecessary and unproductive. None of these users have done much of anything. Silver made a few mildly intemperate remarks. Camelbinky has been primarily inactive. The difs relating to Jayjg and Mbz1 are both old and minor. If we're adding difs of this level, Trypto should probably include herself. This isn't an attack on Trypto, this is an illustration of how minor these issues really are. Discussions on ANI and elsewhere will get heated. Comments will occasionally push civility. Nothing here rises to the level of something any admin thought was worth blocking over. All the more so that there's nothing here by any of these users that rises to the level where ArbCom should be concerned. Let's focus on the primary concerns of this arbitration and not throw mud at a large number of productive editors many of whom aren't parties in the case. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK restricted

6) IZAK is restricted for a period of one year from creating new articles that are titled similarly to existing articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not confident that this is the best wording, but I believe that a specific sanction is justified, to prevent further creation of pointy parody articles. (Note: I can propose findings of fact if the Committee decides to accept the motions to add parties.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto: This makes no sense because when I create articles or categories which MUST adhere to the same name patterns to avoid confusion and to which much time is devoted by editors organizing topics of articles and categories to have similar sounding titles and names in many AfDs (it's also about renaming) and CfDs (also about renaming) all over WP, and in my case mainly in the domain of Category:Jews and Judaism the titles of lead articles and their categories are routinely re-named to be the same, so that this proposal would backfire and harm WP (not to mention look silly) as a result of the law of Unintended consequences because improvements to WP articles would be harmed. It makes no sense to "cite" only two examples on my part, and then use that as the "basis" for a universal "one-year restriction" for articles and categories that have absolutely nothing to do with the subjects you are so concerned about. This just proves how poorly you have thought this through and are just reaching for any straw to divert attention from the ongoing main issues of the original ArbCom case involving User Noleander (talk · contribs) who I don't edit with and that has nothing to do with me. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is too broad. If IZAK is otherwise a productive content writer, such a restriction would not just be punitive but also unproductive. He would no longer, in good faith, be able to create articles of similar types that are in no way POINT violations. I would be happy with him being cautioned not to create articles in violation of WP:POINT. I more general principle about not doing so, which isn't focussed on IZAK specifically, but on this type of situation would be even more preferable.Griswaldo (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with Griswaldo.

In general, I oppose any sanctions on IZAK. If ARBCOM were to take any action with regards to IZAK, I would suggest that it come in the form of a warning to avoid actions which may appear to be violations of WP:POINT. Waiting for the AFD to resolve would have avoided this. There was no urgency to creating the two articles prior to the AFD. Doing so just inflamed the AFD discussion unnecessarily.

I consider IZAK's explanations of his actions plausible although the alternative interpretations of his action (e.g. that they were violations of WP:POINT) are also understandable. I think we have to AGF here. My take on this mess is that all of the article titles Economic history of the Jews, Economic history of Christians and Economic history of Muslims are encyclopedic topics. Noleander made a severely flawed attempt to write an article on Economic history of the Jews and IZAK made flawed attempts to write articles on the other two. It is plausible that IZAK thought Noleander's article was fatally flawed because it was antisemitic whereas his own articles were imperfect but not fatally flawed. Such a stance would explain IZAK's "Delete" opinion on the AFD while still supporting his own articles. I think IZAK should be counseled to write better articles before putting them into article mainspace. The deletion of his two articles should send that message. ARBCOM could reinforce the message with a warning.

What I think we should not do is insist that IZAK's intent was pointy rather than a good faith desire to create parallel articles as he asserts. To do so is to get wrapped up in trying to determine intent. If we go down that road, we will also have to open the door to insisting that Noleander's intent was antisemitic rather than a good faith misinterpretation of some sources as he claims.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated below, I think that Griswaldo's version is basically superior to mine. And I remain concerned that IZAK appears unwilling to acknowledge that his creation of those pages was anything other than good content creation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Griswaldo. This restriction is too broad. I'd like to suggest that it be changed to User:IZAK is cautioned not to create articles in order to make a point. Surely that should suffice. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tryptofish that it's concerning there's no acknowledgment that creation of these "me too" articles was a poor idea, but I also agree with Griswaldo and Lisa that this restriction is unnecessarily broad, and that a caution/reminder should be sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A narrow formal restriction/remedy plays into the trolling. Saying "IZAK shouldn't create articles to make a point" implies doing other stupid crap to make a point is ok. It is never ok. If the issue is just that one incident, give a medium trouting ("IZAK is cautioned not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point") and move on. If it's happened multiple times or recurs, topic ban. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisa, IP and 28bytes. I have proposed that type of remedy below.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is itself bordering on parody. Perhaps IZAK should be restricted for a year from creating articles with the word "History" in them? The prosecutorial slant on this case seems to rely on a Godlike understanding of IZAK's thoughts and motives. Whether such powers exist or not, the appropriate correction would seem to be a case by case examination of IZAK's creations, given that he is a prolific editor whose work on the whole pushes Wikipedia forward. PS I agree that the week before Passover is not a good time to bring this case up; I don't imagine many of the Christian editors here would appreciate being taken to task the week before Christmas. Gzuckier (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSeren cautioned

7) SilverSeren is cautioned to comment on edits, and not on editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Same wording as (5), but with SilverSeren only. Offered as a more proportionate alternative to LessHeard's proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU[edit]

Proposed principles

Speculation upon the motives of good faith editors by way of ethnicity, et al, is inappropriate

1) Outside of allegations or investigations of meatpuppetry or cabalism, questioning the motives of any group of parties by reference to a supposed allegiance by either ethnicity, religion, cultural background, or other inferred common status, is inappropriate. When such suggestions are made without reference or acknowledgement of the genesis of the complaints by various editors, it may be regarded as an "ad hominem" attack upon such individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To be honest, I was rather shocked by at least one of the comments in the ANI thread, so I think we should include something similar to the above. Perhaps 'care should be taken to avoid making statements which constitute an assumption of bad faith in regard to all members of an ethnicity, religion or other inferred common status". PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not allow "he's Hungarian" to be used as either a justification or attack in the area of Eastern European editing - I see this as a parallel --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Captain Occam. But there wasn't a ruling in the Scientology case that Scientologists were incapable of editing neutrally. Roger Davies ^talk 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Occam: In the Scientology case we specifically discussed how religious affiliation did not cause a COI, for example (we pointedly rejected proposals that Scientologists could not edit certain articles, or that they were presumed to have a COI). In that case, we swept the topic of all past POV pushers using a very broad broom, and we did so whether they were thought to be Scientologists or not. POV was the focus, not identity. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Occam: It is true that some of the parties in an acrimonious case make personal attacks, and I believe you are right that some users stepped over the line in the Scientology case. This often happens when cases drag on too long, which is why we try to expeditiously wrap them up. You will find examples of personal attacks throughout the history of ArbCom. That does not imply that the site tolerates such attacks, much less that the site should tolerate attacks. Cool Hand Luke 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Occam: You do not seem to be familiar with the facts of the case. COS IPs were blocked because there was an extensive history of socking from those IPs, which was well-documented and supported by independent checkusers. A editor on these IPs would come out of a handful of COS gateways around the world, and all of these accounts were indistinguishable by checkuser. These IPs were therefore blocked for the same reason that we block open proxies, which is precisely what I said when I proposed the remedy.[5] We sometimes block college campus gateways for the same reason; it has little to do with POV, but was instead rooted in SOCK. In fact, I proposed it to help avoid the constant harassment that supposedly pro-Scientology editors received at RFCU—the implication of this remedy and my remarks is that Scientologists are free to edit the articles insofar that they do not violate any policies. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: You are right that many Wikipedians apply a different (and more prejudicial) standard for new religious movements, but I believe they should not. One of the reasons Captain Occam's comments provoke my response is that I pointedly fought his suggestions in the Scientology case, and was scorned by Durova and Cirt for it. I had several priorities in the Scientology case. I wanted to establish once and for all that being a mere member of a religious movement was not a COI (and that, by extension, inquiry into a Wikipedian's religious affiliation is inappropriate). I wanted the focus to be tightly on actual POV. I know that a lot of gross attacks against various faiths have been launched by parties during many ArbCom cases, and that members of new religious movements are attacked particularly often. But I say here now with complete sincerity that I believe attacks based on identity should stop. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as for how you start an investigation of cabalism, you point to their actual coordinated action. It's one thing to say "most of the people opposing this user have previously voted against his proposals on X, Y, and Z." It's another entirely to say "he'll never get a fair hearing with all these Lutherans." If you look at X, Y, and Z, you can verify that they have indeed voted as a block (or not), but if you instead look for Lutherans and the views you imagine they have, you may miss that fact that many members of the supposed conspiracy have split in the past. Citing on-wiki coordination not only helps avoid prejudice, but it also avoids the sloppy thinking that stereotypes promote. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Everything else is likely to be covered by other parties, in their own suggestions. This is one issue relevant to this case that I would like to be included. I am not offended that I was blithely included as a Jew for supporting a topic ban; I am offended that Jewishness was proferred as a reason for those that were supporting the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not well thought out. How do you start an investigation of cabalism without making a statement that falls foul of this? In addition, pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack. If we saw 25 editors identifying as Unification Church members voting at ANI to topic-ban someone working on UC articles, would anyone sanction the editor who pointed out these editors' religious allegiance? I doubt it, but according to the above, they should. --JN 466 10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke, I sympathise with your position, and you know my opinion of the Scientology case, which was, broadly speaking, a very well-handled case. However, I would caution that we should not pass something like this unless we can ensure that there will be a level playing field. If comments prejudicial to Jewish and American editors are sanctioned on the strength of this, but those prejudicial to the far less numerous Egyptian, Pakistani and Indian editors are not, nor those prejudicial to homeopaths, muslims, Scientologists or Unification Church members, then we may create a bigger problem than we already have. That is my main worry here. --JN 466 14:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think LessHeard makes a basically valid point here. Above, I floated the idea of cautioning editors in the other direction: not to make casual accusations of anti-semitism. These things fit together, and perhaps could be combined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s going to be a ruling about this, I think it need to be clearer how it should be reconciled with both the process and the ruling in the Scientology arbitration case. As I understand that case, it involved a lot of discussion about whether scientologists are capable of neutrally editing scientology-related articles. If ArbCom is going to say that discussion about an editor’s “ethnicity, religion, cultural background, or other inferred common status” is inappropriate in discussion about their motives, that apparently means a large part of the discussion during the Scientology arbitration case was inappropriate also. If this proposed decision is going to be clarified with that in mind, I also think arbitrators also need to consider what it is that makes the current situation different from that one: it shouldn’t be just that this sort of speculation is appropriate about scientologists but not about Jews. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: I'm not saying that ArbCom actually decided scientologists were incapable of editing these articles neutrally, I'm just saying that how their religious affiliation might affect their editing was a major topic of discussion during the case. If this proposed principle is enacted, that will mean all of the discussion about this during that case was inappropriate. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cool Hand Luke: I must not be being clear about what my issue is here. For this particular point I’m not talking about ArbCom’s decision in the Scientology case, I’m talking about the evidence and discussion during the course of the case. This quote from Cirt on the case’s evidence page is a representative example of what I’m talking about:

Normal Scientologists acting on their own initiative would not be allowed to view or edit Wikipedia articles about Xenu and other sensitive Church of Scientology doctrine, unless they receive special authorization from the organization. And yet the fact remains that Scientology-related accounts are editing articles discussing the Xenu story and material critical of the Scientology organization.

Is that an unacceptable personal attack? According to the principle being proposed here, it is, because it questioned the validity of editors’ participation in certain articles based on their religious affiliation. According to this principle, the evidence and workshop for the scientology arbitration case contained probably dozens of this type of personal attack, and ArbCom did not appear to mind. The fact that ArbCom ultimately did not rule that editors editors’ religious affiliation constituted a conflict of interest does not change the fact that this possibility was a major part of what was discussed during the case. If this principle is adopted, then even to suggest such a thing will no longer be allowed, and the type of discussion about this that occurred during the scientology case can never occur again. Or is it the deliberate intention for this principle to permanently disallow the type of discussion that occurred during a previous case? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cool Hand Luke: If the view of ArbCom is that statements linking editors’ religious affiliations to POV-pushing behavior in favor of those religions are universally inappropriate, and statements about this during the Scientology case were inappropriate also, why was one of the remedies adopted during the Scientology case to block all IPs associated with the Church of Scientology? This is why I referred to “both the process and the ruling” in that case in my initial comment here. If the ruling were taken on its own, ArbCom could use the justification that they blocked this organization’s IPs just because they were being used for large amounts of POV-pushing, and they did not consider its connection to the articles on which that POV-pushing was happening. On the other hand, if parties in the case had presented evidence linking editors being scientologists to them making pro-scientology edits, but ArbCom had declined to act on that evidence, then Arbitrators could reasonable claim that evidence presented about this constituted unacceptable personal attacks. But when parties present evidence arguing that scientologists are displaying pro-scientology bias on these articles, and ArbCom responds by blocking all IP addresses associated with the Church of Scientology, then that is sending a very clear message that these concerns expressed in the evidence were reasonable and actionable. (Unless the connection between the evidence presented about scientologists making pro-scientology edits and the Church of Scientology IP block is completely different from the obvious one.)

Or is the idea here that these concerns were reasonable and actionable, but they were still inadmissible personal attacks? How does that work? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, while we might not allow "he's Hungarian" to be used as an attack, I've certainly seen people described as "X nationalist POV pushers" many times by admins. I'm not complaining about that because I think it is useful to identify people with a specific bias at times. However, my point is I do not think this is as clear cut as it has been presented above, and I think Captain Occam's concern is therefore quite valid. There is a slippery slope between what we do seem to allow on Wikipedia and what we're claiming here that we don't allow. It needs to be unpacked carefully.Griswaldo (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clever. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal falls into the same pitfalls that LessHeard vanU's evidence does in implying that something which never happened was part of the case. There was no allegation of a "conspiracy" (as LHU claims in evidence). Here different terms are used to the same effect - "meatpuppetry or cabalism" and "any group of parties by reference to a supposed allegiance by ... common status." There was no allegation of collusion, conspiracy or anyone acting out of an "allegiance" to a group. There was a suggestion of personal bias based on the religious/ethnic self-identity of various editors. This proposal, or similar proposals should reflect the reality of what happened with Silver seren, which may also be problematic, but it should not be based on a misrepresentation.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to underline what Griswaldo just said. Nothing that Silver seren actually said implied anything about a "conspiracy". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ethnicity is not something special here on Wikipedia. We cannot see it. With some unfortunate exceptions (leaping to conclusions about named editors based on the name) we detect it the way we detect political affiliation, taste in music, preferred football team: by the pattern of edits. When editors with an expressed affiliation with one viewpoint in an article seem to be editing it in accordance with that viewpoint, to the perceived detriment of an article or !vote, it may be in bad taste but should not be against policy to question, in a non-disruptive way, whether they are allowing personal bias to get the better of them. Wnt (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

User:Silver seren made "ad hominem" attacks upon various editors

1) Without acknowledging or initially referencing the issues from which various editors supported a topic ban on another contributor, Silver seren (talk · contribs) concentrated upon the supposed ethnicity of those editors. Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4. Notwithstanding an apology for "offense taken" by complaining parties to a WQA complaint, the comments by User:Silver seren in the ANI discussion were clearly ad hominem, in addressing the characters of those supporting a topic ban rather than the arguments for the proposal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Silver seren's choice of wording was certainly poor, however this is slightly stronger than I would prefer. From my perspective, s/he made comments that were, in effect, assumptions of bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found these comments disturbing, enough that I believe Silver seren should be brought in as a party and have some finding. Cool Hand Luke 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes three of us. I'll get that organised. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seren voiced what I assume was a legitimate concern about potential bias amongst those voting to topic-ban Noleander. Perhaps his remark was ultimately an unhelpful presumption of bad faith, but hardly worth a mention in this case. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An admin should just issue an AGF reminder and be done with it, this rally has nothing to do with the case at hand. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LHvU and the arbs. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TotientDragooned and disagree with the proposed finding. With the benefit of hindsight, SilverSeren could have phrased his concern differently (including, but not limited to, using the words "is it possible that" rather than "doesn't"). However, in a highly emotionally charged debate it seems unrealistic to assume that everyone will always pick ideal wording. The apology SilverSeren subsequently made seems a more than adequate reaction. And as far as being an ad hominem attack, frankly I fail to see any attack at all. Martinp (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to add that LHvU seems to have unfortunately read much more into S's remark than was there. After writing the above, I saw LHvU's submission on the evidence phase where he refers to this incident as "S alleged a Jewish Conspiracy". However, that is a significant stretch from what I gather S wrote, which was querying the existence of a group bias, without any accusation of conspiracy. Martinp (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (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.

User:Silver seren warned regarding further "ad hominem" attacks on contributors

1) Silver seren (talk · contribs) to be placed on indefinite final warning in relation to "ad hominem" attacks. After 12 months User:Silver seren may request the lifting of this provision by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or 6 months after any ArbCom Enforcement action whichever is the later.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I felt the trout was on the small side, however maybe just a stern warning, instead of this? Incidentally, I think Silver seren would need to be listed as a party for him or her to be sanctioned. PhilKnight (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with the party. LHVU, do you want to make a request for Silver or anyone else to be added as a party? If so, please make the suggestion at Motions by parties above, so it can be discussed.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 28bytes. That said, I'm also confused about what an "indefinite final warning" is. I would just make a "Silver Seren is cautioned/warned"-type remedy, then add discretionary sanctions on the case, which could lead to AE blocks if parties repeat behavior they were sanctioned for. The discretionary sanctions would specifically cover the point 28bytes makes—NPA does not take a holiday when editors comment on another's religion/ethnicity/sex/etc.—indeed, such prejudicial violations of NPA are uniquely offensive to the volunteer-contributors of this site. Cool Hand Luke 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc says "he's never eve bene a player in this topic area." That statement seems to be false, so I would like to have more evidence on user's prior interactions to determine whether this was in fact a one-incident mistake (albeit a stubborn one), as has been claimed. Given that he's advanced a similar "they are biased Jews" argument almost a year ago, I suspect you're wrong on all counts, Tarc. I would like to see the evidence before relying on unchecked assertions that an editor has "never" done something. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc: I agree that there may be nothing to these incidents (and we might decide such), but I think it at least rises to the level of adding him as a party and accepting evidence on the matter, pro and con. You are free to present some. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not, nor should it be, a free speech forum. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not foster a lively forum for users to toss offensive allegations at each other. It is not a bug that sanctions would "chill" prejudicial speech directed toward our volunteer contributors—in fact, discouraging such conduct is the point. Cool Hand Luke 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Providing they stay away from making the such comments, then the restriction may be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to Elen of the Roads) I will make that motion, on the basis that it will then be discussed whether Silver seren should be included as a party. I have noted a few comments that singling out Silver seren for making, and arguing against retraction, of unhelpful comments might appear disproportionate - so I will try to word it to allow any other parties who made similar unfortunate remarks to be included. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Resp to T. Canens, and Tarc) I was not considering that Silver seren might be included as a party, and therefore subject to possible AE enforcement - so I was looking for a restriction that equalled AE in that specific area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I get the impression Silver seren has a tendency in DR discussions of supporting/enabling disruptive or otherwise problematic editors, of whom Noleander is the most recent example of several. Most of the time it's just (IMO) not-so-good judgment without the ad hominem stuff but the ethnicity thing just seems like another twist. Maybe LHVU also noticed such a pattern and is reacting to it. I think an admonishment is fine, but a more formal "final warning" like this should require adding SS as a party and giving a more systematic presentation of multiple incidents. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Do you have any evidence to support this claim of a "tendency" seen in DR discussions? seren's a wiki-inclusionist, sometimes fervently so, but unlike other WP:ARS devotees has not to my recollection been the subject of RfCUs, AN/I complaints or (until this case) a WQA. I will also again note my general displeasure at IPs being allowed to participate in ArbCom discussions, especially obviously experienced ones. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much undecided about exactly where I want to go with this comment, but I would worry about singling out Siver seren when other editors have also made unhelpful and objectionable comments. We need to have a well thought-out rationale for who is, and who is not, a party to this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what an "indefinite final warning" is. T. Canens (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misconception floating around that "comment on content, not on the contributor" doesn't apply to speculations as to the possible biases other editors may have based on what church they go to. I strongly disagree and urge ArbCom to take a strong stand on this, regardless of whether any sanctions are applied to SilverSeren. SilverSeren didn't listen to me when I told him that these speculations are clear personal attacks as described in the No personal attacks policy; he didn't listen to Maunus, or LessHeard vanU, or Slrubenstein; he didn't even listen to Jimbo[6][7]. Hopefully he will listen to a clear statement from ArbCom that this behavior is not OK. 28bytes (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "indefinite final warning"? Is that like Double Secret Probation? Inclusion in ArbCom at all was questionable enough but IMO this is devolving into silly season. This is the sort of thing that one may consider as a body of evidence piles up, diffs that support a pattern of behavior, past attempts to rectify, and so on. But I fall to see anything presented so far apart from connections to this case. If you got it, show it. If not, I'd seriously suggest de-listing seren from this case and someone just issuing a "don't do that again" warning. he's never eve bene a player in this topic area. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Qualify it as "hardly ever" if that makes you feel better, Luke. Certainly not "involved" to the degree as the host of usual suspects that hover around this topic area. He made a statement there, ONE user (Camelbinky) made a "did you just call us out for being Jews" response, seren clarified that that was not the case, and that point was not addressed again in that thread. This is beginning to smell a bit like a witch hunt. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whereas "You're just saying X because you're a Y" is obviously disruptive and should be discouraged, considerate reflection about possible systemic biases at play when making community decisions is healthy and needed if the project -- both its content and its processes -- is to be truly neutral. I urge the committee to examine what chilling effects sanctioning Seren would have here, considering the very minor actual disruption his remark caused in the wider context of this dispute. TotientDragooned (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@CoolHandLuke: Where are you seeing Seren act in a way that's "prejudicial"? The suggestion that editors who self-identify as Jewish might take a dimmer view, on average, of alleged antisemitism is a legitimate concern about a potential COI, has nothing to do with prejudice, and I find it surprising that it's even controversial... replace Jewish with "employees of company X" and antisemitism with "false negative publicity about X" if you like. From WP:COI: "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." TotientDragooned (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, such concerns can be voiced in a way that's conscientious, or in a way that's disruptive... I'm not asserting one or the other about Seren's remarks. But I disagree that the idea behind his remark is inappropriate or prejudicial per se.) TotientDragooned (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, discourage the tossing of offensive allegations, that's fine, but the way this proposal is worded is grossly disproportionate to what happened. This isn't a Zeq that had a massive history of bad-faith accusations of his I-P wiki-opponents or a ChildofMidnight that would go nuclear whenever anyone would criticise his actions in political articles. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grossly disproportionate. As per my comments above, I actually think this part of the issue is a tempest in a teacup. The appropriate response if someone devolves into inappropriate discourse is to advise them of that. This has been done in this instance, and an explanation/apology has been given. In the absence of a pattern of behaviour, there is no need even for an arbcom reminder or admonishment, much less some sort of "final warning" or some other sanction that needs later to be appealed or withdrawn. I'll confess that on reading the relevant thread, my mind boggled that anyone thought the comment was worth of taking offence or trouting. I would have thought that an appropriate response would have been for any one of the other participants to politely answer that while the issue of group bias in a situation like this was always a possibility, in this instance that was not the case since A,B,C... and let it end there. Martinp (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not sanction SilverSeren for those innocent comments. I see nothing there that was not reasonable to ask, given the circumstances. He did not make personal attacks against anyone. I think that any sanction would convey the impression that Wikipedia is afraid of open discussion of such ethnic issues, in a way that would ultimately be damaging to it. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Committee decides not to add more parties, or to only add IZAK as a party, then this remedy lacks proportionality. A reminder or caution would be more than adequate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard; this particular wording from WP:ARBCC. NW (Talk) 20:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NW, surely you're not a party in this case

Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not acceptable to further off-wiki disputes on this project. Neither is acceptable to use Wikipedia to push one's point of view or biases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

7) If contributors have been shown to have an extensive history of misrepresentation of sources, it may be assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary that all of their major contributions have similar issues, and they may be removed indiscriminately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This may be applicable in this situation; ~~I have not gone over the evidence enough to say for certain. However, I suspect that it is.~~ NW (Talk) 01:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the evidence page, I am more confident that this proposal is at the very least relevant. NW (Talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@NW: You say that you "have not gone over the evidence enough to say for certain.". You might want to take a moment and do that before drawing any conclusions. What the evidence clearly shows is that there is no deliberate misrepresentation of sources. There are about four examples given of alleged misrepresentation (the same examples are repeated several times, so it may appear that there are more). Two of the alleged misrepresentations are in fact correct portrayals of the source (the alleging editor simply mis-read the source) . The other two were innocent mistakes that I admit making ... but as I explain in my Evidence section, they are simple oversights that any editor could make. Out of 10,000 edits, a handful of innocent oversights is not sufficient to conclude there is a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation. --Noleander (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the only practical way to deal with the issue, but I'd like to see a bit more fine-tuning about the scope and quantities involved. If an editor is POV on one issue and misrepresents facts there, it might not be necessary (and could be disruptive) to remove contributions on unrelated topics. Nor should two or three misrepresentations really be enough to strike out hundreds more; I was hoping that some of the Arbs would have dug deeper here. I speak here only to the general principle, not about Noleander in particular (who needs to move his comment up to the preceding section, I think). Wnt (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to make any kind of edit "indiscriminately". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Will add to shortly. NW (Talk) 20:54, 5 April 2011 (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.

Will add to shortly. NW (Talk) 20:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Cool Hand Luke[edit]

Proposed principles

Accuracy of sourcing

1) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From the PHG case. Cool Hand Luke 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this wording has been used before, however I prefer NW's item 6 above. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for that one, but I certainly prefer Roger's below. Cool Hand Luke 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm not convinced by this. Take for example an article like Sathya Sai Baba. Let's assume that I cite a hagiography by a Sai Baba disciple for the number of books Sai Baba has published (or the number of his siblings, or any other information that is not easily available elsewhere). Does this make it incumbent on me to turn my article into a hagiography, or to assert that these writings and their author will save mankind? Similarly, I have oftentimes cited a work for a single fact, like the date and outcome of a lawsuit, or battle, or a publication date. No GA or FA reviewer has ever asked me what the POV of the cited source was, and whether I clearly represented its point of view. Citing a source does not give that source a right over the article. The article has to be NPOV; it would go too far to say that whenever an editor takes a fact from an individual source they have to represent the POV of that source, and every other one they cite. --JN 466 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: I think you are reading too much into the principle. I am not familiar with Sathya Sai Baba but, if you cite a book for the number of his siblings, you are required to make sure that anything you quote or cite "fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source". You cannot lift something out of context and make the source say something that the author of the source never intended to say. Assume for a moment that person X had two full-blood siblings (same father and mother) but 20 half-siblings. If the source mentioned both facts and indicated that the existence of 20 half-siblings was significant but you only mention the two full-blood siblings in the article text, then you have not accurately represented the source. AFAICT, that's all that Cool Hand Luke was saying. Perhaps the principle would be clearer if it said "fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source with respect to the quoted or cited material". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between citing a source for fact and citing it for opinion. Check any number of FAs, and you will find sources cited for a single fact, without any attempt to summarise everything the source has had to say about the article topic. Example: [8]. Cited for one sentence only: "Storage tanks contained 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel to supply the generators." Source. --JN 466 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466. I don't think we disagree. I think you are stuck on "accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source" as if it means that the POV of every source has to be summarized. I think the problem is that the wording should read something more like "accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source as it relates to the cited facts or quoted text". The point here is that lifting just one fact out of context may suggest that a very reputable scholar is saying something that he is not. It's one thing if the source is using the fact to illustrate a point but if the fact is being used by the source as an exception to a general principle, it would be inappropriate to use the fact to assert the opposite of the principle propounded by the source and STILL cite the source! This kind of misrepresentation can happen by accident. Source A might assert a principle P on the basis of facts X and Y; Source B might present fact Z which seems to support principle X but source B might not support source A's principle X. At this point, it would misrepresent source B to present to the reader facts X,Y and Z in the context of source A's principle P without mentioning source B's objection to it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can see some aspects, with respect to the present case, where there are some nuances to this principle. I'm going to try to explain what I mean by that at the Evidence talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence#About misrepresentation of sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this needs to be rewritten, even though I generally agree with the sentiment. Wnt (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Noleander[edit]

Comment by others:

The opinion of a source should not be attributed to Wikipedia, provided that the nature of the source is made clear. Generally speaking, an uncontroversial news article can simply be stated as fact; but when citing a prosecutor, a defense attorney, an activist organization, or an ancient reference work, it becomes important to clarify in the text "who is saying this?". All these sources should be included - even truly hateful documents should be used as sources and quoted when they are historically significant. But if the viewpoint of the source sounds like it is coming from Wikipedia, then it also sounds like it comes from the editor citing it. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog, not obstructionism

