This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Deliberations in Arbitration cases are often held privately, but the Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public. Arbitrators reserve the right to take evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) Personal attacks and repeated incivility are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Especially, bad faith smear campaigns and related allegations are poisonous to the project and to participants. Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and address any concerns arising in an appropriate manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) Policies and guidelines apply equally to all users; using them in a tactical manner or for the underlying purpose of subverting their intended function, is forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) Users intervening in a dispute, whether as a contributor or in an administrative role, should familiarize themselves with the background, and act impartially in line with all policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

11) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

12) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) - and indeed a number of users - are reminded of the Wikipedia principle in this case, that personal beliefs whether "bad" or "good" should be left at the door and not brought on-wiki. This extends especially to matters where editors may be expected to have compelling personal feelings. It is also not merely applicable to stances deemed "negative": - both socially discouraged and socially approved views, whether strong anti-racism, strong advocacy, or strong support to any matter, may also be disruptive if editors forget this is an encyclopedia project and not a further battleground.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground for any side, not just one. In particular, having unpopular views does not give a mandate for established users wishing to indulge in campaigns of personal attacks, incivility, and smearing — much less so when the unpopular views are themselves the established users' own preconceptions more than anything the user may have genuinely said, done, or meant.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has repeatedly gamed the system, in that we interpret an overriding sense that Orangemarlin has aggressively attacked other users, then when challenged, pleaded self-pity, or engaged in forcibly blocked communication, provocation and counter-attack (which he has at times used as a vehicle for further incivility, accusations of bad faith, smearing, threats to obtain a block, plain dismissal of concerns by uninvolved users and admins, and the like) in the attempt to remain unaffected by communal responses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) We note that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) was not the only person to engage in these egregious activities. However in this specific case we look only at the actions of Orangemarlin and (peripherally in passing) those of Odd nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) is admonished not to: assume bad faith, make or endorse accusations without careful checking, make personal attacks or harass users, and not to be uncivil or pre-emptory in response, warning, or dismissing or marginalizing legitimate concerns by other users and administrators.

Orangemarlin is further admonished to avoid engaging in allegations (both explicit and implied, and interpreted broadly) that appear to be aimed at marginalizing or damaging the standing of another user, without first confirming with the mentor if his approach is appropriate. This is his responsibility on any incident he feels such action is needed, and having obtained such advice it is still his responsibility to choose his actions appropriately, regardless.

Finally Orangemarlin is cautioned to pay special attention to the requirements of collaborative working, and to avoid edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Odd nature (talk · contribs) is admonished to treat all parties appropriately, neutrally, and to a fair high standard, and to undertake reasonable and fair fact finding, in all editorial discussions and disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Orangemarlin make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, harrasment (in the sense of harrassment policy), assumptions of bad faith, or contain unfounded or poorly founded negative claims ("slurs") about other editors' presumed or implied personal views or off-wiki activities, Orangemarlin may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Should Orangemarlin wish to criticize on-wiki, the personal views he believes another user holds, or the non-wiki actions he believes another user engages in, he should refer the matter to an Arbcom appointed mentor (to be appointed) who will assess whether the matter has merit and how best to raise it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Rbj's 2007 community ban is to be reviewed either by the Arbitration Committee, or the newly formed Appeals Review Panel, and any relevant findings posted publicly for the community. As per the prior note on the Jim62sch Arbitration case, and more recently the racism issue, there may be further actions if these kinds of conduct are engaged in by others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

An administrator, Krimpet (talk · contribs), made an edit to a known contentious biographical article, Rosalind Picard. The contentious issue in this BLP is broadly, the approach that is to be taken in representing Picard's signature on material which was then used by an Intelligent Design organization to represent that scientists have doubts about evolutionary matters. A number of users and banned users have sought a strong view either side - that she was a creationist, that she was not.

The edit summaries and actions on the article itself were as follows:

[1][2] Krimpet - "This statement seems overly tangential and coatracky - the article is about the person, not the petition" and "information on beliefs" While I can support Krimpet's judgment in removing the tangential information. One sentence out of ten is not obscuring the real subject enough to be considered a WP:COATRACK (A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".)

[3] Orangemarlin - "Removed whitewash using TW" Misuse of Twinkle to revert a good faith edit

[4] Krimpet - "Blindly reverting revisions to a BLP as "whitewash" with automated tools is unacceptable - if you have a problem with my revision of the paragraph, please explain your actions in depth." Edit war begins in earnest. As I said above I can support Krimpet's judgment on the substance of the edit, but this is not the variety of unsourced negative information where the normal means of talkpage discussion and consensus building should be dispensed with. Edit warring is bad

[5] Orangemarlin - "Revert per WP:NPOV using TW"Misusing Twinkle to edit-war. Edit-warring is bad. Editing warring with anti-vandal tools is worse.

