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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

@DHeyward and MONGO: Hi, please see the banner at the top of the page. Statements are only allowed in your own sections. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop?

Not a single arbitrator posted or participated in the workshop. It seems odd that there is anything of significance that would be in a proposed decision if it wasn't significant enough to elicit community input. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO evidence

REally? These are [1] and this [2] are examples of incivility? This edit from my talk page was cited [3] as evidence but there is no doubt that PeterTheFourth is a SPA and his first edits were to GamerGate arbitration. How is that any more inflammatory than actually tolerating SPA's? In what universe and what context? Had arbitrators bothered participating in a workshop there wouldn't be these trivialities. The first is a request to leave Collect alone (and isn't incivil) and the second is about the quality of sources in a recently deceased person that hasn't even been established to be political. I was unaware that serviceman that gave their lives for their country only came from one party. perhaps the committee can enlighten us as to how they reached these conclusions as it is not apparent from their Workshop comments. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, unlike others, there is no evidence of disruption. The committee seriously needs to review exactly what a topic ban is supposed to accomplish. Indeed the only person presenting evidence against MONGO has asked for a close with no action.[4] --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: this was made in response to DHeyward. I think this could have been handled by motions at the other American Politics case which I never even heard of.--MONGO 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspring...While edit warring is bad, many content disputes only lead to better articles.--MONGO 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that there have been times I have been incivil and hostile and for that I apologize. Even so, I feel since all my efforts have been dedicated to defending BLP and I rarely edit articles about those I may be in political disagreement with one should be able to see that I've been defensive on issues, not offensive in trying to add negativity. Case in point is my statement at the Hillary Clinton FAC...[5]...in which I stated that while I was no fan of the subject, I supported promotion of that article to featured level. I'm not a threat to American Political articles and will adjust my tone to better serve the pedia.--MONGO 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs support a civility warning in my case. I believe that is an issue where I am definitely guilty. I rarely edit articles on politics that are not congruent with my own, and while my incivity could be seen as disruptive in the political arena, I'm not edit warring overall nor trying to damage article space. I realize the diffs provided in my finding are only representative but they do not convey, as I explained earlier, my work on things that cross party lines where I am also oftentimes in the defense posture. My efforts to follow the verdicts of science rather than my politics is more than apparent in Retreat of glaciers since 1850, which I shepherded to FA and have been working on as of late to keep it from going to FAR. I can't see any reason to stick around if I'm cornered in a minefield that prohibits me from working on articles that could easily attract polarized politics such as the Retreat of glaciers article...as that article clearly demonstrates that glaciers everywhere are in Retreat and the scientific consensus is that this is caused primarily by AGW, a subject that is a polarized American Political issue. This is but one of many examples where my editing will be possibly hampered by this remedy. In others, I've been at the forefront of keeping conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 articles minimized and heavily participated in bringing several related articles in that venue to FA level. Broadly construed, 9/11 articles are definitely in the realm of American Politics because of the events that led to them and what happened afterwards. In one diff cited in my finding, it's suggested that I created hostility by informing Collect that he should gather evidence because I knew he was going to be taken to arbcom. Alerting another to prepare for their defense is hostile in what way? While one diff surely is hostile, that one isn't. I have no topic bans....few attempts to remedy my alledged topic disruption has been attempted either at noticeboards through AE. I haven't been blocked since 2008 and that event was a major contributing factor that led to the blocking admin losing their bit. While I respect that the committee is making a sincere effort to put an end to the bickering on American political articles...why am I singled out? It's shortsighted to assume that only myself and Ubikwit are causing all the troubles. A remedy that draws a line in the sand for everyone involved would have allowed for strong discretionary sanctions to be applied for any future flare ups.--MONGO 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision has been delayed. The arbitrators have stated on the clerks' mailing list that they will have something by next week at the latest. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd also like to apologize on behalf of the arbitrators as requested by email. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NativeForeigner: First, it's disappointing to not see a finding about competence, as the issue is prevalent in this topic area, where editors vote their politics and ignore or misrepresent sources regularly. If there were to be anything preventative in the findings, one would surely imagine that the politically motivated conflation of religion and politics should have demonstrated a need for such a finding in this topic area.

While I've admitted that my conduct has not been perfect, there is a difference between calling a spade a spade and making personal attacks. I don't think that calling a spade a spade is necessarily hostile, and I'm not sure what other hostility you are pointing to in the diffed edits. One point that you may have overlooked is that Xenophrenic first made a veiled threat about Arbcom on my Talk page here, though he tried to deny it subsequently[6]. That was before I filed the request about the article, which was turned down. Are you asserting that threatening to take conduct to Arbcom (after opening two indecisive AN/I threads) and then following through is hostile?

And I'm rather curious as to why none of the personal attacks made by Mongo were diffed? Contrary to the false assertion by DHeyward above, I also diffed the personal attacks made against me by Mongo at the Robert Kagan article talk page, for example.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that there is more egregious conduct raised everyday at AN/I and closed without sanctions, so the proposed topic bans seem draconian to me. That is more so the case considering that this case was opened as a second thought to the Collect case in the first place, against my protestations, and saw minimal participation, with a mere single post by me during the workshop.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of competence, if you could indicate such need with diffs I'd consider it. I saw issues with civility, with some misunderstandings. But competence allows for mistakes. Your conduct, as far as I saw it, was calling a mistake a straightforward attack. I think all too often in this project the inverse of Hanlon's razor is applied. In terms of the format, I tend to agree. The evidence here wasn't that representative of the case brought about Collect, and although they were two separate issues, the need to separate them was minimal. The affect was far more attention was spent on the Collect case than this. Some of what delayed the decision being posted was my general dislike of the evidence provided. (It wasn't representative) but we make decisions based upon evidence submitted. I am in no way asserting that threatening to take conduct to arbcom is hostile. The other route we could have taken was a Tban between parties but as Sceptre concluded at one of the ANI threads it would likely be like putting a band aid on a geyser (or something to that effect). I share his concerns. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre uses she/her pronouns --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a couple drafters have been busy, I've had a nasty stomach flu. Regardless I have a rough draft set up. Upon being reviewed by the other drafters, I'd expect a full PD out by this weekend. Apologies for the delay. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But content disputes are now happening to one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia, United States. Many similar faces and such. Casprings (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this question, but I haven't participated at ARBCOM before. I've been following this case, and been wondering whether it's still active. Nobody seems to have edited any of its subpages in more than a week. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the arbitrators have definitely not forgotten the case or anything, just real life things have unfortunately come up. Thanks for the inquiry. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is, well, real. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of the majority of editors involved in this arbitration in the evidence portion, and the lack of participation by the arbitors in the workshop section, why should any ruling be created from this case? Perhaps it is best to just close the case without any action taken.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating from RightCowLeftCoast's section per instructions. Sorry about that.

I have to agree at this [RightCowLeftCoast's] point. Just close without action. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The PD date of this case has been adjusted to May 31, 2015. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken over the drafting and we will 100% hit that date --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working with Tom on this. We will definitely have it out in the next 24 hours. He's posting the principles right now, and as soon as we have an improved scope for a couple topic bans we will be proposing, the findings of fact and remedies will be posted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have everything up. If any users have feedback regarding the scope of the topic bans or discretionary sanctions feel free to comment here. We will try to be as responsive as possible. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on a purely personal level I'd like to apologize for the amount of delay. It is largely my fault, and I apologize for any issues it may have caused (ie the issues on United States.) NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finding 2, last sentence, is there a "not" missing (or equivalently, should "effective" read "ineffective"?)? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. NF and I were trying to use the word ineffective --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-banning Mongo and Ubikwit for, essentially, mutual incivility in articles about contemporary politics, seems disproportionate to the offense. It's also likely to further discourage experienced editors from contributing in difficult topic areas. Something narrower and more specifically tailored to the offense might lead to better work in the area. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dearth of participation in this process demonstrates that few agree with the value of such arbitration. Strong agreement with Tom Harrison. Wikipedians' disagreements are by their nature adversarial and sometimes, unfortunately, lack civility. IMHO Mongo and Ubikwit are hardly the most uncivil offenders in the arena of American politics. The evidence against them is below the threshold for administrative action, much less arbitration. I urge Arbitrators to vote against remedies presented. Admonishment is the most drastic remedy I recommend be applied. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not making a statement in my own subsection. I am unused to making statements in this sort of process. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree broadly with Tom Harrison, BusterD, DHeyward (mark your calendar, as this doesn't happen often) and RightCowLeftCoast (indeed -- a double red-letter day). The discretionary sanctions are OK but the topic bans are excessive.

If you carry through with the sanctions then for goodness sake delete the "broadly construed" language, which historically has led to confusion. (One of the arbs already has commented on verbal pushmi-pullyu of "closely related...broadly construed.") The admins at WP:AE have a hard enough time already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]