4) Editors who object to sensitive material should work with other editors to improve the material by improving wording, adding context, and finding additional sources. It is not acceptable to obstruct the addition of material simply because it is sensitive or controverial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I urge arbitrators to look at the big picture: There are notable topics that are not yet adequately covered in the encyclopedia because they are sensitive or controversial. I've ventured to contribute some material, but have encountered an astounding lack of willingness to work together. Indeed, sometimes there is obstructionism which aims to prevent the inclusion of the material even when its notability is beyond dispute. It is nearly impossible to find other editors who are willing to engage in Talk page dialogs to find the best way to present the material. So, as remedies are considered, I encourage arbitrators to also require other editors to participate in Talk pages in a more meaningful way in the future. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Talk page discussion before ANI

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Have I edit-warred? No. Have I insulted other editors? No. Have I obstinately refused to work towards consensus? No. When I'm presented with a mistake I made, am I evasive? No. Have I inserted material without citations? No. Have I refused to work with others to improve material? No. If I were a POV warrior, there would be clear evidence of obstructionism and aggravation in the Talk pages, yet there is none. I am collegial and professional. My behavior is consistent with a good-faith editor (who chooses to work in sensitive topics) rather than a POV warrior. --Noleander (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True in my experience, as per my comment in the previous section. --JN 466 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I have tried to show in my evidence, I think that this is essentially true. There has been a lot of jumping to conclusions that Noleander has committed WP:TE, but we are dealing with something less than that here. I'm not saying zero, but less than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as far as the scope of the RFARB is concerned, this assertion appears to be true. I am only concerned that ARBCOM not accept assertions of fact that read as if Noleander is a Wikipedia saint. As Tryptofish argues, Noleander is not perfect but he's not as bad as his detractors make him out to be. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complies with Verifiability

4) Noleander complies with WP:Verifiability and utilizes reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sources are accurately represented

5) Virtually all contributions from Noleander are accurate representations of the sources. Any mistakes identified in the evidence are consistent with an occasional good faith oversight, or an honest mistake. In the course of 10,000 edits, a few mistakes are bound to occur. There is no evidence of a pattern of misrepresentation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While mistakes are certainly made, all the the mistakes here appear to lean toward one POV. This is evidence of a pattern. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Some editors have implied on the Evidence page that I routinely distort sources. That suggestion is entirely and utterly false. The evidence only cites a few alleged examples, and they are repeated multiple times, giving an impression of a large number, when there are only a few. I encourage arbitrators to look at a copy of the (now deleted) article that is most frequently mentioned in Evidence: Economic history of the Jews. That article has 332 footnotes, and all of the material based on those footnotes is nearly a word-for-word paraphrase of what the indicated source says. Are there some mistakes? A couple - but they are innocent mistakes that are explained in my Evidence section. Could the wording be improved? Sure. But is there a deliberate misrepresentation of the sources: absolutely not. This topic is a very complex topic, with many sources and many viewpoints. It is difficult to reduce it to an encyclopedic summary. One could go through any brand new article and find a few mistakes. But for sanctions to be imposed, a clear pattern must be demonstrated, and there is none. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think Noleander does himself no favor here. I really wish there would be more willingness to accept some criticism and commit to doing better, instead of trying to argue that it was only "a few mistakes". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and perhaps I should be more explicit: I agree I have made mistakes, and I agree that I should do better. My editing is far from perfect, and I've always conceded that my writing skills are poor, and that I can be hasty and sloppy at times. But - as I resolve to do better in the future - my point is simply that the best process for identifying and remedying any mistakes is in article Talk pages, rather than ANIs. But, again, I affirm that I can and will endeavor to eliminate any errors or neutrality issues in any future work I do. --Noleander (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (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.

Collaboration required before moving into Article Space

1) Noleander will, for a period of six months, not make any significant new contributions to topics related to religion or ethnicity, unless other editors have had an opportunity to review and modify the material in Talk or User pages. Slrubenstein will engage in meaningful Talk/User page discussions, and will not unreasonably withhold consensus. Noleander is not prohibited from reverting vandalism, making small non-controversial improvements, or editing material already in articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I welcome collaboration with other editors. Editing sensitive topics is not easy. As arbitrators consider the outcome, I urge them to realize this is a two-way street: I've had a hard time finding other editors to work with me on sensitive topics. Therefore, I welcome an outcome that requires collaboration, but the remedy should also require other editors - in addition to myself - to participate meaningfully, to sincerely work towards improving material, and to not unreasonably withhold consensus. --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not fair to Slrubenstein. Too ambiguous and could be gamed. I hope that Noleander realizes the extent to which he is at risk of a ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tryptofish. The proposed remedy is written in such a way that it suggests that the dispute was primarily between Noleander and Slrubenstein. My understanding is that the dispute involved a number of other editors as well. The proposed remedy fails to Assume Good Faith and suggests that bad faith has been evidenced in the past on the part of Slrubenstein. It further suggests that (1) Slrubenstein has refused to engage in meaningful Talk/User page discussions with Noleander and (2) Slrubenstein has acted in a way that suggests he would "unreasonably withhold consensus" in the future. I have not reviewed Slrubenstein's participation in this dispute but, unless I am mistaken, I don't think any evidence has been presented to suggest that s/he has been unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. Before a remedy is imposed, I would think we would need to see evidence and findings of fact to justify the remedy. Moreover, I do not have the impression that Slrubenstein is the only editor that took issue with Noleander's text. Singling out Slrubenstein in the remedy seems like a bad idea to me. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the main points is that the person who, at least first, had issue with the page that Noleander made was Slrubenstein. As far as I can tell, he didn't try to discuss the page with Noleander or try to suggest improvements on the article talk page (or just make improvements himself), instead he just took the issue to ANI, not following any of the dispute resolution process. This is a bit of an issue. Silver seren^C 00:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... fair enough but has that been submitted on the Evidence page? Has it been proposed as a "Finding of Fact"? It is inappropriate to propose a remedy for an issue that has no basis on the Evidence page and is not remedying a problem that has been adopted by the arbitrators as a "Finding of Fact". And, even if Slrubenstein bypassed the dispute resolution process by going direct to ANI, the fact is that both ANI and ARBCOM accepted the issue as worthy of consideration without requiring that the dispute resolution process be pursued first (an unusual action on the part of ARBCOM). The issue is not solely with Slrubenstein's bypassing of the DR process; there was a recognition on the part of ARBCOM that the issue was not likely to be resolved via that process. If you want ARBCOM to consider the evidence and the facts regarding Slrubenstein, then those need to be submitted according to the arbitration process. (NB: None of the foregoing should be read to imply that I have any opinion about Slrubenstein's role in the dispute. I'm just pointing out that there is a process for bringing that role under consideration and suggesting that it be followed.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know the proper process of adding such sections. I have gone ahead and added evidence in my section about this dispute resolution issue. I hope that fixes things. Silver seren^C 01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing my name in is a red-herring. The reason I went to ~~ArbCom~~AN/I was because i felt there was laready enough evidence to support a community ban. The community did not agree with me. Well, folks, that is democracy for you - sometimes your proposal is rejected. But that does not mean you were wrong to make the proposal in the first place.

This was never a conflict between me and Noleander. But Noleaner has been invlvd with several OTHER editors several times before. The point is: Those editors often went to great lengths to explain to Noleander what was wrong with his work. If I saw th oint to amy mentoring, I would never have proposed a community ban. Noleander certainly knows what is wrong with his editing. We do not begin an article by settling upong a topic we ind interesting, and then cherry-pick quotes from books that suit our idea of what is interesting; this is how you end up with quotes taken out of context and views misrepresented. Noleander knows how to write good, encyclopedia articles; she just chooses not to. I do not know why, I do not care why, I just do not want to see more of them created at Wikipedia, which, after ten years of history, of experience, of developing good basic policies and articles that stand as great role models to be emulated, after all this, deserves better. We do not need more articles that are just humiliating reminders as to why Wikipedia is still refered to in academic circles as a joke. So when we can identify one editor who just keeps churning out such articles, let's just have a community ban.

There are plenty more volunteer editors out there we have yet to tap into. Billions, in fact. And I think anyone should be given a shot at editing WP. Most people have something to offer, and some people have a lot to offer, so great, let's invite people on board. But after ten years experience we know better than to let some of them use WP as their own playground. Let's ban the one's who show a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, and especially patterns of bad editing as we have seen here, where views are systematically misrepresented so that slurs that have been used to justify resentment against or hatred of people – and make life easier for all he good, serious editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slrubenstein means "ANI" not "ArbCom" in his second sentence. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein is just one of many editors who have been concerned about the pattern of Noleander's contributions and have raised them in various places. I don't see a reason to pick Slrubenstein out for selective punishment.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Arbcom cannot instruct users on a volunteer project to do anything. Slrubinstein has a perfect right not to engage in discussions as long as he does not disrupt the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Silver seren[edit]

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution should be followed before ANI reports

1) Users should make sure to always attempt to follow the WP:DISPUTE policy before bringing a report to the Administrator's Incident Noticeboard. This entails discussing the issue with the user that is involved in the dispute or, if the dispute entails an article, making section/s on the talk page of the disputed article in order to discuss issues with involved parties. The Incident Noticeboard should be reserved as a last resort in the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In regards to this raised above, I felt that it should be pointed out directly. Silver seren^C 00:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Roger Davies[edit]

Proposed principles

Allegations of likely bias

1) Allegations of, and speculation about, likely bias – based purely on an editor's ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or political or religious affiliations – fail to assume good faith and violate the personal attacks policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts? Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ 28bytes. Yep, done. Roger Davies ^talk 16:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tryptofish. If the allegation is based, for example, purely on inference from stated political allegiances or affiliations, yes. The purpose is to reinforce the principle that we focus on edits, not the editor. Roger Davies ^talk 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with adding more items to the list is there's always others you haven't included; what about ageism or disabilities for example? I'd prefer 'Care should be taken to avoid making statements which constitute an assumption of bad faith in regard to all members of an ethnicity or other inferred common status'. PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, though restricting it to religion/ethnicity is way too partial. There are many other hot-button issues around and they also need sensitive input. Roger Davies ^talk 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're covered by 'other inferred common status'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TotientDragooned: A user's mere faith (let alone their ethnicity) is not a conflict of interest. Cool Hand Luke 01:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with TotientDragooned below that this seems to conflict somewhat with the cited policy, and with fairly widespread practice. It's possible that policy and the community as a whole could and should improve and evolve in this respect, but if they haven't as yet, then this sets a different standard than the one currently supported by consensus. --JN 466 21:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: Focusing on edits rather than editors makes sense in article work, but makes less sense in majority-based community decisions like topic ban votes at ANI, AfDs, etc. In addition, I seem to recall editors of pseudoscience topics for example pointing out with regularity that specific editors are themselves practitioners of pseudosciences like homeopathy etc. and that their allegiance should be taken into account in assessing their contributions. (Example: "A root part of the problem here is WP:COI, so maybe this should be taken up at the WP:COI noticeboard, Several of these editors are identified as professional homeopaths and are viewing this as an opportunity to promote their profession and whitewash any mainstream views or negative views of their profession." ..."a pile-on by pro homeopathy editors") Do you think such comments ought to be sanctionable? These did not raise an eyebrow at ANI. --JN 466 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@To Slim: Yes, this reflects some of my concerns. However, excepting ethnicity and gender begs the question of what to do when ethnicity or gender are themselves at issue. For example, 20 men want to have 6 pictures of naked women tied up in a BDSM article. 4 women and 8 men are against it. Am I then forbidden to point out the demographic gender imbalance in the discussion? --JN 466 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@To Slim: It's not always easy. If two dozen Egyptian editors want you topic-banned at ANI because you inserted well-sourced statistics about the 90+% prevalence of female genital mutilation in Egypt in Egypt#Human_rights, and they accuse you of racism, would you ascribe it to their heightened awareness of racism, or would you view it as a reflection of their unwillingness to have unpalatable facts discussed? Would you object to an editor pointing out, in your defence, that most of the editors wishing you topic-banned from Egypt articles have the Egyptian flag on their user page, or would you be tempted to mention it yourself? What if I repeat a statistic in Wikipedia saying that there are more Black men in prison today than were enslaved in early America, and 20 African American regulars (I wish we had that many) take it as an insult and a belittlement of slavery, and want me topic-banned from African-American topics? (Just for reference, that statistic is quoted by a black feminist author and journalist, dream hampton.) I believe there is no way to frame this proposed principle that will make it always right. I believe that an occasional instance of an individual causing offence to a group is a lesser evil to be tolerated than allowing a group to silence an individual by sheer weight of numbers. This case went the right way. It wasn't decided on numbers at ANI, but will be decided by impartial examination of evidence. The result will be less suspect for that. --JN 466 01:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm very glad to see this. Would you consider changing "allegations of" to "allegations of or speculation about"? This would nip in the bud the inevitable "hey, I didn't say 'these editors are biased because they're X', I said 'I wonder if these editors are biased because they're X'" wikilawyering that we've already seen some of. The "hey, just asking the question" approach of simultaneously alleging bias and distancing oneself from the allegation is something I'd like to see less of. 28bytes (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as it directly contradicts existing policy: "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." If ethnicity, nationality, etc is relevant, then I don't see why speculation about likely bias, handled with civility and sensitiviy, is inappropriate. TotientDragooned (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@CoolHandLuke: I agree, but it's rarely as simple as "mere" faith. See Jayen's very well-articulated points above. TotientDragooned (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the NPA policy is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you believe an editor is making a poor or unsupported argument because of their faith, skin color, etc., the thing to do is rebut the argument with a better argument. Or at least explain why you think the argument is poor or unsupported. The thing not to do is speculate on what aspect of their demographic makeup led them to make a poor or unsupported argument in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this also include allegations of, and speculation about, an editor being anti-semitic? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a different issue, isn't it? "Editor X made an anti-semitic edit" is a wholly different accusation than "Editor X made a Jewish edit." But if you are proposing that charges of anti-semitic editing, racist editing, etc., not be made without evidence presented, I'll support you 100% on that. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did propose that, in my section. (Actually, my question was a rhetorical one, not a request for information.) And I think we agree that, though they may be distinguishable accusations, they are both completely problematic. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger, about your reply to me: yes, that's it exactly.

@Phil: I don't think the issue here is really to make a list, and we can certainly focus on what is relevant to this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not be distinguishing here between belief systems and demographic/ethnic/racial issues? It's never legitimate to say of a group of editors that they may be biased because they're African, or women, or gay. But it is legitimate to say they may be biased because of their beliefs: indeed, that's what bias is. I wouldn't want us to be unable to ask for uninvolved editors (during an AN/I discussion, for example) in the sense of looking for people who don't adhere to a particular belief system, if that belief system is at issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we focus, instead, on distinguishing between the editor and the edit. It really isn't legitimate to say someone is biased in their editing because of their beliefs, so much as to say they are biased in their editing because their editing unduly manifests their beliefs. If we go too far the other way, where do we draw the line? Do we say that you should be edit restricted from animal rights articles because you appear to have opinions agreeing with animal rights, or do we set that aside and focus on your actual edits? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen, I agree. For me, the most egregious violations of this principle are when people's race or ethnicity is used as an issue: you must believe X because you're black, etc. On the other hand, if I inadvertently posted something racist against blacks, and a group of mainly black editors challenged me on it, I'd take what they said more seriously than if it were a group of white editors—because black editors have heightened awareness that I'd want to know about and understand. Ditto with women pointing out sexism. So, while "focus on content, not contributor" is almost always the right thing to do, there are times when pointing out other issues can be justified, if it's done carefully. The question is when. For me, beliefs are acquired throughout life—picked up and perhaps dropped again. They are not inherent, as with race or gender. So I would never see a person's belief system as out of bounds. I see it as perfectly legitimate to say: "The only people voting to keep the article Red is the best colour are self-confessed members of the "Red is the Best Colour Society." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen, these are good points, but again they speak to belief. It's not the Egyptian-ness that would be the issue, but that they're acting in a way that suggests a shared belief system they're not able or willing to overcome. But yes, I take your point: the line between our beliefs, and who or what we are, is not clear-cut. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with a milder version of this above, and certainly this seems unworkable. Strong political bias - including people who delete things simply because they don't like what they say - is part of the everyday reality of Wikipedia. Editors have to be able to complain about it, and certainly to question whether it is happening. You can't enforce policies against POV-pushing or stealth canvassing if people can't even suggest that someone might be doing these things! Wnt (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree quite strongly with this principle, for the reasons other have articulated above, especially JN. In addition, I would add the following: I may have the utmost confidence that someone is taking a position in good faith, yet still feel that they are biased (for whatever reason). Indeed, this is exactly the situation when it is helpful to raise this issue. So I fail to see how anyone can assert that an accusation of bias is necessarily an assumption of bad faith. I also fail to see why it is necessarily a personal attack to politely query if someone might be biased. Now I understand that discrimination by race, gender, ethnicity etc is a major issue. Therefore people are hypersensitized to discussions on this topic, and so bringing up issues of potential biases related to this must be done particularly carefully and sensitively (in particular, SlimVirgin's suggestion that it be carefully phrased as a query about belief systems is a good one). Failing to do so exhibits poor judgement and may be disruptive. In certain cases, it *may* also be an assumption of bad faith, or a personal attack, or tendentious. But I am very leery of establishing a principle which would assert that regardless of the intentions an individual, the mere raising of such an issue is any of those things. Finally, inasfar as this relates to religion, ethnicity, national origin, etc that individuals mark on their user page, let's remember that a few years ago, when there was great debate about whether userboxes were inherently divisive, one of the most cited arguments why not was that by putting such labels on one's userpage, one aids others in understanding what potential biases one might exhibit in one's editing. So to place a taboo on using such information to explore potential bias in editing seems rather unexpected. Martinp (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: a sincere thank you for including this principle and the tweak you did to its wording. It's a clear and concise restatement of current policy.

@Jayen466, Wnt, and Martinp: The current wording (and general gist) of WP:NPA is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you think this should be changed to "Comment on content, not on the contributor, unless you wish to speculate on another editor's potential biases due to their ethnicity or religion," then it would be best to explicitly propose that change in the appropriate venues. WP:NPA is currently quite clear on the matter. 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@28bytes. Thanks for the clear response. I have carefully reread WP:NPA and I still disagree. The way "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is used in the lede (it is the 2nd sentence) makes it clear that this is advice subsidiary to the first sentence. Further on, the relevant point defining a personal attack is "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". A thoughtful and sensitive raising of the possibility of group bias is not a means of dismissing or discrediting views, it is a way of fostering better discussion, and highly important in a broad community where random subgroups of self-selected members huddle and then speak in the name of overall consensus. With the benefit of a rich discussion of many people on this page, I think the right way to do this would be to say "I have noticed that many of those saying X self-identify as Y. I wonder if that does not create bias, since it is reasonable to assume people who are Y would say X and consider it important to spend time discussing it." That can then provoke a response of either "That's possible. Let's explore what people who are not Y think" or "False alarm, those of us who are Y would argue the same way about Z, where we clearly do not have a bias" or even "False alarm, those of us who are Y are not actually biased about X". The paragraph in WP:NPA goes on to say "...although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack...". As CHL has said above, the issue here is not directly conflict of interest, but I don't think that it's a great stretch to also assert "a group of editors' relevant potential bias and its relevance..." in the same context. Finally, we have on an ongoing basis had quite a bit of interesting and I think productive discussion about whether Wikipedia as a whole has group bias due to a gender imbalance and/or preponderance of U.S. contributors. I would hesitate to proscribe that (I do note that the principle as stated says "an editor"; however, since this seems motivated by SilverSeren's comment which focused on a group of editors, not an individual editor, I'm assuming it is meant more broadly). Martinp (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martinp. Consider the example given in WP:NPA: "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. It is clear that WP:NPA does not prevent one editor from telling another that his actions appear to be against policy. That should also be true if you tell a group of editors that you are concerned that they may be biased, or may have been canvassed in an inappropriate way to join a vote.

I am also concerned that WP:NPA seems to be enforced capriciously, with a strong sense that the liberties permitted an editor reflect his social standing. For example, this. If the policy is going to be used to protect editors with certain demographic affiliations from even speculation about personal bias, I suspect we will soon find, whether by regional prejudice or by random chance, that certain ethnic groups will enjoy this protection more than others. Leading to exactly the sort of broader disdain and disrepute for Wikipedia that this proposed principle would hope to avoid! Wnt (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent conflicts of interest

2) Having an apparent conflict of interest does not disqualify the editor from editing in the topic providing their edits comply fully with the encyclopedia's guiding principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts? Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree completely The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree - though I suspect there's no small number of novice editors with COIs who have been indefinitely blocked for small offenses by admins who didn't really give them a chance. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but most of those are not ones fully complying with comply fully encyclopedia's guiding principles. The principal here as COI does not inherently disqualify one from editing an article. I have edited several Academic's article who because I have studied under some one could argue I have a COI. Yet I have not turned them into fluff pieces nor Whitewashed them or frankly anything else but add some cites and Pictures. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and sensitivity

3) It is implicit in the civility policy that editors use restraint and sensitivity when interacting with each other. To do otherwise, especially in controversial or emotionally-charged topics, will likely cause disruption and is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts? Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree, and I think this may be a good reason to add parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been a wet blanket on principle 1, above, let me state that this one I fully agree with. I would note that this includes responding with restraint and sensitivity, and assuming good faith, even if one feels that another party in a controversial or emotionally-charged discussion has himself/herself not been restrained or sensitive enough. Martinp (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: please let me suggest that you and the other Committee members think carefully about how this principle applies to the motions I made to add parties. Does it really fit the evidence to apply this principle only to Noleander, and perhaps Silver seren? Does Arb Com not consider the roles of all parties to a case? Would there really have been a case that would have reached all the way up to Arbitration if it were only a matter of what Noleander has done? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

4) Certain article claims are required to be cited to "reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". Using sources that do not support the material as presented – because the sources have been misrepresented or taken out of context – breaches the verifiability and original research policies. While occasionally misrepresenting a source may be accidental, doing so repeatedly is disruptive, undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia, and may be indicative of point-of-view pushing, which is strictly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts? Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 'The deliberate misrepresentation of sources, especially those which may be difficult for other editors to verify, is extremely harmful to the project. Accordingly, editors who engage in such behavior may be sanctioned, and such sanctions may reach the level of site bans if necessary.' PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the use of "deliberate": innocent misrepresentation is just as damaging, whether the sources are easily accessible or not, and "deliberate" comes with host of burden of proof problems. Roger Davies ^talk 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of all proposals in this vein, I think this is the best proposed to date. I agree with Roger and Griswaldo that intent (or lack thereof) is not actually relevant to the encyclopedia, nor is it worthwhile for us to prove intent. Damage is damage, and we should prevent it. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree, this seems to work as a wording. --JN 466 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Some cautions: Arbitrators need to be very rigorous in distinguishing intentional misrepresentation or taking out of context, from careless. A pattern can just as easily indicate a pattern of carelessness, as indicate a pattern of intentional disruption. A pattern of intentional disruption is, indeed, something to be treated very seriously, but a pattern of carelessness is something from which an editor can learn to do better. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with Tryptofish here. As I pointed out at NW's similar proposal intentionality is not something we can prove, and is not something we should be focussed on. Repeated misrepresentation is either intentional or incompetent but in both cases something needs to be done because the result is the same. So yes, this language is a vast improvement.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo, in fact I agree with you about the difficulty of proving intention! And from that, I object to assuming intention (see also my detailed explanation at the Evidence talk page). As for incompetence, the standard you imply here would make 99% of our editors incompetent. I'd love to see 99% of our editors learn to be better editors, but I wouldn't sanction them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the question of whether to focus on intentional misrepresentation vs. careless misrepresentation isn't "YES". In other words, we all agree that intentional misrepresentation is damaging and sanctionable. Where we are stuck is in the case of "careless misrepresentation". In such a situation where it is believed that if a case of serial misrepresentation is deemed to have been truly unintentional and just due to carelessness, the sanction should be less harsh but since the potential for damage to Wikipedia's reputation is so significant, something more than a slap on the wrist is required. It seems to me that the minimum sanction is some kind of probation/mentoring of the sort proposed by Tijfo098 and Tryptofish. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad wording, though I think that such misrepresentation is more harmful than almost any other kind of POV-pushing. Wnt (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On considering the comments made since I last commented in this thread, I want to acknowledge that it's a good point that we should prevent damage to content, and not let the difficulty of determining intent get in the way of doing that. However, I still believe that repetitive (as opposed to occasional) occurrences do not predict in any simple way the severity of sanctions that would be needed to protect content. I'd look at it this way: on the one hand, it makes good sense to apply sanctions for the purpose of preventing further harm to content, and to do so without regard to intent. But, on the other hand, the way in which those sanctions should be crafted should, indeed, take heed of intent, insofar as it can be determined. Thus, unambiguous intent to misrepresent should be prevented by severe sanctions, whereas careless misrepresentation should still be prevented, but may be prevented through the application of sanctions that allow for the ability of the editor to learn from mistakes and improve. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The underlying area of conflict is the influence of race/ethnicity on human characteristics and abilities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, to tie in with the Race and Intelligence discretionary sanctions. See Remedies below. Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this, and the remedy below, are good ideas for making the ultimate decision work well. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions

1) The "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause in the Race and intelligence case is authorised for use in this case for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia. For ease of reference, the applicable part of the remedy says:

User:IZAK cautioned

1) User:IZAK is cautioned against future violations of ~~behavioral guidelines~~ WP:POINT caused by the creation of content that is similar to other controversial content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you, this is an improvement but it's still grossly unbalanced and even (pardon my saying so) somewhat underhanded to first throw out disputed and controversial accusations of "WP:POINT" (that ironically actually only helps User Noleander (talk · contribs), the only real focus of this case, with whom I have had zero contact until now), and then to leverage some minor tangential "accusations" against me and globalize it into a "universal" censure of all possible "behavioral guidelines" -- see the tricky disambiguation above: "[[WP:POINT|behavioral guidelines]]"! -- So which is it to be and what is the subject and objective here? "WP:POINT" or "behavioral guidelines"? Part of each? All of them, that could include anything never done and not done in the future, just a proverbial sword left hanging by a thread in the air? Part of one ("WP:POINT)" none of the other ("behavioral guidelines")? A very confused and confusing so-called "proposal"! Things need to be handled more professionally because reputations and editorial guidelines are at stake! This would be like saying "you stepped on an ant (by accident), so therefore you are not allowed to hunt elephants or birds or fish or pick flowers in the future" which is totally absurd! If the concern of some editors is a specific point then they should stick with that, and avoid putting down exaggerated amorphous proposals and playing with words that could easily be misconstrued and misapplied down the line by parties who have no clue about the details of this disputed matter. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm OK with a caution rather than the restriction proposed by Tryptofish. As Griswaldo comments elsewhere, we have to look at the effect that an action has even if it was made with good-faith intent. However, the assumption of good-faith intent can be used to mitigate the severity of the sanction or to cause us to issue a warning instead of a restriction. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that something along these lines is better than what I had proposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK, I changed the language so that it is clearly about one specific behavioral guideline (which is what I meant from the start). There was nothing "tricky" about my original proposal, just sloppiness. Do you still find it confusing? It cautions you against future POINT violations. Are you really maintaining that you did this "by accident"? The ant analogy you presented appears far off the mark, by the way. I'm saying you stepped on an ant, and that you should be cautioned to not to step on any ants again. I'm not clear on how you translated that into what you wrote. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Griswaldo. IZAK (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

2) All editors are reminded not to react to content that is in violation of policy, or is under discussion for being in violation of policy, for being biased or hateful towards a specific social group by creating similar content about other social groups.

3) Editors are advised not to react to content that is under discussion for being in violation of policy by creating similar content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, agree in principle, but would prefer softer language; perhaps 'Editors are advised not to react to content that is under discussion for being in violation of policy by creating similar content.' PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles by User:Wnt[edit]

1) All editors have points of view on many issues - even those who are neutral for one particular issue under consideration. An editor's POV is an important resource that both motivates him to participate in Wikipedia and provides a background of knowledge. Editors are free to reveal their points of view in WP:Userboxes, and (for example) may do so on talk pages to better clarify how those with a given point of view interpret facts discussed in the article. Of course, POV may also inspire abuses such as soapboxing and skewing of articles. But WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED direct that editors be sanctioned only for such violations of policy: no POV, however odious, is prohibited to editors. Wnt (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors are not presumed to have points of view nor are they obliged to have any form of userboxes on their user pages. Once an editor has decided to edit or create an article, they must be led by the best sources available on that subject which they should represent as faithfully as possible. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. By "encouraged", I meant that Wikipedia advertises the userbox mechanism, but I'll change this above for clarity. The remainder of your comment applies below. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mathsci for this and the one below. This proposal seems disjointed, and while i gave it a fair mental hearing, it's not very sound based on community practices, nor based on how those practices are translated into policy. It's ok with me to violate one of those things while respecting the other, violating both is a no-go. -- ۩ Mask 11:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) All editors in good standing are permitted, when in accordance with policy, to create new articles on topics that interest them - even though their underlying motive may be to explain their POV. This is the prerogative and reward of those willing to work on Wikipedia. All editors are free (as limited by WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE) to add content to an article explaining a specific point of view, based on reliable sources with that point of view. Editors are not required to tell more than one side of the story, though articles should always do so. What editors are required to do is to represent the information they contribute honestly - concealing neither the existence of a different opinion nor its popularity. Editors should not delete or swamp out opposing points of view, nor fork articles to avoid facing them, and above all, the content of cited sources should never be misrepresented.^* Wnt (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^* Misrepresentation of sources is defined as the addition of a statement which is not verifiable in the source. This includes the omission of qualifying circumstances, or presenting one person's opinion as a general statement of fact by the source. For example, if a source says "Tea is marked down to $2 on Napoleon's Birthday", the text should not read "The price of tea is $2." If the text reads "Some liberal commentators believe there is no reason for tea to cost over $1.50", the article should not read, "The price of tea should be $1.50 or less" citing the source text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposal is confused. It appears to condone WP:FORK, WP:UNDUE and misrepresentation of sources in the creation of articles. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - you're right that it left several bases uncovered. I've added mention of UNDUE and FORK above, though I don't see how it encourages misrepresentation at all. I hope this improves it, but if not... I still think it's important that somehow this decision reaffirm the right of editors with all POVs to take part in Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) Anti-Semitism and other prejudice are contrary to the mission of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit. But suppression of such views is also contrary to this mission. Wikipedia's purpose is not to denounce anti-Semitism, nor to deny its existence, beliefs, or logical arguments. Wikipedia's purpose is to present these beliefs in their full detail, in combination with their refutations and somber historical effects. Wikipedia should not offer the world a mere ideological quarantine, but a vaccine made from the live virus. This successful tactic is shared by all entities founded on an anti-censorship principle. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motions proposed by Slrubenstein[edit]

Noleander's argument is that Wikipedia's articles should provide coverage of anti-Semitism. On this we agree.

My point here is that the views of antisemites are included in articles only to illustrate something about antisemities, and not about Jews. Anyone who holds to this view is distinguishing antisemitism from all the other kinds of "views" governed by NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The question to ask is, do a significant number of reputable, high-quality, present-day sources, especially scholarly sources, express anti-Semitic or racist views? That, combined with WP:DUE, is all we need. Anything more would actually be counterproductive and deliver ammunition ("censorship") to anti-Semites and racists wishing to criticise Wikipedia. --JN 466 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[moved here by Griswaldo - it was a response to Martinp] Thanks. I am not sure what you mean by "our principles." Do you mean "Wikipedia's principles?" If so, I agree completely with what you say. But Arbcom cases are not about Wikipedia's principles, they are about specific problems. ArbCom cannot set policy for Wikipedia; tt arbitrates conflicts. My understanding of the "general principles" is that we are proposing principles for the resolution of the case. No one interpretes these principles as policy for all articles. ArbCom's decision in this matter will be a decision concerning the parties named, not a policy for all Wikipedia. Antisemitism is a major element of this conflict, so it is inevitable that people will ask whether we have a policy on antisemitism or how our policies do or do not relate to anti-semitism.

What I am proposing here is a principle concerning how one of WP's policies (NPOV) may or may not apply to this specific case. Some people on this page have argued that NPOV governs antisemitic editing, and my point is that it does not in every instance. I wouldn't have brought this up had others not already made certain claims about NPOV.

We could have a discussion on Wikipedia's policy concerning racist behavior - I am not sure we have one, and such a discussion might be a good idea, but I do not think that ArbCom cases are the place for those kinds of discussions. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agreed with the gist of your previous principles, but here I start to have a bit of trouble. First of all, I think all of our principles should be broader than any one specific -ism - and if that is not possible, then Arbcom would be veering dangerously into content rather than conduct. I buy at least one of the underlying thoughts here (I think...), but would phrase it something like "Articles X should present facts on X, based on reliable sources. They are not vehicles for presenting or - worse - synthesizing views on X as fact. When the existence of differing views of X is itself notable, it may be encyclopedic to outline such views, proportionate to their notability outside Wikipedia, but these should clearly be done in a way which informs the reader about the views, not postulates them as fact". The wording isn't great, but what I'm after is moving away from "antisemitism" and even against "-isms" in general to what it is we try to do in the encyclopedia. Martinp (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A POV is a POV a POV. It is easy when one is a member of a specific group that has historically been persecuted to feel like negative comments about one's group or members of the group should be different than other types of POV. But to recognize that claim would be fundamentally non-neutral. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Antisemitism is a complex phenomenon which has taken many forms, often controversial

1) There is a tremendous amount of written work, much of it on-line, that is antisemitic. There is also a great deal of scholarly literature analyzing the different causes, forms, and effects of antisemitism. Antisemitism is therefore a topic that tests Wikipedia's claim to be a means to create a high-quality encyclopedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

True but I fail to see the relevance. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One form of antisemitic behavior is the statement of stereotypic canards that have been used to justify resentment or hatred against Jews

2a) High-quality encyclopedia articles on antisemitism will

follow NPOV by providing all significant views
follow NOR by reproducing antisemitic statements as they are used by scholars analyzing antisemitism
- this involves providing the context in which such statements are presented
- This also involves providing an accurate and sufficient account of the scholarly analysis

2b) Antisemitic edits

abuse NPOV, by presenting a stereotype or caricature of Jews without explicitly and precisely identifying whose view it is, and then quoting a Jew who disagrees with or rejects the antisemitic view
compromise NPOV and NOR I by generally disregarding scholarly views
compromise NPOV and NOR I by providing inaccurate or inadequate accounts of scholarly views.
- this is often achieved by mixing up scholarship on anti-Semites and scholarship on Jews
compromises NOR by taking quotes representing stereotypes or caricatures of Jews out of context

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With a few specific reservations, I think is generally a well-written description of the problem, particularly regarding errors involving anti-Semitism. I remember commenting at the talk page of the deleted article that it did not appropriately separate (or distinguish between) perceptions about Jews, theological principles of Judaism, and economic and historical reality. Whether this rises to the level of NPOV/NOR violations seems hard to determine, yet as I recall that article it seems hard to deny.

I do worry, however, about that ambiguous first sentence of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing..." To me, I think that should mean, "editing to make an article told from a neutral point of view", with criteria suggested being the criteria for the article. But I feel like some would try to make this mean "editing from an editor with a neutral point of view", which I think is an improper demand; I don't think editors should have to expand article content about every perspective, but just the sections they're interested in.

I'm also not sure how "cherry-picking quotes" is defined. Yes, we saw it in action with that quote allegedly from Maimonides (I think the source said someone else when I looked at it, but it's currently a "restricted page" for me [14]). You don't want a quote from one person in the midst of a hostile situation to reflect the opinions of a whole religion. Yet Wikipedians make edits, not articles; they read pieces of sources, not necessarily the whole thing. I can't see censuring an editor purely for neglecting to say that this was an extreme opinion, simply because the source said it is an extreme opinion - it seems enough to me simply that, when I go back and check the text by the source, the quote is confirmed (if it were). Wnt (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be re-formatted to provide the required places for comments, but I'll make some broad comments here. Some of the principles go beyond existing policies, partly by way of recombination, in a way that would be better addressed by community discussion and consensus, rather than by "legislation" from here. And the proposed findings—and indeed many of the complaints in this case—fail to distinguish adequately between coverage of antisemitism in an encyclopedic manner, and adoption of an antisemitic POV in edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic to start from the premise of "antisemitism" which is unfortunately what the above principles assume. What happens when the very notion of something or someone being antisemitic is in dispute? Surely what we should do in regards to any subject is the same. Cover it in the manner that scholars do. If most scholars cover a topic as an example of antisemitism then this will be reflected in the scholarship, and existing policies already tell us to make that clear. However, if only some scholars deal with a specific topic as if it is antisemitic we should clearly not be restricted to that view alone, but the language above implies that we are restricted to scholars backing the view that it is antisemitic - ... as they are used by scholars analyzing antisemitism. A good example of where this would be problematic is with claims about New antisemitism. In other words where the above principles are seen as a specific example of existing policy I'm all for them, but as such they do not need to be restated in this form. Doing so creates the confusing perspective that antisemitism, or possibly antisemitic subject matters are somehow different from other topics at Wikipedia, and they are not. We follow scholarly consensus, and where there is dispute we present both sides.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Newyorkbrad[edit]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the final decision, I will do some copyediting of the wording to take the comments into account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The slightly modified version suggested by Pseudo-Richard would also be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The amendment suggested by Pseudo-Richard is useful. As the project matures, we should move from "camaraderie" to professionalism. --JN 466 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-put! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Minor point here but "camaraderie" implies "friendship" and that's not really required. What is required is "collegiality" and "collaboration". You don't have to be my "friend". You just have to treat me like a colleague and collaborate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Richard's point, how about "civility and collegiality"? Also, just on a semantic level, is the second part of the first sentence really "the purpose of Wikipedia"? And, has there not been "ideological struggle" by both sides in this case, as opposed to just Noleander? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accuracy of sourcing

3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the concerns raised by the commenters can be addressed with some copyedits, which I will think about before posting the proposed decision tomorrow. The principle is not, of course, meant to mean to suggest that an edit, which might add a sentence or two cited to a source, is a summary of the source as a whole, but of the particular point being made. To Tryptofish, I understand your point, but decisions need to be read as a whole; it is not possible to reflect in every paragraph the points made in other paragraphs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but not sure about the second sentence. For example, when I add a reference to the end of the paragraph, I'm doing so under the belief that at least some of the content in the paragraph is supported by the reference, but whether I'm actually doing what the second sentence says is open to question. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with incrementally describing how "good faith" applies to citing sources like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Similar concern to PhilKnight. This principle clearly has its heart in the right place, but here are some examples of bona-fide editing that might fall foul of the letter of this principle:

Imagine an editor quoting a mainstream scholarly source quoting a fringe (white supremacist, Scientologist, conspiracy-theorist etc.) primary source. Both secondary and primary source are cited. The primary source may contain lots of additional arguments justifying its views, which are not represented in the article. A proponent of the fringe view might argue that the article is using unfair excerpting, because it doesn't state the entire fringe argument. (Of course, secondary sources actually do excerpt minority sources unfairly at times, which is why we have WP:RS#Quotations.)
Minor sources cited for a single technical detail. Including the POV of such sources, even if it is a very pronounced POV, may be undue. For example, the source's POV may broadly coincide with the POV of several other, more significant sources that are better representatives of it, and have already been cited in the article.

I don't know how best to fix this, but would suggest that we need to think in the direction of the overall article's NPOV. If the cited source contains an important line of thought shared by other sources, whose inclusion is justified by due weight, then that line of thought should be in the article. Whether it's cited to that source or another, more authoritative representative of that POV, and whether the line of thought is presented in the same paragraph as the material cited to the minor source, those are secondary concerns. --JN 466 16:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted an alternative version below. The alternative version has one difference only: "By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes an actual statement of fact or opinion made in the source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context." --JN 466 23:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In being precise about good faith, this language needs to be clearer about what the next proposal says about occasional mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brad for that explanation, which makes sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and editing

4) Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors determine is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This captures the problem well. Cool Hand Luke 11:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent wording, this sums up the issue. Shell ^babelfish 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps replace 'too clearly reflects' with 'betrays'. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive or tendentious editing

5) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Tryptofish: Principles are to be read as general statements or abstractions. They are not, in themselves, finding about the parties to the case. Obviously we wouldn't include a principle in a decision if it had nothing to do with the case being decided, but that doesn't mean that by including a principle we are saying every aspect of it applies to a particular user. The actual findings are in their separate section (using the decision format that the committee has consistently used since its inception) and labelled as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am elaborating on this important point in part because of Tryptofish's comment below. Instead of WP:TE I think we also need to look at WP:DE. Disruptive editing is a commnt on the effect of one's edits on the progress of the encyclopedia. I think the saint point here is that DE is in one way like vandalism and in another way worse than vandalism. When Noleander adds 13,000 words of content, virtually all of it material taken out of context or misrepresented, we all know that this is not vandalism. But other editors have to track down all the mistakes (AGF requires us to check every source) and then either do a lot of deleting or even more rewriting. This is what makes it disruptive, right? And in this sense - not the form, but the effect - it is not that diferent from vandalism which requires someone to do a lot of cleaning up. Here is why I think it is worse than vandalism: until someone has tracked down the actual sources to discover just how far Noleander has misrepresented them, Noleander's damage the trappings of an encyclopedia article and many readers will take it seriously while catching up on their knowledge about Jews or writing that high school history paper on Jews. When someone comes to a page that has znznznznFrank ROCKS! written on it, it is silly, and degrades the encyclopedia, but there is no risk anyone will take it seriously and it is easy to recognize and fix. Noleander's edits are more disruptive in that they take more time to verify and fix and thus waste more editors' time, but they are more disruptive in that they really abuse the core values of the encyclopedia - vandalism just takes advantage of our wiki tewchnology; disruptive editing of this sourt takes advantage of all of the policies that strive to make WP look like a serious encyclopedia and earn the trust of the general public. Noleanders' work is itself great evidence as to just how damaging DE can be and why the concept of DE is so important. The evidence certainly sustains reference to WP:DE. TE is an essay, DE is a guideline, and this experience suggest to me that it might be time to consider making DE a policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Presumably, this principle is being offered in support of proposed findings about Noleander. If so, it goes beyond the existing definitions of tendentious editing as generally understood by the community. As I have said several times before in this case, look at WP:TE: it lists a series of behaviors that are quite different from what Noleander has been accused of here, things like edit warring, incivility, and so forth. What has actually been argued is more like civil POV pushing than like tendentious editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with a lot of what Slr said in response to me, but I want to be very precise about the terminology used. I agree on the whole with Slr's description of the ways in which this kind of editing can be disruptive to other editors and to our readers. But I think that it is disruptive in the ways that civil POV pushing is disruptive, not in other ways. And there is zero evidence that Noleander has been in any way disruptive on article talk pages. To the contrary, the disruption on talk has been the result of other editors' comments, and these other editors will be left to continue that conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, again thank you for specifically responding to my concerns. Given what you say, as well as given the helpful context facilitated by Roger's most recent proposals, I guess my remaining question is the extent to which civil POV pushing really is more applicable here than is TE or DE, and, conversely, the extent to which ArbCom wants to get into the quagmire of mediating civil POV pushing. But as a general statement of principle, it's hard to find fault with saying TE and DE are bad things! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts

6) Editors may choose to focus their contributions to Wikipedia narrowly or broadly. However, editors who focus primarily or exclusively on a narrow subject—sometimes referred to as single-purpose accounts—are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus is on advocacy rather than on neutrally presenting information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a somewhat toned-down version of standard "SPA" language that has been used in prior decisions. But it raises some issues as the commenters note, and it's probably not directly on point (Noleander isn't a true SPA), so I'll probably just drop the paragraph from this decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the second sentence - shouldn't all editors contribute neutrally instead following their own agenda? PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended effect is to say that all editors need to be NPOV, but SPA editors need to be more fastidiously NPOV than those with broad interests. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I used to think of SPA as something like my smoke-detector: everytime it has gone off it has turnd out to be nothing, but it still is a possible warning sign of something really bad. I think the discussions of the Noleander case allow us to go a little further than what is being proposed here (because like others I see nothing wrong with SPAs in and of themselves). I think that New York Brad should connect this principle to his principles 4 and 5 - I see a logic here that i think can be made more explicitly. Let us start with the basic principle that we are all writing an encyclopedia. this means that we are claiming - the the world - a level of expertise that most individuals do not have. Now the question is, how much expertise do we expect of our editors? Wikipedia is unlike other online encyclopedias in that it does not require credentialsor formal peer-review. I think some people somewhere along the line got the idea that this means that one can write an encyclopedia wihout expertise. NO, this canot be right. I think it means that we judge people's expertise based on the quality of their edits. But certainly the community must expect some level of expertise from its editors. The question is, how much? We are all volunteers, and we don't require credentials, so we as a community do not have a right to expect the highest level of expertise. The question is, what is the reasonable amount of expertise we can expect? Some editors actually know an awful lot about an awful lot of things, but I think this is a rare type. I think NewYorkbrad is suggesting that most editors can reasonably be expected to fall into one of two types: some people know a little bit about many things, and some know a lot about very few things. This is not really just NYBrads observation, I think it comes from Isaiah Berlin (The Hedgehog and the Fox) who was picking up on a Greek aphorism. Some WP editors will edit articles on a great many topics and it would be unreasonable to expect these editors to have great expertise on every topic. SPAs are people who edit articles on one or two topics, and it seems to me that if someone makes a great many edits to articles on just one or a few topics, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to know a lot about those topics.

This is not the same thing as editing neutrally. Of course all editors are expected to comply with NPOV and NOR. As I understand it, New York Brad is grappling with how much expertise is it reasonable to expect from our editrs and I think he is grappling with the fact that we have different kinds of editors so we need to have a balanced approach to this and I think he is pretty much hitting the right balance.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per Phil's question, users who are POV driven in certain areas do not get a free pass simply because they also edit in other areas. Focusing only on SPAs is unfair.Griswaldo (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is an error to describe Noleander as an SPA, as the community generally defines SPAs. It's appropriate to say that the focus may be narrow or broad, and that if narrow, it is necessary to edit neutrally and to avoid the impression of doing otherwise, but bringing in the SPA label becomes a detour from what this case is actually about. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It occurs to me that one could, much more accurately, describe some (certainly not all!) of the editors who have criticized Noleander as being, truly, SPAs. And yet that would shed little light. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this "SPA" phrase is being used a lot of late, but it seems like in practice it often means "newbie editors", who ought to (but don't) have more leeway than other editors. And while I wouldn't want to see someone prohibited from questioning a SPA's motivation, it seems like an invitation to discuss the editor not the edit. Wnt (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where this is coming from. Noleander's edits were subject to fairly close scrutiny. What is funny is that all the editors who carefully checked Noleanders' sources and use of sources concluded he was misrepresenting views, and the people who defended him were people who had not verified his edits. If anything, it is people who defend Noleander who are judging the editor and not the edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very probably right - I mean only to criticize the proposed principle here, not what happens to Noleander (not a newbie editor anyway). Wnt (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivities of subject-matter

7) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just goes to show you" department, part 1: When I was drafting, I thought this would be one of the most controversial paragraphs of the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is good. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I could strike my comment if that would help. (just kidding) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and prejudice

8) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just goes to show you" department, part two: When I was drafting, I thought this would be one of the least controversial paragraphs of the decision.

I think it goes without saying that by condemning editing that reflects blatant racial or religious bigotry, we would not be endorsing personal attacks on gay people or fat people.

I think that some of the commenters are overlooking the work done in the principle by the adjectives such as "gratuitously" and "invidious." They are there for a reason. The types of editing Noleander and Trypofish describe, if kept on the plane they describe, would not usually fall within the principle.

To Jclemens' point, yes, I do think it needs to be "unidirectional." Imagine two hypothetical editors, one of whom—but this will take a little longer than will fit comfortably in these comments. I'll open a separate thread on the talkpage for this part of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need to be unidirectional? Advocacy and denigration are both NPOV violations, and in the case of opposing viewpoints often hard to distinguish. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. For example, many religion-based articles are initially written by adherents or apologists for the religion, and later editors that visit those topics to "fill in the gaps" of the overlooked or underrepresented material must necessarily focus on material that is essentially negative (or could appear to be negative). Filling in gaps (which were initially present due to a "positive bias" of original errors) should not be discouraged. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how I feel about the wording. But one thing I thing is very important: racism including antisemitism is not a POV like other POVs. Let's put aside the difficulties in defining racism, or criteria for recognizing racism - I acknowledge this becomes a key issue. In all arenas for public thought - why do all antennas receive background microwave radiation? Why are there different species of finches on different Gallapagos Islands? Should health care be publically financed? Should the UN go to war in Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iraq again? Libya? - there are majority, minority, and fringe points of view and NPOV provides us with a framework for representing them as views on the object in articles. Has NPOV ever applied to anti-Semitism in the same way? I think this is a key question facing ArbCom. In my view the answer is no. No one would ever get away with adding anti-Semitic material into the article on Jews, because "anti-Semitism is a minority but significant view of Jews." Never. NPOV demands - for good reason - that all significant views from verifiable sources go into an argument. Would any member of ArbCom agree that this applies to anti-Semitism? I certainly believe it is a significant view! Even if it is held by a small minority, it is certainly held by a notable minority and in fact I am not so certain that it is a minority view in all countries. This would not justify adding "anti-Semitism" as one of the "views of Jews" in the article on Jews.. This is sufficient to establish that anti-Semitism is not a view like any other view.

The issue then is not one of "POV-pushing;" the issue is, "anti-Semitic editing." In my sense of this case, the question is "How does one recognize anti-Semitic editing?" "Is X an example of anti-Semitic editing?" This is the sticky question. user:Slrubenstein 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Noleander's bias against Jews is salient to this case; it is the bias evident in his edits that systematically misrepresent views and degrade the quality of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm uncomfortable signaling out racial, religious, and ethnic groups as a specific area that is treated as at all distinct from other forms of POV pushing. POV pushing is bad in general. Do we need to distinguish between types? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this apply to contributors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology? Why or why not? Wnt (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If something like this is approved, I would like to request that homosexuals and the obese receive be included in the text, as expressions of extreme hatred toward both groups are unfortunately common. I ask this not only as an illustration of the slippery slope you're starting, but because passing this without such protection really would give the impression that Wikipedia does not hold the same respect for gays and/or fat people as it does for Jews. Wnt (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are we being asked to "approve" a principle to govern all behavior at Wikipedia? or are we looking for princples to help us resolve this specific case? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly fine principle as written by Newyorkbrad. No reasonable person would take the inclusion of the phrase "racial, religious, or ethnic group" to mean that all other gratuitous stereotyping is OK. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America is full of jurisdictions with phraseology like that and it never protects these other groups in any way, when they are omitted. Wnt (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, largely per JoshuaZ and Wnt. Can you articulate why these three groups require particular protection? WP:NPA for instance uses very broad language (proscribing all epithets after listing 8 examples). Is singling out these three groups supported anywhere in existing policy? TotientDragooned (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of the princple to "protect" a group, or to help resolve this case? In this case, I do not think the issue if protecting any group, but rather a specific way in which Noleander's edits are biased so as to consistently misrepresent views and degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. If anyone needs protection from Noleander's bias, it is our readers Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wnt's first question, would passing this principle mean a stronger directive to curtail such behavior towards groups who are on the margins of mainstream society, like Scientologists, or perhaps even New Agers, in relation to their edits of certain pseudoscience topics? I can think of a few admins I've seen run afowl of this principle as part of their usual MO in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The United States Constitution prevents states from denying people the right to vote on the account "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"; "on account of sex"; and "on account of age [when the person is over the age of eighteen]". Yet I don't think anyone suggests that denying the right to vote on other arbitrary characteristics (sexual orientation, weight, etc.) is a good thing; such an act would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

Similarly, it is clear that Newyorkbrad does not think that only racial, religious, or ethnic bias is bad for the project. He is merely highlighting categories that are most applicable to this case. Everything else is covered by Disruptive or tendentious editing, Neutral point of view or Purpose of Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except you've omitted historical facts that actually prove the point you're trying to refute. Race - 15th Amendment, 1870 and sex - 19th Amendment, 1920. We are quite capable of discriminating against some groups even after preventing such discrimination against others, like in that 50 year period between those two amendments. I think you'll find a lot of people who support the rights of homosexual to marry, like I do, completely disagree with your argument in the present U.S. context as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW's point – that the principle proposed here addresses the behavior at issue in this case – seems to be getting missed. There are thousands of other things editors shouldn't do (e.g. bring up other editors' sexual orientations) that don't need to be explicitly mentioned here, because they are not germane to this case. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History shows us that things that are not specified cannot be assumed simply because someone things it is reasonable to do so. The issue here is that if the principle is more general then it should clearly specify that. For instance, in #7 Newyorkbrad writes "such as ..." before listing the groups relevant to this case. If he used similar language here I'm sure the objectors would be appeased. An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific gruop - such as a racial, religious, or ethnic group - and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. Would it be a problem to change the language in this manner? If all groups are included but some are a specific focus here, better to be clear about that.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a reasonable point. NW (Talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "such as" as Griswaldo proposes is a reasonable addition and doesn't dilute the meaning. 28bytes (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the question of "making a list", I think there is a bigger problem. What happens when an editor comes to a page that the editor believes, in good faith, to have an existing POV? If the editor makes a series of edits in a good-faith effort to correct the POV, the editor could be accused of editing with bias under this description. Similarly, I agree with Jclemens that anything along these lines needs to be bi-directional. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I am still uncomfortable with whether other users would understand the language differently than you do, and consider the kinds of edits I described to violate the language as written. I look forward to the further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies for biased editing

9) Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or sanctions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Noleander and Wnt's comments, please see the related thread I'll be starting shortly on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per Bishonen. As Pseudo-Richard says, this is important and non-obvious. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Actual violations of WP policy should be required. Delving into the personal motives of editors who contribute material (or, conversely, of the editors who assert they are offended) is not fruitful. Every editor has personal opinions: the real test is whether or not we "check them at the door" when we edit. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with most of the above proposals by NewYorkBrad but won't clutter up this page by saying so. I do think this particular proposal is important and non-obvious so I will weigh in explicitly in favor of it. I understand NewYorkBrad to be saying that lack of intent is not a sufficient defense. If damage is being done then appropriate remedies should be applied. I agree. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Much too broad. An editor who makes 1000 edits critical of religion X, where each edit is verifiable, is impartially-phrased, and improves the balance of the articles, has greatly improved the encyclopedia and should be praised, not sanctioned! That her edits reflect a possible bias is immaterial so long as her editing is not tendentious. Compare to more moderate similar principles in previous cases. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be gamed. How does one distinguish "reasonably perceived" from "unreasonably perceived"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good proposal about what these proceedings really need to find: a specific-enough remedy that'll work next time something like this happens (don't let's kid ourselves that it'll stop happening anytime soon). As Pseudo-Richard says, it's both important and non-obvious. Tryptofish, WP:NOT a bureaucracy and wikilawyering is not allowed; therefore, the concept of reasonableness may be invoked. And indeed, at some point in these proceedings it, or some synonym, must be invoked. However.. I note with a little alarm that Noleander seems to think Brad's remedy means the opposite of what it says, so it might need to be re-worded for clarity. Either that or Noleander needs to read more slowly. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I understand that, but my concern is that editors can say that they perceive it, and that, too, is something that will inevitably happen in any POV dispute. Maybe my concern about gaming isn't so much about reasonableness on the part of who finally decides dispute resolution, as about who says what is reasonable. What I am worried about is editors running to DR every time they think they see bias, and citing the wording here to claim "well, I perceive bias, so that constitutes perception of bias, so I demand remedies." Maybe what this is pointing out is that the wording needs to be in terms of consensus (or a reasoned determination) that the edits create a perception of bias. Not just that someone perceives it that way, which is how I read this language. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a general theorem that a sequence of good edits can never add up to bad editing. Thus it should be required that some edits in the pattern actually violate policy, as Noleander said. Wnt (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to fellow editors

10) Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors unless doing so serves a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify participants in the discussion on this basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence will be copyedited to address the semantic issues. To Trypofish, no, this paragraph does not address Noleander's editing, but that of one or more other people who have been mentioned in the case. My present impression is that it is not essential to make specific findings about the other editors; I've commented about a couple of them, such as Silver Seren and (with respect to a different issue) IZAK, elsewhere on this page. I will be taking another look through the evidence before posting the proposed decision tomorrow; and of course, other arbitrators are free to add additional proposals to those I post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fine principle. Cool Hand Luke 11:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also important here - labeling an editor is rarely, if ever, helpful in any situation. Shell ^babelfish 13:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

3) Noleander's editing contributions regarding individual Jews, lists of Jewish persons, Jewish history, and Jewish culture can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of Jewish individuals and the Jewish people. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual Jews and the Jewish people in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. For example, Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. Similarly, though sources are sometimes used appropriately, when they are misused, it is typically in a fashion that treats a Jewish subject as negatively as possible.

In reaching this finding, we do not rely on any single edit or group of edits, or even any single article or group of articles, but upon considering Noleander's body of contributions taken as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered the comments, I still regretfully believe that the substance of the finding is sound. I will copyedit to address some of the comments.

To Noleander, I don't think that anyone disagrees that the role of the Jewish people and Jewish community in economic history is a valid subject for historical inquiry and for coverage on Wikipedia. I have read and enjoyed and learned from some books on the subject myself, particularly with respect to some twentieth-century issues. (As one example that hits close to home, chapters of Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and much of The Witness Who Spoke with God by Milton Gould are fascinating treatments of the role of Jewish lawyers in New York in developing the legal profession in the U.S. into the form we know it today.) But I am afraid the article you crafted on this subject did not live up to the standards of neutrality, evenhandedness, and sensitivity that we call for in any Wikipedia article, much less one of this nature, and that it is an example of the reasons that you and Wikipedia will be best served if you concentrate on some very different topics for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that is the heart of the matter. If there is unanimous agreement that the role of Jews in the history of capitalism is notable, why is it there there is no coverage of that topic in the encyclopedia? Or any coverage of the important role of Jews in Hollywood? Or any article on the roles of Jews in the establishment of modern banking? Or of the antisemitic canards surrounding Jews and money? The reason those topics are not covered is because they are very sensitive topics that have been used by antisemitic bigots in the past. Arbitrators should address these subject matter omissions as part of this arbitration. I ask the arbitrators to consider why no other editors, over the past decade, have ventured to contribute material on those notable topics. I submit that expanding coverage of sensitive topics is an important goal that should be considered as part of the remedy. When arbitrators ask what is best for WP, they should to balance my behavioral shortcomings with the need to improve coverage in those sensitive topics. With that in mind, I ask the arbitrators to fashion a remedy which addresses any Neutrality issues, but at the same time finds a way to improve the coverage of those overlooked topics. For example, I've suggested that I be permitted to edit in those areas, but have my contributions reviewed before submission to article space. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: I duplicated the above paragraph into the Talk page, so it has more visibility, because I am presenting it as a request to the arbitrators) --Noleander (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shell ^babelfish 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree. For example, the recent article on Economic history of the Jews was a well-intentioned effort that presented the material contained in dozens of reliable sources. This is a phenomenally well-documented topic. By banning the editor that created the initial version of the article, the arbitrators would be "choosing sides" in what is essentially a content dispute. The questions we should be focusing on are details such as wording, emphasis, and so on. Here is an excerpt from that article:

Jewish historian Bernard Dov Weinryb, writing in 1938, believed that Jewish scholars neglected the study of economic themes of Jewish history, and felt that Jewish scholarship was too "romantic" and "apologetic" in its goals. Scholar Max Dimont asserts Jewish scholars have ignored or disregarded Werner Sombarts's thesis (in Sombart's 1911 bookThe Jews and Modern Capitalism) that Jews were responsible for the rise of capitalism, because the scholars are concerned that such study may fuel accusations that modern Jews are "predatory capitalists". Dimont writes that it is plausible that, indeed, Jews did originate capitalism, and that Jewish scholars should examine the topic more neutrally, but that it is too early to draw a definitive conclusion on the matter. Historian Edward Shapiro asserts that "Jews were reluctant to advertise their financial success because of fear of bolstering anti-Semitic accusations of vast Jewish wealth and economic power." As an illustration, Shapiro claims that Jewish historians deliberately underemphasized the accomplishments of successful Jewish businesspeople (such as "the founders of Inland Steel, Federated Department Stores, Consolidated Foods, and Hyatt Hotels... and David Sarnoff.. who established RCA") and instead chose to focus on Jews where were not invovled in business, such as playwright Mordecai Noah and activist Emma Goldman.

Why - as of 2011 - has WP had virtually no material on this topic? It is because the material is very sensitive, and because it has been used by antisemitic bigots in the past. But that is no reason to omit it from the encyclopedia. And it is certainly not a reason to sanction editors that venture into that topic area. By definition, any editor that attempted to introduce material that has been used by antisemites, would appear himself to be an antisemite. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This seems to be an accurate assessment of the "big picture". Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose... while it is true that, when there is an issue with undue weight, it is consistently canted towards the antisemitic POV, Noleander's text often strives for balance and that Newyorkbrad's "finding of fact" fails to acknowledge the fact that the text in question does, in fact, make a significant effort to strike an NPOV stance, although failing spectacularly in some cases. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's bias comes from their selective and undue use of isolated statements from sources, often presented negatively and out of context, and, possibly more seriously, the omission of large segments of significant material from the rest of those sources. As a consequence those sources are seriously misrepresented by Noleander. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be better if there were fewer strong adjectives, such as "strong and persistent". I don't think you need to hammer it home that strongly to make the case. It would be more accurate to present it in more reserved language. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled all over the place on my first run at this sentence : "Similarly, though sources are sometimes used appropriately, when they are misused, it is typically...". I'm assuming that you do mean to say that sources are only "sometimes" used appropriately rather than for example that they often are. On that basis with minimal changes I'd suggest something like "Similarly, sources are sometimes used appropriately but when they are misused it is typically in a fashion...". 92.39.200.108 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's responses

4) In posts to the noticeboard discussions and in evidence and workshop proposals in this arbitration case, Noleander has admitted to isolated editing errors, but contends that most of his or her edits complied fully with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Noleander does not appear much concerned that many fellow editors believe his or her contributions reflect a deep-seated bias and prejudice against Jewish people. Noleander appears equally unconcerned by how his or her conduct has created division and bitterness in the community. Noleander has evinced no interest in changing his or her editing practices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge Noleander's response and the comments from others. I will take them into account in the final decision, most likely in formulating some details of the proposed remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a concern. Shell ^babelfish 13:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It does pain me that strife has resulted from some of my material. But these topics are very controversial, and some grief is to be expected. It cannot be a WP policy that an editor is banned if their edits cause offense. That said, let me state the following clearly: my editing practices can be improved; I can present new material in ways that invite more collaboration; edits I've made in the past have been ham-handed and have caused unnecessary offense; WP is not a battleground, and by collaborating more, and by striving harder for neutrality, I agree that WP will be a more civil place, and the material produced will be better overall. I hereby make the commitment to improve my editing practices in those ways. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This pinpoints one of the problems. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta agree, as much as it pains me to say so. Strictly speaking, true of the pages in this arbitration case, but maybe less true of the previous noticeboards. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true of Noleander's response during arbitration, but as per PhilKnight it Noleander's only opportunity to really react as charged was during arbitration. It seems a bit odd to me to propose a remedy based on how someone has handled themselves at arbitration. I hate to say it, but this is a good example of how further dispute resolution, like an RFC/U would have been very handy at this stage.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence appears to be factually true. Last sentence is evidently a conclusion you've reached that is very much on point. The mind reading and peering into his soul though... ugh. "Noleander does not appear much concerned that many fellow editors believe his or her contributions reflect a deep-seated bias and prejudice against Jewish people." If people thought all that about me then I think I would find it extremely hurtful and distressing in all sorts of ways but I doubt I'd choose to express that hurt here in text. He's handled it the way he has, he seems to have focused on denying the accusations and explaining his perspective, for better or worse. Whether it's a good approach or not it's as consistent with a deep seated desire to resolve the controversy as it is with not caring but either way I think you should leave his innner thoughts and feelings out of it. 92.39.200.108 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take exception to the issue of Noleander's alleged "deep seated bias and prejudice against the Jewish people". First of all, Noleander claims that he doesn't have this. But even if he did, that would not disqualify him as a Wikipedia editor. Although I primarily edit articles related to religion these days, there was a period earlier in my Wikipedia career when I spent close to a year editing articles related to Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950).

Wikipedia is full of controversial articles such as the above where POV pushers on both sides have "deep-seated biases and prejudices". Many of those POV pushers are far worse than Noleander. I should know; I have the battle scars from trying to contend against them without violating 3RR or otherwise edit-warring. Many of them are far less committed to WP:NPOV and WP:RS than Noleander is.

When it comes to anti-semitic canards, Noleander has stated that he feels these should be presented in the full light of day so that people can evaluate for themselves what the truth value of these canards is. The fact is that most canards are based on a web woven of truths, half-truths, lies and interpretations of them. The analysis and discussion of these canards is a certainly a scholarly topic. Many Jewish scholars have written about them. The true facts used to support antisemitic canards are no less true and no less significant just because some fringe conspiracy-theory wackos use them to support their fantastic lies. Encyclopedic articles can and should be written about these topics. The contribution of Jews to the development of European and American banking is significant and encyclopedic. We shouldn't avoid covering these just because some fringe wackos have constructed an antisemitic canard related to it. For example, I have been working on two draft articles which I won't move into article mainspace until after this ARBCOM proceeding is done. I present them here as examples of how Noleander's intent could be accomplished without being tinged with antisemitic slant. Consider History of Jews in American banking and Jews and banking. Both of these draft articles are based on Noleander's original effort at Jews and money but rewritten with the intent of eliminating many of the more salient problems. (Disclaimer: I haven't checked all his sources so there may still be issues left to be resolved.) The point here is that Noleander's objectives are not wrong or unacceptable. He just has not succeeded in navigating the very significant minefield that working in this area represents. With time and mentoring, he might learn to do a better job of it. ::--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2011 (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.

Noleander topic-banned

1) Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any article relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, all interpreted broadly. This topic ban will be in effect indefinitely and applies to all pages in all namespaces.

Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. "Wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group will also result in further sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering the comments (below and on other paragraphs) and will take them into account in finalizing the remedy proposals. Obviously I don't agree with all the comments, and certainly can't implement all of them—but all are appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Shell ^babelfish 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 'Noleander is banned from making any edit relating to race, ethnicity or religion, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia.' PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What problematic edits has he made in religion (as opposed to ethnicity)? Cool Hand Luke 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate point of contention on this page is whether, at the moment, Noleander is a single purpose account. If we restrict him from editing ethnicity related articles, but allow him to edit religion related articles, then I suspect he would become a single purpose account dedicated to criticising religions. I'm not sure that's what we are trying to achieve here. I think it would be better to impose a wide ranging topic ban that would prevent this from happening. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his editing satisfies V, WEIGHT, etc., that isn't a bug—it's a feature. We'd be leaving him to a topic where he has added tons of material without ever causing serious concerns. That's a good thing. Remember that SPA is not a policy. Policy is policy, and unless he's breaking policies in religion, he must be allowed to contribute. Cool Hand Luke 02:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is excessive. This goes beyond fixing a behavioral problem and amounts to a prohibition on "filling in the gaps" in sensitive or controversial topic areas. For example, if this ban had been applied to me in the realm of Mormonism, this encyclopedia would have virtually no coverage of the discriminatory ways that Blacks were treated by the Mormon church (I was the primary contributor to Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The goal here should not be to ensure that material is omitted from the encyclopedia (which would be the practical effect of such a ban) but rather to ensure that the material is presented in a neutral, balanced, proper manner. I suggest that the better remedy is to require collaboration and review. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility might be to allow Noleander access to article talk pages and DR pages like noticeboards within the topic area. While there are problems with Noleander's editing, I am not convinced that everything Noleander has added was without value. Allowing Noleander to make talk page proposals, and to escalate these to noticeboards, would retain potential benefits without incurring the liabilities. --JN 466 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a corresponding proposal below. --JN 466 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Given issues related to other groups, it might make more sense to ban him from any articles related to race, ethnicity or religion, rather than focus on a specific one. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too harsh and does not take into account the valuable contributions that Noleander has made to articles such as Judaism and violence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarification is needed regarding whether or not this includes edits relating to the I-P area (see talk).Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have suggested instead a restriction on moving articles into mainspace. Of course it's up to the Arbitrators whether you want to go this way instead, but I urge you to think about it rigorously and present your reasoning to the community.

About the scope, I disagree with Phil and Joshua about extending it to other religions. Look again at the evidence about Criticism of religion.

I suggested, above, the wording for scope as being: "related to stereotypes, canards, or criticisms of Judaism or the Jewish people, broadly construed." I strongly urge the Committee to consider that wording as being more precise and applicable.

And I also strongly recommend that Noleander be permitted to edit talk pages. There is zero evidence that he has been disruptive in any way on talk pages. Again, we have to be careful not to make it easy to get rid of editors because we don't like what they say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil: I see you linked my comments about SPA. But I again urge you and other Arbitrators to look again at the Evidence page, and look to see the evidence about Noleander's editing at religion-related pages that are unrelated to Judaism or Jewish people. Multiple editors, not just me, have presented evidence of good editing at other such pages (such as Criticism of religion), and there is zero evidence of bad editing. The scenario of Noleander turning into something else is just not supported by the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly support this (taking at face value the principles and findings of fact NYB has presented). I would have even a broader rationale (which might need to be articulated as a principle if accepted): sometimes a user edits in an area in such a way that on balance, over a sustained period of time, and in the eyes of a broad range of uninvolved editors, the users' contributions inhibit rather than further our goal of writing and improving articles. This doesn't mean everything the user contributes is bad; some may be very good and helpful, but on balance dealing with the editor saps the energy of other contributors and slows down progress. If no other restrictions have a significant likelihood of changing the situation, that user should be removed from that topic area. This is even if that means we lose their future good contributions, and may not appear "proportionate" in response to their "offences" - but it is what is needed to get the train back on track. In this case, there appear to be enough issues with Noleander's editing in this area that his/her continued presence is unhelpful. Noleander's own proposals patently don't go far enough in resolving the issue, and it's hard to think of a non-broad-strokes restriction that would do the job. So a topic ban in article space seems very reasonable. In addition, it seems likely that Noleander's participation in discussions of this might be more of a sap on other editors' time than a benefit; so a topic ban in other name spaces unfortunately seems in order. I would personally however not restrict Noleander's commentary or even the development of draft material in his/her own user/talk space - provided it is others who then evaluate whether to bring it into article or article talk space. Martinp (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good remedy. I agree with Martinp about the importance of freeing up good editors' time and energies for creating the encyclopedia. We need a remedy that spares the community those everlasting ANI threads, from which Noleander clearly learns absolutely nothing (see LessHeard's preliminary statement), and I'm hopeful this could be it. Also, assuming good faith, Noleander's statement above that Economic history of the Jews was a "well-intentioned effort" on his part[15] raises a WP:COMPETENCE issue which puts much strain on those editors who attempt damage limitation at articles on such sensitive subjects. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The things that Martinp and Bishonen said here sound reasonable at first, but I want to point out some important issues that require scrutiny. About competence, there is zero evidence that Noleander is unable to interact with other editors on talk pages in a constructive way. All of the evidence pertains to edits to articles themselves. The maximum that one can infer from the evidence is that Noleander says reasonable things in talk, and then fails to apply that consensus when he goes back to the article itself. In fact, Noleander repeatedly has engaged in dialog with editors who disagree with him, in a courteous manner (that they often do not reciprocate), in a way that (at least within talk, although not necessarily in the article itself) acknowledges their concerns and seeks to find compromise, and in a way that legitimately questions their preconceptions and makes them think through and justify what they claim. In a narrow sense, Martinp is right that removing Noleander from talk pages would result in quieter talk pages, but I would strongly argue that this would be a bad thing, would be detrimental in the long run to improved content. Look at the evidence, look at the comments in this workshop, and you will see editors who fly off the handle at any hint of disagreeing with them or of saying something that they perceive as insensitive to Jews. Discussion leading to consensus is a vital part of how Wikipedia works. Allowing editors on one side of a POV dispute to use arbitration to unencumber themselves from dialog that they would rather not have to deal with would be terribly wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be backed up by evidence. The topic ban addresses Noleander's perceived modus operandi and not that of other editors. When whole articles appear in a fully fledged state, even in their preliminary versions in user sapce, other users cannot be expected to invest their energy arguing point-by-point on fundamentally irretrievable problems. That is why a full topic ban has been proposed. Mathsci (talk)

Um, no. Noleander has never created such a page in talk space, nor moved it from user space to talk space. See?—this is exactly the kind of thing where editors do need to be made to question their assumptions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's user space contains preliminary drafts of Jews and money (look at his subpages). Their editing history indicates that they were created in a fully fedged state. (Here are links to some of the subpages, in their states prior to blanking [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35].)Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Tryptofish's shouting (by bolding his text): when an editor has committed very serious misrepresentations of sources (as in this case), they are not given endless second chances. Criticisms of Noleander's articles in this area have happened before, in ANI reports, suggestions have been made, but no change has been perceived. I have not interacted with Noleander outside this case, but, in preparing User:Mathsci/example2, I was struck by how much material he chose to omit from Jews and money. I can see no merit in relaxing the terms of a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a miscommunication here. Tryptofish is talking about Noleander's edits in talk space; Mathsci is talking about Noleander's edits in user space and article space. I believe Tryptofish wishes to assert that Noleander's contributions to talk pages have been civil, and could potentially fulfil a useful function. Sorry if I have misunderstood anyone's point, but this is how it reads to me. --JN 466 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with civility: Noleander is very civil on talk pages, but that does not help in discussing a long fait accompli point-by-point. No matter how civil such discussions of minutiae are, it is an unwarranted drain on other users' time, particularly if the entire article is irretrievable except by rewriting it from scratch. Civility on talk pages is hardly the issue here: the problem is with a certain very civil stubbornness combined with serious misconceptions about how encyclopedia articles are written. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayen, you understood me correctly. I accept (and have accepted all along, going back to my own proposals) the point that it might be best to prevent Noleander from being able to present other editors with a fait accompli article in article space. A topic ban to article space accomplishes that. But allowing Noleander to make noindexed drafts in user space is, at worst, a mixed bag, maybe or maybe not accomplishing something useful, but certainly not creating disruption for editors who decline to move it to the mainspace. And more importantly, allowing Noleander to make edits in talk space and on noticeboards (such as NPOVN) is an unambiguous net positive—except for those editors who really don't want to hear it, and who could well find themselves subject to discretionary sanctions. An editor who doesn't want to respond in talk generally doesn't have to. A proposal to put something in an article has no effect on the content of the article, if the proposal stays in talk. If Noleander says something in talk and it falls like a dud, no harm to content. If Noleander says something in talk and other editors take it up, editors who disagree would do well to engage with the issue. If Noleander says something in talk that would fall afoul of Roger's proposed discretionary sanctions (has never happened yet, but if it does happen in the future), the discretionary sanctions would kick in. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy either with this remedy or with the alternative extension to all religion and race articles. Earlier this year I had a look at Islam and violence to see if it has similar faults to the Jewish articles where Noleander has been active. While that is an awful article, the most outstanding nonsense (the mention of the secularist Saddam Hussain as a genuine Jihadist) doesn't seem to be Noleander's fault. It would require input from others with more time and/or specialist knowledge in that area to analyse his/her contribution properly and reach a definite decision on how similar Noleander's input there is to his in Jewish-related areas.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander banned

2) Noleander is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, in addition or as alternative, for discussion purposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I would consider a broader topic ban, but I think this sweeps too far. Cool Hand Luke 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a second choice for me. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose; too harsh. --JN 466 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a no-starter. But if any of you on ArbCom believe that the problem is not just antisemitism, but serious problems understanding key provisions of our content policies that aim towards a certain basic level of quality of research and edits regardless of ones views, then I think you need something more than the topic ban. Maybe mentoring? Or a general NOR probation, to make sure that any article he edits complies with minimum standards? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. Too harsh and does not take into account the valuable contributions that Noleander has made to Wikipedia. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit too harsh, but defensible. Might I suggest a modified version of supervised editing instead? NW (Talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, this is what you get for not being more willing to admit your mistakes. Oh well, I trust that Brad proposed this for purposes of discussion. It implies: we don't like you so we have decided that you can't edit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to admit these mistakes, and I hereby apologize for my offensive behavior. Never being involved in an arbitration before, I'm not sure where apologies are most appropriate: the Evidence page didn't seem the right place. Here in the Workshop I posted an admission that my behavior needs improvement here. Let me make it clear: I have made mistakes in my editing; those mistakes have offended other editors, and I apologize. I'm a strong believer that WP is not a battleground, so I accept responsibility for improving my behavior to eliminate similar problems in the future. I'm a process-oriented person, and that is why I proposed a remedy that involves more up-front collaboration with other editors (prior to inserting new material). That remedy still seems like an over-all optimal solution: we would not be treating sensitive areas of WP as off-limits, and yet my material would be reviewed early in the editing process, in a collaborative fashion. --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily draconian. There is no reason Noleander might not be productive elsewhere, and if he/she wishes to do so, experience in a less charged area might build greater self-awareness and less agenda-driven behaviour. However, absent this remedy the topic ban needs to be broad enough to prevent moth-to-flame behaviour and limit time drain by other editors. Martinp (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Noleander violate the topic-ban or restriction imposed in this decision, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The above is the standard wording, but we may want to play with the lengths in this case, or insert some form of "gross misconduct" clause. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We usually enact discretionary sanctions when a topic area has chronic problems. This case, by contrast, primarily involves one particular editor; and the topic scope of the problematic editing is much broader than we would normally encompass in a sanctions remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No discretionary sanctions in this area? Cool Hand Luke 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Roger's proposed amendment to the R&I discretionary sanctions essentially swallows this primary topic.[36] That said, POINT articles like Economic history of the Christians seem to be beyond any existing discretionary sanction. Cool Hand Luke 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No: I am saying that the amended R&I sanctions will cover Noleander and Silver seren's behavior, but I lament that they will not cover IZAK's. I commented here about discretionary sanctions because this is the end of NYB's proposed remedies, and I was initially surprised not to see any discretionary sanctions, but in light of Roger's amendment, they may not be needed. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this. Without condoning the R&I sanction, it says^[37] "fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility." The IZAK drafts might plausibly have given undue weight to say, slavery in Christianity and Islam, and maybe WP:POINT is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. But what policy (of any kind) did SilverSeren violate by asking whether editors were biased or had been canvassed? Wnt (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm confused by Luke's comment. Economic history of the Christians was created by User:IZAK who is not the subject of the proposed topic ban. Perhaps Luke got confused about the alleged misdeeds of the various parties? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jayen466[edit]

Proposed principles

Accuracy of sourcing

1) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes an actual statement of fact or opinion made in the source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alternative version of Newyorkbrad's proposal. The change here is the wording "reflects or summarizes an actual statement of fact or opinion in the original source". Proposed. --JN 466 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is probably an improvement, but there's still the hanging question of what is "fair" and "unfair". Does any policy define it? Why isn't it good enough to be accurate? The point some people want to make is that when you look back at the source, it actually says what you said it said - it doesn't seem like it should be so complicated to say that. (though admittedly when I tried in a position above, I bogged down in a few details of my own) Wnt (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Noleander topic-banned

Noleander is free to propose edits on articles' talk pages in the topic area, to invoke dispute resolution processes, and to draft articles in user space for community review and adoption for article namespace. The arbitration committee reserves the right to revoke Noleander's right to contribute to article talk pages, dispute resolution processes and article drafting in the topic area if it is used non-productively. This remedy will be reviewed in a year's time, based on Noleander's contributions made to the topic area over the course of the year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as a more nuanced remedy. --JN 466 17:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a step in the right direction. But what is missing is an explicit balancing of the benefits and drawbacks. The arbitrators need to balance the downsides of an ham-handed editor against the benefits of incorporating controversial material that virtually no other editors will touch. This encyclopedia is ten years old, and there are dozens of sensitive topics related to religion and ethnicity that are virtually off-limits. I have not yet seen an arbitrator address that issue. The arbitrators should adopt a remedy here that achieves a good balance that permits the material to be added, yet minimizes offensiveness and drama. I suggest that the best over-all balance is achieved by requiring any new significant contributions of mine to be subject to review prior to being placed into the article space (in addition to conforming to all WP policies, of course). --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinp: With Noleander being unable to edit articles themselves, other editors would be free to ignore Noleander's input completely if there is nothing of value in it. A topic-banned editor being free to edit talk pages does not necessarily impose any additional overhead. If Noleander uses the privilege in a way that is disruptive, ArbCom can revoke it. This hinges on an assessment whether or not Noleander might become a net positive under those conditions. If yes, then it is worth trying, and would give Noleander a chance to rehabilitate themself. If not, then it is more trouble than it is worth. --JN 466 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, another possible scope wording might be "related to stereotypes, canards, or criticisms of Judaism or the Jewish people, broadly construed", or some hybrid of that with Jayen's wording. But I agree that something along these more nuanced lines better fits the facts of the case, than does a flat-out topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with some suggestions. I generally support any remedy that does not result in banning Noleander from all of Wikipedia (as one of NewYorkBrad's proposals did) and that the ban is not indefinite in duration. I like the fact that this proposal is subject to review in a year's time. I would prefer a six month duration to one year but a one year review period is preferable to an indefinite ban. Perhaps it would be helpful to stipulate that Noleander seek community consensus via an RFC for any draft that he composes in userspace prior to moving it into article mainspace. If he advertises to the relevant Wikiprojects and sincerely considers any constructive feedback, I think the problems that have been seen in the past will disappear. A good rule of thumb would be that if consensus is not running 2-1 in favor of moving the article into mainspace, then perhaps the article needs to be worked on some more to address any concerns that are raised. Given that the articles in question are likely to be controversial in nature, it's important to write it so solidly in terms of NPOV, V and RS that it will withstand the criticisms of those who are inclined to oppose the presentation of such topics. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing articles within the topic ban to be developed in user space is unworkable. I'm not sure how Noleander produces his drafts, but, certainly based on the article that started this case, the drafts appeared as fully fledged articles. Noleander has still failed to acknowledge overall criticisms of his approach to articles, accepting only criticisms point by point. It is unreasonable that other users, as reviewers, should have to spend time analysing his work: it would essentially put an unprecedented burden on others to rewrite or rescue Noleander's drafts, assuming the proposed subject matter had any merit. So a topic ban to cover all parts of wikipedia, as Newyorkbrad has proposed, seems to be the only thing on the cards. Mathsci (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea being explored here, but am not convinced it is workable exactly as stated. I fear allowing N's participation in discussions on these topics in article talk will still end up being a drain on other contributors' energy. I do support some form of allowing discussion or even article draft creation "in his own user space" - but the way this is defined must be such that if unless his contributions are perceived as helpful, they can just be ignored - not that it behooves other contributors to spend time chasing around refuting his points. While such restrictions may seem unfair or onerous, I'm just trying to explore what short of a full topic ban in all name spaces would have a hope of succeeding. Martinp (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: What this comes down to is a judgment as to whether Noleander can be rehabilitated or not. There are clearly two distinct camps here: those who feel Noleander cannot be rehabilitated and those (including myself) who believe that he can be. Writing articles in userspace does not put a burden on editors to "rewrite/rescue" Noleander's drafts UNLESS they voluntarily choose to be involved in reviewing them. One or more editors could volunteer to serve as Noleander's mentors. I would certainly volunteer to do so although he might benefit from having a mentor that knows more about the topics than I do.

Furthermore, if you're skeptical that Jayen's approach of restricting Noleander's creation of new articles can work, we could try it out on a probationary basis. If it doesn't work, we could then go to a full topic ban. If it gets to the point where no one is willing to mentor Noleander and/or his Talk Page edits become disruptive, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Until then, let us take a more compassionate approach and recognize that Noleander is a long-time editor who has provided positive contributions and is worth trying to rehabilitate. I am less concerned about his interest in criticism of religion and antisemitic canards (which are all encyclopedic topics if treated with objectivity and sensitivity) and far more concerned with his misrepresentation of sources. However, I think all of these can be fixed if he acknowledges that there is a problem and accepts the need to improve with mentorship.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to enter into a threaded discussion with you. Noleander's editing in the topic area has been highly problematic and has sapped the energy of other users, so that is why a full topic ban is required. The evidence speaks for itself. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems doomed to fail. Noleander is encouraged to use the talk pages and userspace to construct drafts about what he thinks is missing from Jewish-related articles - which will include criticism and unflattering points of view, at least. But "Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group will also result in further sanctions". I have no opinion about whether a stronger or weaker penalty is needed, but this one seems to guarantee future proceedings. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Z[edit]

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Motion proposed by LessHeard vanU

Adding User:Silver seren, and potential others, as Parties

Motions proposed by Tryptofish

AzureFury

Camelbinky

IZAK

Jayjg

Mbz1

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tijfo098[edit]

Proposed principles

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed remedies

Proposals by User:Tryptofish[edit]

Proposed principles

Morally offensive views can be encyclopedic.

Content disputes

Proposed remedies

NuclearWarfare reminded

Editors reminded

Editors reminded

Noleander restricted

Editors cautioned

IZAK restricted

SilverSeren cautioned

Proposals by User:LessHeard vanU[edit]

Proposed principles

Speculation upon the motives of good faith editors by way of ethnicity, et al, is inappropriate

Proposed findings of fact

User:Silver seren made "ad hominem" attacks upon various editors

Proposed remedies

User:Silver seren warned regarding further "ad hominem" attacks on contributors

Proposals by User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Neutral point of view

Interpretation of sources

Sanctions for misrepresenting sources

Persistent source misrepresentation

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed remedies

Proposals by User:Cool Hand Luke[edit]

Proposed principles

Accuracy of sourcing

Proposals by User:Noleander[edit]

Proposed principles

Okay to focus

Sensitive topics shuld be covered

Sources are sometimes offensive

Dialog, not obstructionism

Talk page discussion before ANI

Proposed findings of fact

Consistent with good faith

Civility

Sincerely seeks consensus

Complies with Verifiability

Sources are accurately represented

Proposed remedies

Collaboration required before moving into Article Space

Proposals by User:Silver seren[edit]

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution should be followed before ANI reports

Proposals by User:Roger Davies[edit]

Proposed principles

Allegations of likely bias

Apparent conflicts of interest

Civility and sensitivity

Misrepresentation of sources

Proposed findings of fact

Area of conflict

Proposed remedies