After some article activity, Krimpet attempted to discuss with Orangemarlin. The response was [6] "Deleted using a fine automated tool, which saves me valuable time dealing with trolls..using TW". Personal Attack in the edit summary and generally being uncooperative. Although he does take part in later discussion of the article talkpage and people are generally given a lot of latitude to delete comments on their own talk pages. Twinkle was removed for misuse [7] (later reinstated). orangemarlin responds with an uncivil comment I don't even know who this little creep is? I do not misuse Twinkle. I'd like for this meglomaniac prove it to someone that I'm misusing the tool. personal attacks against MZMcBride which he later refactors out and a later call for a desysopping [8]. This bit needs to be struck. A call for desysopping takes place on AN/I, RFC, or RFAR. Ranting "How about desysopping the person who did this" on your own talkpage is not credible call for desysopping A number of users felt that either the revert, or the comments, or the later resoponses, were out of line SWATjester warns him about the personal attacks against MZMcBride MZMcBride originally removed his Twinkle but in this edit he gives a "final warning" on personal attacks while restoring his Twinkle (Good use of honeypot with stick IMHO) Raul654 This needs to be struck as unsupported by the diff. The text is "OM, you and I need to have a discussion in private." and it should be noted Raul654 participated in the edit war on the side of OM [9] and later convinced Krimpet to change her mind about removing the contentious information I discussed this with Raul and can now see the merits of leaving that last sentence in Cla68 (issues a formal warning).

Having reverted and descirbed Krimpet as a "troll", and deleted her request to discuss from his talk page, the next edits are interesting. Discussion rejected, Krimpet raises Orangemarlin's conduct at ANI (post ANI thread), which Orangemarlin replies "leave me alone", then deleted the thread on his user talk page [10][11]. This willingness to name call, only to then affect as if a harassed party and require they deal with the problem without any change from him, when the person insulted seeks to engage the matter, is noted previously. I noted above when the diff was first given that the labeling of Krimpet as a "troll" was a personal attack. Deleting the message on his own talk page and asking to be left alone I have no issue with. He has at this point made an uncivil outburst and been convinced that it was out of line and refactored it. Avoiding the situation at this point is probably a good idea and shows some self-awareness. Frankly I think FT2 is out of line to assume false intention on behalf of OM ("only to then affect as if the harassed party") when it is reasonable to presume that he actually felt wronged by the removal of Twinkle. Both initial edits [12] [13] after the removal and following outbursts already detailed above support the idea that he believed he was being wronged (OM never used the term "harassed" that I noticed) At the stage of writing "leave me alone", I presume he was on the verge of having another uncivil outburst and that after being warned from friend and foes alike he was trying to avoid anything that might unintentionally provoke him, like participating in a thread at AN/I (remember he later participates on the article talk page). Unfortunately this resolve of his to resist an outburst only lasts one second when he posts with the diff below where he makes a another personal attack by labeling Krimpet a "POV warrior". However I see his weakness as being one of temper rather than duplicity.

Orangemarlin doesn't leave it closed. He soon adds a further note in place of the original thread [14] "Well, apparently Krimpet is a little POV warrior who has chosen to escalate it". The matter then progressed to ANI. actually the AN/I thread preceded this outburst by ten minutes. During the ANI thread evidence was presented that orangemarlin has been canvassing to bypass 3RR, suggesting a lack of understanding of 3RR: [15] "I'm going to be using my last revert. POV warriors are showing up to whitewash her article, removing her Intelligent design support.".Edit-warring is bad, canvassing to see the war continued once one hits the 3RR wall is even worse than edit-waring with anti-vandal tools. Also this one on Raul's talkpage was omitted Thanks. You save me from getting an automated 3RR warning from the POV pushers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All the analysis in small is mine. There are two bits that i believe should be struck outright (the "call for desysoping" and the statement the Raul expressed disagreement with OM given the diff provided). I also feel the remarks supposing duplicity on the part of OM are not based on any evidence but purely an assumption on the part of FT2. OM in this whole incident strikes me as someone who is the exact opposite of circumspect, the way he emphasizes using Twinkle when removing the comment from his talk page, his declaration of running out of reverts, his outbursts in general. I don't find it plausible that this is all an act. OM needs to quit edit warring. He was the most egregious of the parties in this edit war and needs to be counseled closely on this issue. Also he needs to realize that his talkpage is not a platform to vent personal attacks on other editors with impunity. I believe he a is capable of recognizing when he is about to lose his cool. It is past time that he learns better self-control and starts preventing these outbursts of his. --BirgitteSB 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: