Arbitration report

Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

Closed case

MickMacNee (Week 8)

The case was opened to examine allegations of incivility, unnecessary aggression, battleground behavior, and disruptive editing, as well as inappropriate and unnecessary use of the blocking tool. A few days after the case was opened, arbitrator Risker blocked the filer of the case, Chester Markel (talk · contribs), as a sockpuppet of a banned user. To mitigate the potential influence on the end result of the case, the sockpuppet-filer's proposals and evidence were collapsed/archived. 13 users, including the blocked sockpuppet-filer, submitted on-wiki evidence in this case, while arbitrators, parties and others submitted various comments in the workshop. Drafter Kirill Lokshin submitted proposed principles for comment, but did not propose editor-specific rulings in the workshop. During the week, these principles and the remainder of the proposed decision were submitted for arbitrators to vote on, before the case came to a close.

What is the effect of this decision and what does it tell us?

All participants and contributors to Wikimedia projects are expected to conduct themselves according to standards of collegiality and professionalism set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness. This Resolution urges editors "to promote openness and collaboration", treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect, "work with colleagues to reduce contention", "promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", "discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers." The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy.
The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond mere compliance with the minimal standards explicitly outlined in behavioral policies (such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Even if a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited, it may still be inappropriate or disruptive in the Wikipedia environment. Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it; failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.
Administrators are expected not to take administrator actions arising from disputes in which they themselves are involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. As a specific and clear application of this rule, an administrator who is a party to a pending arbitration case may not block another editor who is a party to the same case, particularly when the case arose in large measure from disputes between the two of them.
MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project. The Committee have set the earliest possible date by which the ban may be lifted as 4 August 2012.
Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

Open cases

Following a request for arbitration, the Committee passed a motion to accept two separate cases (which are currently open). No other cases are currently open.

Cirt and Jayen466 (Week 3)

This case, the first of a pair of cases, was opened a fortnight ago, to examine the conduct of Cirt (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) – including articles about new religious movements (broadly construed) and BLPs, as well as interpersonal conduct issues arising between Cirt and Jayen466. The Committee determined that for this case, those two users will be the only parties and that evidence in relation to broader issues or other editors is not permitted – instead, such evidence will be allowed in the second of the two cases ("Manipulation of BLPs", below). During the week, several editors submitted on-wiki evidence. Arbitrators have extended the evidence phase of this case by one week; this means that the evidence phase is now expected to close on 15 August 2011.

Manipulation of BLPs (Week 1)

This case, the second of a pair of cases, was opened this week, to examine meta-behavioural issues and to reconcile relevant principles. During the week, several editors submitted on-wiki evidence.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

8 August 2011 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

You know, I'm personally sort of sick of the whole "What does it tell us" thing. Herp derp,I had know idea I was supposed to conduct myself civilly, or that talk pages are not for off-topic discussion. That's like saying the OJ Simpson trial set a firm "no murdering people" precedent. If you're going to have this sort of feature at all, at least focus on the exceptional aspects of the case, or the clarifications made in terms of policy. Tell us something we don't know. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 23:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The segment should provide a snapshot of what the case says (usually, in more simple language), and those who want more detail or want to examine things further can go to the case page itself. Often, the most simplest of issues (to me, or even you) is either a source or a major factor in the multiple disputes that fester on Wikipedia, and despite how obvious some of these things are, they still end up needing to be reinforced in this last step of DR. Alternatively, it's a refusal to fully comply with the principles behind policies which leads to further escalation of the disputes. For example, what most administrators considered obvious (i.e. not to block a fellow party in a case) was apparently considered a grey line by a particular admin (about the time the case was opened), and strangely enough, in direct opposition to the Community, that admin still does may not fully comprehend how problematic it was for him to create the spectacle that he did. A few have suggested that it was a failure to explicitly reinforce the principle (that-seems-obvious-to-many) that became the source of further conflict at the conclusion of the case, so that could be part of the reason why it was explicitly reinforced at the conclusion of the case. But obviously, one can't ignore the fact that if the admin in question was openly and explicitly addressed early on (in line with the urges and requests to do so), a more positive resolution for the project would have emerged overall.

As to what's particularly different about this formulation of civility, this was a rare time where AC placed some importance (or emphasis) on a WMF Resolution - one which at least some users were unaware of. The other part which should be of interest is the fact that AC have spelled out (in a different way) that complying with the letter of a policy, and complying with the principles that gave rise to the policy, are not the same thing, and that sanctions will result for those who do not get their act together (be it due to unwillingness or inability). It was thought that by pointing out what the decision tells us, readers would become (more) aware and/or be reminded of some of the principles which are taken for granted, and that they will reflect on them enough (ideally, to a point where they will not end up in front of ArbCom over the same "issues" one day). How successful we are at doing so is possibly debatable, but it's something. Nevertheless, I do welcome feedback, and although I have received more positive feedback than negative feedback as far as this segment is concerned, if it's no longer of interest, then there shouldn't be a problem scrapping it (particularly when it can be more time-consuming than much of the rest of the report). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "What is the effect" sections, maybe just rename them? -- Jeandré, 2011-08-09t20:52z

"Final decision" like the Arb pages? -- Jeandré, 2011-08-11t12:36z

In light of "and opened a new case this week", how about changing "the Committee passed a motion to accept two separate cases" to something clearer? It's explained in the 2 bullet points, but caused a double take before I read them. -- Jeandré, 2011-08-09t20:52z

I'm not going to be available on a regular basis after Friday (RL overtakes). Still, do you have any suggestions (both on what the segment could be renamed, and a wording that might make sense without causing the confusion)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Following a request for arbitration, the committee passed a motion to split manipulation of BLPs from the Cirt and Jayen466 request (both are currently open). No other cases are currently open." -- Jeandré, 2011-08-11t12:36z

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About