Revision as of 02:54, 4 January 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed case summary

The Derek Smart article which has been the subject of an ongoing edit war. While the arbitration committee does not routinely intervene in edit wars, the community has requested assistance, because of:

• apparent involvement of people affiliated with the article's subject in editing,
• the apparent extensive involvement of sock puppets,
• concerns that single-purpose editors may have been recruited to further the edit war, and
• questions on the appropriateness of sources used for the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As creator of original request, I find all 4 of these issues to be relevant to the case. ⇒ SWATJester 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. These seem to be the core issues. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've read on this page as posted thusfar is a concise and exact summary and I couldn't see the situation possibly interpreted any better. --Jeff 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest codifies a principle at Misplaced Pages that editors should refrain from making significant edits (other than undisputed corrections of factual errors) to articles about themselves. This proscription extends beyond the article subject themselves to include affiliates and others acting at the direction of the subject.

Individuals who wish to improve articles about themselves (other than through correction of undisputed factual errors) are instead encouraged to:

• comment on the article's discussion page, or
• contact a volunteer via email for assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transparency in editing

2) Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry provides that editors may not use multiple identities to:

1. violate WP:3RR or other policy,
2. evade a block, or
3. avoid scrutiny from other editors.

While not codified in Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, this committee has long maintained that disruptive, single-purpose accounts that appear to be acting in concert may be treated as a though operated by a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded in all respects. ⇒ SWATJester 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article quality and sourcing

3) Neutral point of view is the foundation of our work. Assertions, especially controversial ones, should be sourced. An important element of NPOV is that critical material should not be given undue weight in the overall context of any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seconded, however it should be noted that in this case, the subject is notable for having a significant lack of positive material available anywhere about him, and is famous/notorious for having a significant amount of critical material about him, something that he has relished and cultivated into further notoriety. Given this dispensation, I would argue that undue weight should be considered in the light of the entire population of material available (i.e. if out of all the sources on a subject, 90% are critical and only 10% are positive, including significantly more critical material than positive material would not be undue weight, given it's accurate representation of the population of material on the subject). ⇒ SWATJester 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Even positive articles and reviews seems to come with the disclaimer about Smart's controversial, confrontational nature. I assert that the majority of citable sources out there are going to be negative or at least come with this type of rider. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of primary sources

4) The appropriateness of using primary source material, such as an article subject's past posts to UseNET, is at present an evolving and unsettled area of Misplaced Pages policy. The arbitration committee, in its role as an interpreter rather than legislator of policy, offers no opinion on the suitability of such material for inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I understand this, but am not happy with it. Could the committee then make it an agenda to get a consensus on this issue as soon as possible, by whatever means necessary? ⇒ SWATJester 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am disappointed that the ruling on this matter is not more clear, but do appreciate the ambiguity left to pursue it.--Jeff 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you begin the discussion at WPT:RS or another suitable venue. While I don't believe I can speak for the committee on this, my view is that the appropriateness of primary sources varies depending both on the nature of the source and the nature of the use. We have been using the primary/secondary source distinction as a bellwether for the appropriateness of the source. Inappropriate secondary sources are less common than inappropriate primary sources. In utilizing primary sources, we would have to develop a sense of journalistic ethics that has thus far proven elusive. Such a sense of ethics would lead us to refrain from listing the speeding tickets and other traffic infractions for a public figure (which are a matter of public record in many jurisdictions), unless we're writing about Bill Janklow whose unsafe driving is well in the public eye. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my remarks on the talk page. Metamagician3000 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

5) Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, among others, must be strictly enforced on articles about living people. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons explicitely states that poorly sourced negative information should be swiftly removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I share your concern to a degree, I believe that this is better approached from a standpoint of NPOV and undue weight than from a standpoint of sourcing. We have all kinds of NPOV articles about people who are notable chiefly due to something controversial. It can be done well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is important. Whatever else is going on in this mess, I have had some peripheral involvement and formed the view that a group of editors wanted to use the article to do a hatchet job on Smart in breach of WP:BLP. It is partly as a result of my intervention that the article leads off by referring to him as a game designer and not as a game designer and usenet warrior (or some such thing; I am exaggerating slightly). I will dig out relevant diffs if anyone believes that necessary. However, if some pro-Smart editors are banned from the article - or from Misplaced Pages more generally - as seems likely, there has to be a way to ensure that WP:BLP is honoured. Misplaced Pages is not a place to pursue grudges left over from some Usenet flame war. Metamagician3000 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very right. I believe there exists enough moderate/impartial editors to keep the article clean from external influence of a "hatchet" job. I almost used the word negative, but certain sources materials about the subject do inherently include things that some may consider negative (poor game reviews, for instance). This ArbCom request was started by an impartial editor, and I am also impartial. Certain other editors have less than genuine intentions, but what few contributions they have made have been removed from the article by outside parties already. I personally pledge to keep the article as free from personal attacks and material which is not supported by sources.--Jeff 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very important, but it is a difficult problem with regard to this article, because what makes Derek Smart notable is not suitable for inclusion under WP:BLP. His involvement in the USENET flamewar is what makes him notable (as compared to all of the other independent game developers who don't have Misplaced Pages articles about them). Information about the flamewar is by definition negative and questionably-sourced, but omitting said information would not be NPOV. If a solution can't be found that allows material about the flamewar to be included, I suggest deleting the article due to WP:N. Adam613 16:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam has a very succinct (and correct) point. Is it within ArbCom process to address whether the article should be deleted?--Jeff 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify what I meant by "suggest deleting the article". I'm no authority on these matters, but I didn't see anything in the RfAR about deleting the article, so I doubt that is on the table as a remedy. However, removing many of the article's sources IS on the table, and removing the information about the flame war would qualify the article to be (re)nominated for deletion under WP:N, as well as making it impossible to maintain WP:NPOV. Collateral damage, if you will. Adam613 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that there is a difference between notability (for our purpose) and notoriety. If the games that Smart designed are themselves significant as contributions to the popular culture, then that makes him notable. There may be other game designers who are notable by that criterion who do not yet have articles, but that is not relevant - someone might write those articles tomorrow. If it were well-known to attendees at gaming conventions that he (insert obnoxious or unusual behaviour here, whether it be hitting on female attendees, getting drunk and shouting, wearing a rubber suit and flippers around the hotel, or whatever) that might give him notoriety within certain (perhaps quite wide) circles, but it would not make him notable for the purpose of having a Misplaced Pages article. Metamagician3000 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Article has been edited by disruptive single-purpose accounts

1) Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk · contribs), WarHawk (talk · contribs), WarHawkSP (talk · contribs), and Supreme_Cmdr (talk · contribs). Minor edits of a constructive nature have also been made by Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). The nature of the edits suggest that at least some of these accounts are operated by editors affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Modified in light of comments. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I concur with this finding, with two exceptions: I reiterate my assertion that Mael-Num is not "affiliated with or highly sympathetic to the subject of the article". Neither do I think User:Uncle uncle uncle is affiliated. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence "at least some". -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any edits in a disruptive fashion. My edits have been simple grammatical/spelling, semantic (earnings vs revenue), or date (released September vs released October vs released November), or tag removal after cleanup. These edits were nondisruptive and noncontroversial. I would like to be removed from the list of disruptive editors above. Uncle uncle uncle 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this, with the exception that as the nominator of the original RfAr, I did not name Uncle uncle uncle, and have not noticed him editing the page in the time period that I cited in the request. ⇒ SWATJester 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article raises concerns about quality

2) The Derek Smart article, though well sourced, nonetheless raises general concerns regarding article quality, reliability of sources, and neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree in part. However, most of the sources are reliable and neutral. The only ones I feel raise concerns are the werewolves link (neutrality), and the UseNET posts (reliability). ⇒ SWATJester 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No evidence of legal threats

3) In spite of concerns raised in statements on the original request for arbitration, the committee finds no legal threats have been made by any of the parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Does the committee then interpret incorrect, or even abusive citings of BLP as not being a legal threat? e.g. if a user makes an edit, and I remove without discussion and say only, this is not acceptable per WP:BLP, and upon questioning by the party, cite the WP:BLP protection from defamatory statements, is that not a legal threat (it's a perfectly clear implication that I just said that the edit you made was defamatory, otherwise it would not fall under the BLP jurisdiction). ⇒ SWATJester 09:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for the committee as a whole, it is my own view that the legal threats we proscribe are exactly that: overt statements or tacit implications that an editor will be sued in a court of law. There is nothing wrong with a reasoned discussion regarding whether or not a portion of an article is possibly libellous. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I am referring to non-reasoned discussion, especially by editors who do not understand the concept of libel or fair comment. Perhaps my example was not good enough, basically what I'm saying is that in the Derek Smart article, the accusations of defamation violations of BLP were decidedly not made in good faith, and are tantamount to legal threats. Though nobody said "I'm going to sue", what they did say is "Anything negative is libel", which carries with it the (false) implication that it would be actionable in court. At the very least this is extremely disruptive, at the most it is a legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've just added some diffs to the evidence page pertaining to this. Just let me know if more documentation is required. Ehheh 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "personal attacks" finding since it was not part of the original request. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr incivil

4) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) often resorts to personal attacks (a notorious Smart stalker like you) and disregards Misplaced Pages's civility policy ().

Comment by Arbitrators:

I placed a related finding on the proposed decision page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Article ban unenforced

5) The article ban on Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) proved ineffective. Concerns about whether there was enough consensus for it were raised, and it is not being enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this finding accomplishes anything useful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended to confirm that the community has failed to deal with this situation on its own. Of course, that may already be obvious considering the existence of an ArbCom case. -- Steel 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with comments by Steel. My earlier comments, quoted accurately by Steel, were before I had read Misplaced Pages:Community sanction, which had been tagged historical. Also, WP:ADMIN, at that time, implied that Misplaced Pages:Community sanction was policy. I've since updated WP:ADMIN and tagged the Misplaced Pages:Community sanction/Log page as historical also. If Misplaced Pages:Community sanction was a policy, then I would suggest there probably would have been sufficient grounds. However, the confusion was that it apparently was being justified in terms of WP:BAN and this, in my reading of the policy, requires a higher level of consensus. Addhoc 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts

1) For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator.

Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I was going to propose a similar remedy. Something like this will be necessary to keep disruption to a minimum. -- Steel 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur, with a modification: Every time he releases a new game this will become a battleground again. Can we institute a clause saying "at the discretion of the ArbCom, this period may be reinstituted on the article at any time for a period of 1 month, following a request from ..." (I'm not sure whether to fill ... in with "any administrator", or "Any editor") ⇒ SWATJester 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Referred for cleanup

2) The article is urgently referred to the Misplaced Pages editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. This request should be publicized on such noticeboards, mailing lists, and IRC channels as are necessary until the article receives due attention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would support an additional sentence along the lines of "users who have been involved in editing the Derek Smart article should be willing to accept and follow the consensus of the wider community", in the event that the wider community's decision on a couple of issues (the reliability of the warewolves site and whether it's acceptable to piece together Usenet forum posts and use them as references) goes against what some users have been edit warring with Supreme Cmdr & co over (which in my opinion is a distinct possibility). -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Steel359, it should be up to the community to decide the admissability of the site and especially the usenet posts, as the posts will form a precedent for similar events. ⇒ SWATJester 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that we could get it right without such specific language. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Supreme Cmdr banned for one year

3) Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a long history of disruptive editing and personal attacks on Derek Smart, is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's a throwaway account so there is little point banning it. One year is too long. I would support a 14 day ban due to personal attacks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he has already been banned from the article. Is this concurrent or sequential, or is this a ban from the entire project? ⇒ SWATJester 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a ban from the entire site. That article ban never really got off the ground. It might be worth gathering together some information for the evidence page and propose a finding of fact about it. I'll get on it shortly. -- Steel 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, concur. ⇒ SWATJester 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has already been blocked 8 times for a total of 41 days, and continued to edit war and attack other editors, so there is little reason to suspect that a 14 day ban would convince him to cool down. I agree that banning a single account would do little to remedy the problem, since there are so many sockpuppets floating around. The remedy must deal with the SPAs, not just Supreme Cmdr. --Beaker342 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WarHawkSP blocked indefinitely

4) Per #Transparency in editing, WarHawkSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with his previous account WarHawk (talk · contribs), whose general conduct and editing habits mirror those of Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs), is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe that this is necessary or useful in light of the proscription on reverts by single-purpose accounts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both useful and necessary since the account is being used to evade blocks, launch personal attacks and give the impression that Supreme Cmdr has more support than he actually does. Your current limitation on reverts proposal does nothing to end such activities on the talk page. -- Steel 10:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Steel 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. ⇒ SWATJester 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Supreme Cmdr blocked indefinitely

5) Per #Transparency in editing, Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be treated as an abusive sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely. Further, Supreme Cmdr has violated a community ban on editing the article and harassed other editors on the article and its talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed ⇒ SWATJester 10:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of whom? Supreme Cmdr is the main account, WarHawk is the sock. -- Steel 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They're all socks of each other. Since they're all abusive, if one is indefinitely blocked, all need to be indefinitely blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An indefblock on a sock doesn't automatically mean an indefblock on the puppetmaster. Usually the main account is blocked for some finite amount of time. -- Steel 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that but repeated personal attacks are blockworthy regardless of whether it's a sock or a main account. Each one of the socks has done something worthy of a block, so each should be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: