Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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) The Five Pillars are an important standard throughout the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

to get the ball rolling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts.

This means:

Neutral

Wikipedia does not judge or advocate specific views or opinions, or make determinations on "correctness". Differing views must be presented objectively, without bias or undue weight.

Compilation

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, consisting of articles written in a particular style. There is a process which advances articles to our goal.

Verifiable

Information must be realistically verifiable by others. This is generally done by citing from reliable sources.

Established

Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and thus are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source; it strives to be a tertiary source.

Facts

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. Articles may state which viewpoints exist, and who holds them ("facts about opinions"), but does not itself advocate viewpoints.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is particularly good, and I hope it makes it to the "finals" of this ArbCom decision. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

copied straight from Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Stevertigo's block log indicates numerous blocks for various editwaring kinds of disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

a finding. most of this may be stale, but background. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Stevertigo repeatedly inserts original research into article ledes. See evidence page here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

--Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. An editor who adds material to an article must be able to cite reliable published sources that directly support the material as presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Condensed from WP:OR, with emphasis added. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially with the emphasis. SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.1) One of Wikipedia's founding principles is that all information in Wikipedia articles must conform to the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. An editor who adds material to an article must be able to cite reliable published sources that directly support the material as presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Integrating some text from SirFozzie's proposals. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like having these two glued together and especially agree with the emphasis here. Shell ^babelfish 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very standard. Three reverts is the red line, the engine may blow up before you hit it. SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious. If you find yourself reverting the same article or material more than once and it wasn't vandalism, you may need to reconsider your approach to collaborative editing. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Wikipedia's policies are complex, and occasional, inadvertent violations are entirely excusable; editors—even veteran ones—are not expected to be perfect. However, willful and deliberate defiance of core Wikipedia policy is generally incompatible with continued participation in the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would even go so far as to say two or more policies may exist in conflict with each other at times, but I don't think that's the case here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"willful, deliberate, and/or repeated" Certainly there are cases of at least IPs being blocked for repeated disruptive violations even though they could be considered ignorant of our policies. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your name is in the case title, and there's a number after your name, then well, you're facing a long long road.. that means you've been here before, likely been sanctioned for it, and should know better then to return here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being here once should be avoided, being here multiple times is an indication that you need to take a very hard and objective look at your own behavior. Shell ^babelfish 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Unfortunately, Stevertigo has demonstrated either an inability, or unwillingness to objectively critique his own editing behavior. Rational and thoughtful feedback from other editors (about using sources) have had no effect. There is this[1], and this underscores it [2]. This is in depth feedback [3], [4] which changed nothing. He states that [two and 1/2 years ago, he] "agreed at the time that the current version was adequate ... and stepped back with an understanding that it would work for a while. ...Nevertheless, I have returned for a reason." [5] The editor, which just gave some valuable feedback to Stevertigo, could have said "No comment" and it appears that this would have equal value to Stevertigo. That was the only reply he ever gave. Later, the other editor queried Stevertigo [6]. Stevertigo's reply once again only supports his unsourced OR, and often POV, vision for this article [7]. Issues related to this are discussed beginning with this edit [8].

In another instance, on the talk page of Talk:Dark matter, one of the first statements pertaining Stevertigo's inserted lede is "Besides being unnecessarily confusing, it seems to imply that dark matter is not matter, or that dark matter is only found in empty space. Comments? [9]. This feedback was not taken on board either as evinced by the ensuing talk page discussion. The talk page discussion sufficiently and ably discusses the issues involved, and hopefully not long to read through. These are just two of examples of more that are available in 2010. Also, note this has taken place in middle, and later 2010. As has been noted above, this is after previous remedies, sanctions, and feedback, including feedback of previous years. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I filed this RFAR, and the choice of naming after myself and referring it to my editing was largely done as a spur of the moment decision by you (Arbs). By siding with the other parties, and applying double-jeopardy based on improperly understood anecdotes from my past, you demonstrate a deviation from fair practice. There have been a number of people who have appeared here more than once. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned in two previous arbitration proceedings:

1. In the Stevertigo case, he was found to have "violated the three revert rule and edited a protected page to conform to his version,... used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times, [and] blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him", and stripped of his administrator status.
2. In the Obama articles case, he was found to have "engaged in edit-warring and... edit summary attacks", admonished, and placed under an editing restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As background. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting things up for the rest of the "decision". SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo: Kirill likes to post what he's considering for as a proposed decision on the work shop. And to answer your question, previous behavior doesn't get punished twice, HOWEVER, as previously explained to you, it shows a history of behavior that can be taken into account when deciding sanctions, and if an editor's behavior can be improved. SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo: you seem to be under the misapprehension that good conduct in one area excuses bad conduct in another. It does not. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be good points if you weren't at arbitration - being at this stage means you haven't taken quite a number of chances to change that poor behavior and it needs to be addressed by other means. Shell ^babelfish 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Sirfozzie wrote: "Setting up things for the rest of the "decision."" What "decision" would that be? PS: Is this some sort of double-jeopardy, where one is to be punished not just for current offenses but for past ones as well? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as Kirill explained on his talk page (User talk:Kirill Lokshin#Arbcommunication) Arbcom does not look at positive evidence in its judgment of an editor's worth. Kirill at least only looks at the negative evidence as put forth by adversarial parties, and he didn't look at the one article I gave (the War article) as an example of my editing. It occurred to me that a member of Wikiproject Military might be interested in how I've worked to improve the central article in his field of interest, whereas before I edited it, it's quality was quite poor. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Kirill has said that. In fact, ArbCom looks at both bad and good past behavior. One example (case names omitted - title FoF "X is a valued contributor") is User X has complied with his topic ban/past sanctions/etc in good faith. User X contributes resourcefully, cooperatively, and productively in many topics. But don't focus solely on the War article and consider it something like a unique and very important evidence of anything; good contribution and dedication to the project would probably be considered as facts which would have their relative weight on the remedies. Good contributions are one thing while behavior is another. They are both important but they are different things obviously. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, you are in the overt process of making a quick judgment of my editing as a whole (based on some accusations taken wholesale and without much scrutiny). If that judgement is not just about my editing on certain pages, as it should be, but on my "behaviour" "as a whole," such judgment thus speaks to the value Arbcom places on all my 40K since 2002. By being fixated on the "bad conduct," and on only my "bad conduct," you simply promote an one-sided and biased process - one that regards no value in my years of editing here. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Shell Kinney) What you don't appear to know or understand is that I was the one who filed this RFAR. I filed it because the ANI was a case of being railroaded by various old characters from my past. Your impression seems to be that I was brought here via the actions of other parties. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to keep the links in small quantity, and to do so to keep it simple. I referenced the War article because its recent, as an example of something which I do routinely. I should probably add more articles then? You seem to think that Arbcom's purpose is to adjudicate good from bad behaviour. Its clear to me that Arbcom can only try in this regard. For example, Shell noted how he has read all of the relevant discussion, but what he failed to note was that while discussion was going on, changes I had made to the article were being reverted wholesale. This is a flaw of the article/talk page split that concurrent events are not always seen. In this case, it seems as if Arbs are in participation with parties negative to me, and that all here are supposed to be impressed by Steve Quinn's torrent of diffs and deviating commentary. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned as the result of two previous community discussions:

1. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, he was blocked for two weeks by Tznkai (talk · contribs), who cited "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy".
2. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010, he was placed under an editing restriction by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), who concluded that "Stevertigo is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration".

Comment by Arbitrators:

More background; we may want to comment on the process being used here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need to comment on the process here, but again, sets the background. SirFozzie (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit-warring on multiple high-profile articles, including "human" ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and "time" ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not yet certain whether the extremely high profile of these articles is a point worth exploring further. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is edit-warring, no matter where it is. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the articles are as much of a concern as the pattern of edit warring over preferred content despite consensus being that the content violates core Wikipedia policies. Shell ^babelfish 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Stevertigo has engaged in sustained edit-warring on multiple high-profile articles, including punishment. After 25 successive edits (all marked minor), resulting in a POV lede between August 1 and August 3 [21]; he is reverted [22]. And the edit conflict has begun [23], first with two other editors [24], then a third [25]. Stevertigo reverts again, characterizing the sourced material as "garbage" while acknowledging it has the support of three other editors [26]. Reverted a few days later (by yours truly) (see explanation) [27]. Stevertigo reverts again [28], and so on.

• time in physics [29], [30],
• dark matter [31], [32], [33], [34]
• animal rights, (on May 3, 2010 - becomes Stevertigo's edit conflict over "animal personhood", - yes, it's true) [35], [36], [37], Slim Virgin - "the rule of bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert revert; numerous problems including OR, Easter egg link, and making a sentence say something different" [38], Tigo - "restore personhood and equality terms, removed without comment" [39], "...you need a high quality source [40]

- May 14 (animal rights) edit to the lede - [41], -- Stevertigo may have violated 3RR on May 17, 2010, with three edits in the lede and at least one, on that day, to keep POV in an image caption -- First, the lede edits - [42],*[43], [44],*[45], [46],*[47],[48], -- that's three reverts for the lede

He also inserted POV into an image caption (May 14)*[49]. It was reverted (May17) -[50], and POV restored (May 17)*[51] -- these are specific, unique edits to place POV into the image caption. It was ultimately reverted inside a larger edit [52], and continued to be reverted inside the larger edits, afterwards.

--Added citation needed tags on the 21st [53], one fact tag [54], a hidden note [55], and all items removed [56].

Comment by others:

Certainly boldness is to generally be encouraged, but there are common-sense limits. Nontrivial re-architecting of fairly developed essential articles without any prior discussion is one of those limits. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in personal attacks via edit summaries ([57]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This probably wouldn't warrant individual attention if not for the fact that Stevertigo has previously been sanctioned by the Committee for this exact behavior. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kirill. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example that Stevertigo isn't addressing the issues brought to his attention. Shell ^babelfish 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How often? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• These looks like various edit summary attacks [58], [59] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think effective discussion via edit summaries depends on the editing situation. If the edits are not controversial then these can work. If the editing appears to be controversial then talk page discussions work better. Even if one editor refuses to confer, or is disruptive, then the talk page will at least reveal this, and it can be dealt with.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Debate through edit summaries can work, but the critique must be constructive and the edits more than spiteful reverts; that was not the case here. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

true, but I'm not a fan of discussion through edit summaries. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruption to illustrate a point ([60]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. Shell ^babelfish 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added material to articles without providing any published sources that directly support it ([61], [62], [63], [64]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

A selection of representative diffs. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good variation of diffs. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good representation of recent issues; probably worth noting that this particular issue has been going on for more than a year. Shell ^babelfish 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is very sad. I looked at edits by Stevertigo in physics and realized that he probably does not know what he is talking about. Then I looked at a random article edited by him and found this definition by Stevertigo: [65]. "Determinism is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is, to some large degree, determined by prior states". This all must be fixed.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the heart of the problem. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources cited for it ([66], [67]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is distinct from a failure to provide sources at all, and I'm not entirely convinced we need to focus on it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very concerning. When an item is sourced, the reader MAY check the source to see for himself, but if the text doesn't match what the source says, then it's actively harmful to the way the article is being presented. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ucucha; editing in a way to misuse sources is more serious than not sourcing at all, because our readers tend to assume that material that has been referenced is accurate. I would equate it with "sneaky vandalism" in its difficulty to be detected. Risker (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly worrisome; I agree with Risker that this is similar to "sneaky vandalism" and can seriously damage articles while being difficult to spot. Shell ^babelfish 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Actually, I think this is one of the major problems; Stevertigo has repeatedly added sources that completely fail to confirm the material it is supposed to support, and if there is anything that erodes the quality of Wikipedia, that is it. Ucucha 15:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this assessment is based on what? Your own subjective examination. How many articles have you and I interacted at? One: Isn't the human article substantially different now after my edits to it? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That by no means implies the route by which it got there was the optimal one. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind Risker, that I have 40 thousand edits. There is a reason why Ive been prolific and it isn't because my edits have been specious. That is, at least not most of them. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources provided ([68], [69]), or with no sources provided at all ([70], [71], [72], [73]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Combining this with FoF #6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has adopted a battleground approach, characterized by repeated assumptions of bad faith ([74], [75]), in his interactions with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stevertigo comes "looking for a fight", which means he finds one repeatedly. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you look for people to argue with, you can always find someone - this is a poor approach to collaborative editing. Shell ^babelfish 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) The principles of "conceptualization", and the editing practices resulting from adherence to them ([76], [77]), appear to be incompatible with the editing model set forth by Wikipedia's fundamental content policies regarding verifiability and original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The core philosophical issue here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kirill. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I am worried that Stevertigo uses these self-written essays as if they trump core policy. Shell ^babelfish 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The essay does not (to me) seem to by itself directly contradict policy, but obviously behavior violating core policies cannot be justified by invoking a mere essay (not that I've been following closely enough to know whether Steve's done that, I'm just assuming from the context). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is not a direct contradiction of the policies on verifiability and original research. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've seen this essay &, frankly, it is a lot of rhetoric wrapped in philosophizing of dubious value. Is there a procedure for either deleting or moving to user space essays like this one? -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10) The community discussions cited in finding of fact #2 were chaotic in format and structure, and demonstrated a severe tendency to stray from the core topic into secondary debates. These factors may limit the ability of uninvolved users—particularly less experienced ones—to participate meaningfully in the community sanction process, and the ability of users facing sanctions to adequately respond to allegations made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is considerable potential for improvement here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo: Just about everyone who is sanctioned by the Committee believes it to be the result of fundamental unfairness on our part. If you think that any of the findings regarding your conduct are incorrect, then by all means say so; but simply asserting that we're unfair is unlikely to be productive. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo: You have not presented any evidence to counter the findings against you. There is no dispute that you have done good work elsewhere; but, as I said above, good conduct in one area does not excuse inappropriate conduct in another. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that this needs to be in the decision. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I have little confidence in the AN(I) format to do justice to complex issues—like those in this case. Ucucha 16:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill (?) wrote: "The community discussions cited in finding of fact #2 were chaotic in format and structure, and demonstrated a severe tendency to stray from the core topic into secondary debates." - How is this any different from the current RFAR, when Arbcom members notably fail to read any positive evidence, stray from the issue of edit warring at the core article (punishment), in an attempt to make this entirely a matter of one user's 'behaviour,' namely mine. Keep in mind it was I who filed this RFAR, and I did so because I assumed Arbcom could be more fair than the drive by admins at ANI. Was I in error to assume Arbcom could be fair? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, the issue is not just "fairness" - the issue is integrity. If this case's prime mover (you) is fixated on getting through a punishment he feels should have come sooner - in a prior referendum - then this is improper to say the least. Can you explain why you are singularly looking at negative evidence rather than accept my evidence of the errors of other editors? You apparently didn't bother to read my submitted evidence (I kept it simple, one article an an example). And you appear to have looked only at the negative comments, and digested them wholesale (when in fact many of the diffs were non-relevant). I think your litany of listed proposed sanctions represents a biased fixation on your goal of seeing me sanctioned. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the workshop talk page, because it was too long for this thread, imho. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

14) {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) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would support a shorter ban if on the table as well, but I would not think this excessive. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Material for which Stevertigo fails to cite a published source may be removed by any editor. Reverts made to enforce this provision are to be treated as reversions of obvious vandalism for the purposes of revert limitations and editing restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact it won't count towards 1RR/3RR, this is what all editors really should be on the watch for.

I think this is important. I also wonder if something more specific should be put in place if Stevertigo provides sources that do not verify the information he added. Shell ^babelfish 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a bad idea if we had an easy way of determining whether a particular citation was valid. As things stand, that sort of question is usually debated on the talk page, which makes it difficult to apply to a "revert on sight"-type provision. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was thinking something more along the lines of having that situation handled via AE with the authority to block him if the admins there determine that he's providing bogus sources. Shell ^babelfish 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Echoes my earlier ANI suggestion of a voluntary 0RR. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article.

Should Stevertigo fail to cite a published source, the added material may be removed by any editor. Reverts made to enforce this provision are to be treated as reversions of obvious vandalism for the purposes of revert limitations and editing restrictions.

Should Stevertigo cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adding a provision for invalid sources, per discussion above; not sure if we need to mention AE specifically. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; AE just happens to be the go-to board, but any admin can enforce sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 11:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Given his longtime view that he does not need to use sources, and his disruptive editing in reaction to being asked for them, I agree that this needs to be done and done under an ArbCom remedy. Today when reviewing evidence for the 2009 block, I stumbled across disruptive editing (adding over 80 Fact tags to an article and edit warring to retain them), and comments that show lack of agreement with core policy on the Loudspeaker article, and talk page. Here he explains why he does not use reliable sources for his edits (after doing excessive tagging of other's work). So, it is clear to me that this is a long term problem that is causing disruption of articles, and that Stevertigo is not able to voluntarily improve, so an ArbCom remedy is needed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) The community is requested to develop a structured process for conducting community sanction discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per finding of fact #10. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think something similar to the old Community Sanctions Noticeboard would be fine, but per above, not sure it needs to be here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The old Community Sanctions Noticeboard worked ok, to a point. There were really not enough regulars to make it work reliably. Perhaps re-constituting it and putting a notice at AN/I and AN for each new discussion that gets started, would generate enough participation to have better results? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect much good from a place where a self-selected group of people are talking about getting people sanctioned (that is one of the problems with ANI, I think). That may have been one of the problems that led to the demise of CSN. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) is an interesting read; any new process should avoid the problems outlined there. Ucucha 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing, but this seems a bit tangential. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a specific response to the way Steve's case worked, or in general? Steve responded in ways that confounded the process we have informally formalized on ANI and AN. That was not a first, but was by and far the worst process-disruption event it's had since we established the procedures and criteria we're using now. If there's a general problem, I agree with addressing that. If it's a process that a veteran who is being disruptive can disrupt, then that's a different problem. We can't veteran-proof any process here with high degree of certainty - we generically AGF that veterans won't act that disruptively.

I may be too involved in the informally formalized ANI / AN process to see the warts in general clearly, so I accept directional input that it may need help, if that's what you all conclude. But if this was specific to what Steve did here, then I'm not sure that more process is needed.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined by the Arbitration Committee. He is prohibited from returning to Wikipedia until the terms of this probation have been set, irregardless of whether any other ban remains in place.

Should Stevertigo wish to return to editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee via email once six months have elapsed from the date of this decision. The Committee will then open a discussion regarding the terms of his probation; this discussion may include the involvement of the community at an appropriate venue. Should Stevertigo reject the terms offered by the Committee, he will be limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alternative to SirFozzie's version below, making a few points more explicit. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) {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) One of the core Wikipedia principles is that the information in Wikipedia's articles must conform to the Verifiability policy, and should conform with Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources

Comment by Arbitrators:

One of the key items in this arbitration case is diffs where Stevertigo added information which was either unsourced, or information which did not follow from the source that was provided. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this needs to be separate from the OR principle; we could probably combine the two, as they're essentially saying the same thing. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Material being added with a source must be directly supported by the source given.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seeing how this flies.

As above, I think this can all be rolled into a single principle. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

((Note: Truth be told, Kirill's got this section down cold, so rather then duplicate his work, I'll point interested observers to his sections and my comments there) ..)

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) Should Stevertigo elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to their return to editing. Should they wish to return to editing, Stevertigo shall appeal to the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further such appeals will only be allowed every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Updating the requisite restriction from Ottava Rima, and making it clear that should the Committee/Community reject his appeal, that we will not allow another appeal for six months. Of course, this follows on from any ban that may be applied to his account. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be treating this as an "appeal"? I think this may have confused things in the past, as it's really a discussion of post-ban terms, not an appeal of the ban itself. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meaning that if he's banned, it becomes indefinite with the first chance to appeal/get terms to come back to editing starts halfway through the bands, and further chances to appeal/get terms go on a six month basis afterwards. SirFozzie (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: