Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:40, 7 January 2020

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by ToThAc

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a general comment: even arbitration decision principles that are "re-used" will often evolve over time as better wording is found. This process is to be encouraged. Principles are generally only relevant to the specific decision in which they are handed down (apart from a few that make their way into wider policy), so there is no reason to stick rigidly to wording that obviously needs improving. AGK ■ 20:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I disagree with the second sentence above. I think the first part is better phrased "Anyone may edit, use, or modify the content, or distribute it for any purpose . . ." And I think "re-use of information" can be problematic, (which is why we have WP:COPYWITHIN) and was very probelmatic in many portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I don't doubt your reasoning, but this exact wording was used as a principle in a previous, albeit similar arbitration case, so in that case you might want to file a clarification request for that case. ToThAc (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification not necessary. This is a new case, and we can come up with new, better wording here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, important point to make. Administrators must try to be voices of calm in heated conflicts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it is important to include this or something like it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thryduulf. The lack of decorum in this dispute is notable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes. I think just about everyone involved in this dispute believes or believed that their actions were improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree. I am not sure whether 'good intentions' is the best description for behaviour based on the certain conviction that one is right and the opposition is wrong, but I think this is what we have been seeing here. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bringing up the same proposal repeatedly at short intervals, or spread out with no attempt to centralise discussion, is gaming the system. In some collaborative situations, finished requests are not heard again unless there is a change in situation or unheard evidence, however, refusing to hear a proposal ever again is also damaging because it prevents refinement, which is possibly the most important feature of the WikiMedia projects. Ideally, proposals toward significant effect should have a cooling off period of at least (I say at least a year and at most two). ~ R.T.G 02:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is also not the majority agreement of one minority group overwhelming the minority agreement of another minority group. Taking a disagreement that may affect persons outside of the original groups to a larger audience is a legitimate procedure where a local consensus is percieved to be biased. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:UnitedStatesian

Proposed principles

There is no deadline

1) Editors, particularly Administrators, should remember there is no deadline, and so should consider moving on, at least temporarily, to other areas of Wikipedia if they find themselves in conflicts that risk escalation, such as to a level that necessitates arbitrator involvement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I could see this being re-written to more closely reflect WP:DISENGAGE for inclusion as a principle. Mkdw ^talk 20:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively there is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, which is an actual policy that could frame this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think ArbCom should be endorsing an essay in their decision. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This mirrors the WP:DISENGAGE policy: Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this or something like it should be included. The fact that the same people who were hammering away in contentious portal discussions in February were hammering away in contentious portal discussions in November says a lot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing when to walk away, or at least take a break, is a critical skill both here and out in the real world. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ArbCom can recommend an essay to be upgraded to a guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they could do that. They could recommend, or even encourage, the community to discuss whether it should become a guideline though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linked essay is not listed as a guideline, but WP:DISENGAGE links to it and pretty much gives the gist of it: Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. I see no problem with this principle, and the concerns about essay vs guideline are a non-starter. Lots of essays have the level of consensus of policies: WP:SNOW, WP:BRD, and WP:COMMONSENSE are not marked as policies but clearly have the same level of consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Lurking shadow

Proposed principles

Purpose of blocks, bans and other restrictions.

1) The purpose of editing restrictions - up to the site ban - is to protect Wikipedia. Anyone applying or proposing them should verify that these measures are the best way to solve a problem. However, inaction can be a problem, too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am concerned that this is too narrow, and would be interpreted as "protect Wikipedia article content": for example, some restrictions clearly exist to protect Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) from legal liability, and some (such as anti-harassment) seem to me to exist to protect the community of editors. Also, there are blocks/bans (such as interaction bans) that go beyond "editing restrictions," and these may well be relevant in this case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility of admistrators

2)Active adminstrators with severe conduct issues in the recent past are leading other users by bad example, creating a more hostile environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interestingly, WP:ADMINACCT deals with "actions involving administrator tools". Is there a policy or guideline about their behavior as editors? There probably should be, as I'd imagine an editor who was excessively combative would be pressed to pass a request for adminship, or a WP:RECALL if they were already an admin. If we don't hold an admin accountable for their actions outside of the tools, it sets up a double standard if that admin in question themselves holds other admins to a higher editing standard, as I presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Admin_accountability—Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:ADMINCOND, that conduct policy does not explicitly limit its application to use of admin tools. Particularly: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Battleground behaviour and incivility by User:BrownHairedGirl

1) BrownHairedGirl has shown signs of severe uncivil battleground behaviour in portal space, e.g. this, especially in deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

BrownHairedGirl desysoped

1) BrownHairedGirl is desysoped. They may apply to regain adminstrator privileges via a successful request for adminship no earlier than 24 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without comment on the question of desysop itself, I see no need to add a restriction from filing a new RfA. –xeno^talk 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Why is the time limit necessary? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal of adminship will be still there after the desysop, for some time, at least (section Responsibility of admistrators).

The committee rarely sets a timeframe (and when it does it's almost always 6 or 12 months), simply saying they may regain adminship at any time at RFA. Very few people who are desysopped do apply sooner than a few months down the line, and almost none of them are successful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As above the time limit is not required, but it is important that the desysopping of BHG be actively considered by arbitrators given the extensive battleground behaviour and personal attacks that have persisted despite numerous callings-out at ANI and elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems inappropriate without a) the abuse of tools and b) an attempt at other Arb remedies. This issue is extensive and BHG has been insulting, however, originally these insults were founded and left underacknowledged, in this case, editors such as NorthAmerica1000, were taking on portals they couldn't understand and projects they couldn't seem to manage. It is easy when ignored in a dispute to continue to advertise your ignored inputs if you consider them particularly relevant without reposting the full content, of what is a case, each time you mention it. It has went further than acceptable yes, and this series is extended over a period yes, but it is otherwise confined to a narrow niche, i.e. portals. BHG may be exhibiting obsessive input around the portals, but she has also fallen into a situation where she is the loudest voice in a complaint which seems to have produced minimal returns. BHG and NorthAmerica1000 in particular are tireless and recognisable contributors to the site. It has taken a long time to get to the ArbCom stage, but I wish to call for you to defuse it rather than go straight to the cells. It seems like you can do that easily, but at the side of that situation, there are mounting calls to go straight to the whip here with little defence for BHG, even from herself. I see that as unfair. BHG is a tireless contributor. Any respects you've had for her in the past have been well founded. This series of events is confined to the portals. So it is fair to claim an appropriate response is to first try to focus on the portals and related parties. I do not even consider myself on BHGs side as regards such a wide dismissal of portals as she is reaching for, however, to punish her while her peers are unsure or afraid to defend her will set a precedent for these relatively quiet voices. We need criticism of portals. BHG has been incivil and persistent variously, but that is a minor part of the input. She has been the most rigorous against the portals, and while that should have an extent, it should not be completely rebuked. There were valid concerns about the automated portals not making very much sense. The idea of disfavouring them completely does not appeal to me, but it is meritable as an opinion, and they did require a rigorous review at the start of (what is a rehash of an ancient debate really, nobody seems to be picking that up on either side, this debate has came and went since portals original conception, I've read through much of it last year in the course of a related mission). Let's put an extent on any obsessive behaviour, but let's be careful to protect dissent and contrary opinions. I do not subscribe to the idea that BHGs insults have actually damaged the site as they have not devolved into debasive language or aggression, but to be fair, insulting complaints must be based on the attempt to found them only, and insults aimed at groups are an underacknowledged behaviour across many forms of social interaction. Arbs are going to want to restrict things here, but they don't need to desysop anything as serious unless time proves that they are not in control here. If you are not in control once you take charge, well that's hammer time, but please don't roll over immediately for the crowd here, until it is necessary, ~ R.T.G 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl: portal topic restrictions

2) User:BrownHairedGirl is restricted to 1 edit per 120 hours to pages related to portals, broadly construed; edits falling under the usual exceptions(WP:BANEX) and answers to questions about these edits that are directly addressed to her should not be counted. Attempts to game the restriction by answering or asking overly broad questions are not acceptable, from anyone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

this does seem unnecessarily complicated with no benefit over a (much simpler) topic ban Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't believe I have ever seen a restriction that limits an editor to one edit every five days. I'm not going to ba an active arb on this case, but I have to wonder, if you believe a restriction of this magnitude is needed, why not just go for a full topic ban, as the effect would be nearly the same? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It allows others to check their contributions if they choose to use that edit, making it easier to establish if the restrictions should be eased upon appeal. Or if they don't get another chance and fully topic banned.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but... five days between edits? I'm afraid I just don't see the point. 24 hours is usually considered plenty of time for a third party to review one single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five days seems a bit over the top, possible even pointy. It may also have the counterproductive effect of eliciting massive walls of text instead of reasoned rational argument. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Southwood makes a good point. This could only work in combination with a word limit, but even that could prove problematic - say BHG makes a point that is misunderstood, that misunderstanding cannot be corrected for 5 days (at which point the discussion as likely moved on a long way) and even then BHG would have to use some of her word limit correcting the misunderstanding rather than moving the discussion along. If it is necessary to restrict someone to that extent then there doesn't seem much (if any) benefit to the project over a simple topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also it could be gamed to bait BHG. That would not be a good result. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl topic banned: portal deletion discussions

3) User:BrownHairedGirl is topic banned from pages and sections related to deletion discussions of portals, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal should welcomed by those who object to critical analysis of portals which reveals the flaws which a dozen others had missed, e.g.[1]; or those who dislike detailed scrutiny[2]; or those such as Hecato who object to well-researched MFD nominations[3]; or those who object to identifying breaches of NPOV[4]. If the aim is something other than to suppress such analysis, then it's a less good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BrownHairedGirl warned

4) User:BrownHairedGirl is warned that more incivility will lead to a site ban rather quickly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If no stronger sanction passes, then BHG definitely needs an enforceable final warning for civility. I don't think this is the best way to phrase that though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that BHG understands why she is considered uncivil. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Bagumba

Proposed principles

No personal attacks

1) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are never acceptable. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g., the other editor's talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, etc).—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:No personal attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? defines personal attack much more narrowly than some editors believe. For example, the policy says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

This part of the policy has been repeatedly ignored by those who have objected to my noting the misconduct of NA1K. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I find it plausible that some Wikipedians do not realise that they are making personal attacks when they do so. This may be partially an external cultural problem, and partly a Wikipedia cultural problem. I do not have any silver bullets, but this kind of behaviour often appears to correlate with the conviction that one is right and the other is wrong, and to make a statement that is true is not a personal attack. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this case is dealing with one-off PAs or an occasional heat-of-the-moment lapse. There has been a persistent battleground, despite pleas, warnings, and noticeboard discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That`s an accurate summary of our policies about personal attacks.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not required

2) Wikipedia is a work in progress, and perfection is not required. Through collaborative work, a page that is incomplete, poorly organized, or not regularly updated can evolve into a high-quality page. If editing can improve a portal, that should be done instead of wholesale deletion of the portal. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It would be more appropriate to flip this to make it more align with how it voliated existing policies - something like, "there was no consensus to delete portals wholesale, hence there was no place to delete them outside of the usual processes that decide deletion." or somesuch. It also needs specific examples as to where it occurred. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:, anyone can nominate anything for deletion, so nominating in and of itself is not out-of-process, though I suspect supplying grossly false reasons could be construed as problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tho nominating by itself is not out of process, nominating abusively, or in such a manner that proper consideration can not be given , or in such a way as to bypass discussion, is an improper use of process.

Comment by parties:

This appears to refer to Bagumba's evidence at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Deadlines_and_compulsory_work, which sadly is replete with falsehoods:

Bagumba writes WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing. However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable.
Bagumba claims that the portal was fixed. BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals[192] I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect. Bagumba fails to note the distinction between a one-off correction and ongoing maintenance. which I set out clearly in the MFD. Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading; it presents a skewed view of the discussion. Note for example my reply[5] in which i noted the lack of interest from WikiProjects.
Bagumba invokes WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, but chooses to omit the subsequent discussion ([6], several posts by each os us) in which I note that no individual is being asked or required to commit to anything more than they want to.

The sustained misrepresentation of policy, guidelines and previous discussions which Bagumba has indulged in both at MFD and here is timewasting, disruptive and highly uncollegial. I make no assumptions about the reasons for this msirepresetation, but IF it was done intentionally, it would be a form of GAMEing the system, by forcing other editors to choose between lengthy exchanges (for which they can then be accused of bludgeoning), or leaving the falsehoods unchallenged.

Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal. If Bagumba actually believed that there was such a trend, they should have sought and presented actual evidence rather thanking arbcom to endorse an untested "suspicion". The reality is that I personally made about 500 MFD nominations, of which the ~400 which dealt with non-autoated portals set out in structured form evidence of problems such as indiscriminate article selection, long-term neglect, narrow scope, low readership, lack maintainers, lack of of interest from related WikiProjects. Many other editors (e.g. Newshunter12) made similarly thorough nominations, but here's a sample of mine:

Yes, this post is loooong. But the reason is simple: it's very easy to do what Bagumba did, and assert a sweeping suspicion ... but it takes a lot more words to demonstrate that it is a falsehood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The community did not get to a consensus on this; Arbcom is neither supposed to nor empowered to make content decisions.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: One example was presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Deadlines_and_compulsory_work about the NBA portal nominated because it was "neglected" and a few fixable (and later fixed) errors that were found.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Understood about good faith nominations. But I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal.—Bagumba (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: "IMPERFECT" was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#BrownHairedGirl_bludgeons_and_discourages_debate_with_ad_hominem_attacks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There`s a difference between articles not needing perfection and keeping portals that are unlikely to have any value over navigation templates. Which small portals don`t.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERFECTION is a general editing policy; it's not limited to articles.—Bagumba (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It only mentions articles there, though. And if a portal indeed needs constant attention to function properly, but it didn`t get over a significant period of time then that`s a problem that cannot be fixed by simply fixing the portal once when it gets nominated - the attention needs to be sustained.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is inviting ArbCom to make are finding that portals are subject to the same deletion criteria as articles. That is a policy matter for the community to decide, and any analysis of existing policy should note that several non-article namespaces have their own deletion forums with varying deletion criteria: e.g. TFD, CFD, and RFD apply different criteria to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I encourage a statement to be made whether there is a spirit to be followed here or whether letter of the law says "perfection" only applies to articles. This is especially important given that there is no portal guideline currently.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content

3) During content disputes, the focus should be on content and not editor conduct. Assume good faith. Bringing up conduct during content discussions can be antagonizing and unproductive. Seek appropriate dispute resolution on the content issue if the discussion becomes unavoidably uncivil. Conduct disputes should be dealt with directly with the other party on their talk page in a civil manner. If the conduct issue still cannot be resolved, seek an uninvolved administrator or an appropriate noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Be concise

4) Long posts risk being misunderstood, if not ignored. They can hinder communication. Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized. Discussions should use basic English, inasmuch as possbile. To be inclusive to all Wikipedians, specific terms or ideas that may not be familiar to all should have links to relevant policies, guidelines, past discussions or essays.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am not disagreeing with any of the above, but I do not see the relevance of Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited in this context. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Articles are the raison d'etre for Wikipedia, presenting human knowledge to readers in the form of the encyclopedia. All other namespaces in Wikipedia are incidental to article space, which presents human knowledge to the readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support this. Wikipedia's encyclopedic content is in articles; all other namepsaces are either internal (e.g. User, WP) or are tools to navigate and/or showcase articles (e.g. categories, navboxes, portals). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Herein lies a core problem with portals: They are not in article space. The rules of portal space are poorly defined and personal interpretations appear to differ. If all the rules of article space were to apply, there would be no substantive reason to have a separate portal space, so one must assume that there are differences, but other than being virtually invisible, it is not clear what they are or should be. I think that assumptions about what is or should be permissible in portal space is at the root of some of the disputes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you are coming from, but it is overly simplified and so more wrong than right. Articles are the main way Wikipedia presents human knowledge to readers, but they are not the only way we do so (e.g. images, reader-facing templates, etc). The other namespaces are not "incidental" to articles but are all there to support and enable the project to present human knowledge on a continuum from directly (e.g. categories of articles, MediaWiki pages that define reader-facing interface elements, etc) to very indirectly (e.g. humour pages that facilitate community health, ACE RFCs, etc). Portals are at least partly reader-facing, but their exact position on the continuum is not fully defined and surprisingly controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need navigational aids and quality assessment. Encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas, whether overtly or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I have never seen any evidence that encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas. Categories, navboxes, exist are all defined on their functional merits rather than as some sort of boost to "positivity". That appears to be a personal view of yours, and it's pity that you present a personal view as some sort of undocumeted community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such as, just f'rinstance, this forum, the wikiprojects, DYK & ITN projects &c&c&c. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of broader arenas, such as namespaces, but i see you had a much narrower focus.

Most of those venues which you are not reader-facing pages (WikiProjects, Arbcom, etc are internal). DYK & ITN are reader-facing, but have very specific and clearly-stated purposes, with high readership. I see no way in which the low-view portals encourage editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Demonising the opposition by bundling them under a disparaging category to which they do not subscribe is a personal attack and should be recognised as such. ("Portalistas", "Planet Portal", etc. come to mind immediately in this context, there are others.) Labeling someone as a liar, dishonest or a fool without producing multiple incidences of clearly supporting evidence assumes bad faith. An occasional error is simply human. Memory is not perfect. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that multiple parties to this dispute have been guilty of. What counts as "disparaging" towards an editor varies depending on context and the views they hold. For example, describing someone as a "fan of portals" in an otherwise neutrally worded comment is generally going to be uncontroversial (assuming the editor in question does generally like portals), however doing so in the context of discussing their !vote to keep a portal that has been nominated for deletion could be (and on occasion has been) seen as disparaging. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thryduulf that context matters, but the issue of judging and categorising a person as part of a group based on one or two comments can easily be wrong, even if not obviously derogatory. If one defends or supports one aspect of a thing it does not imply that one supports or approves all aspects. Questioning the validity of evidence for or against something does not imply that one supports or opposes the thing that the evidence is purported to support or oppose. When applying the duck test one should check that more than one of the characteristics of a duck apply, and that there is no contradictory evidence. I give as an example the hunter using a duck call in the vicinity of a decoy floating in a lake. Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck. The shotgun is a fair indication that it is not a duck.
A similar problem occurs when using limited evidence to generalise to an assumption about someone else's motives, then stating the conclusion as fact. Repetition of a claim does not make it any more true, regardless of the Bellman's claims in The Hunting of the Snark. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle either good-faith content disputes or policy disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle ~~either good-faith~~ content disputes or policy disputes ~~among editors~~. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe is correct. However arbitration committee decisions can sometimes have the effect of settling disputes if all that stands in the way of the community doing this is the behaviour of one or a small number of editors. For example if user:Example is removed from a topic area for disruptive behaviour, then it might be that everyone else quickly agrees that content X should (not) be in the article/the correct interpretation of policy Y is Z, and there is no longer a dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavioral standards

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This behavioural standard is frequently breached. Often with apparent impunity. The standard is not enforced evenhandedly, and when a person in a position of trust breaks these rules it is a bad example for other members of the community. Some allowance should be made for circumstances. Reaction to persistent baiting is not easily suppressed, and sometimes we snap, but there are limits. I see that baiting is not mentioned at gaming the system. Perhaps it should be. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about baiting. I've long held that baiting someone to break a policy/breach a restriction/etc should result in the same outcome for the person baiting as would be applied to the baitee had they done that thing without being baited. (e.g. if User:Example is subject to a 1RR restriction that would be enforced by a 24 hour block for violations, and user:BadUser baited them to revert multiple times then User:BadUser should be themselves blocked for 24 hours). Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem comes when trying to discover the motive for apparent baiting. I think that sometimes people are not aware that they are baiting. Which is more important, the intention or the consequence? Clearly the consequence is evident, but the intention is not easily proven. As is often the case, it is much simpler to disregard the intentions and act on the available evidence. When using this strategy it is advisable to keep in mind that one will occasionally be wrong. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of consensus

Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is part of what makes portal deletion discussions so contentious. In the absence of any guideline governing the use of portals, global consensus is difficult to gauge and everything is left to local consensus. This leads to the same arguments being repeated over and over again. – bradv🍁 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Generally agree, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to this dispute, which is largely caused by there being a broad global consensus that portals should exist but no consensus (global or local) on pretty much anything more specific than that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another form of words that one "side" in this dispute takes one way and the other another. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

In order to maintain the highest quality of content in the encyclopedia, it is necessary to have processes for the deletion of pages from the encyclopedia. Decisions about the deletion of pages must be made deliberately and with collaboration, and with mutual respect for other editors who may have different philosophies about the maintenance and deletion of pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility and Truth

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The allegations, "an editor is lying" and "an editor is stupid" are not on par with each other. The first is a serious allegation that demands investigation. The second is a simple ad hominem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by User:SmokeyJoe is true but irrelevant. Both statements are uncivil. The claim that an editor is stupid is, as SJ says, a simple ad hominem, and a breach of civility. The claim that an editor is lying should be avoided even if the editor is making untrue statements, because the allegation of lying involves an assertion of the knowledge that the statements are untrue. Certain allegations should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation "an editor is lying" should be called out, with evidence. If it continues, resolution is demanded. BHG accused NA1K of lying. If true, that is not incivil, but necessary. I think ArbCom should investigate the allegation for truth. Either the lying is unbecoming of an administrator, or false accusations of lying is unbecoming of an administrator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If truth is not at least a partial defence for making such allegations, then discussion become biased in favour of those who lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom should almost always include an appropriate civility clause in its decisions. Cases that are accepted by ArbCom almost always have at least one of two characteristics. Either they are combined content-conduct disputes, in which disagreements over content cannot be resolved in a collaborative fashion because of the conduct of some editors; or they are issues about the conduct of administrators. Incivility is always a factor, usually the key factor, in content-conduct disputes, because the conduct issue always includes incivility. Incivility is usually a factor in issues about administrative conduct, either because the administrator is said to have been uncivil, or because the administrator has been required as an administrator to deal with incivility by editors Almost every ArbCom decision should include an appropriately worded civility principle. This case is a content dispute that has been complicated by conduct issues including incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use Common Sense

In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, Use Common Sense is a governing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe "Use Common Sense" is actually policy. – bradv🍁 22:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help with resolving this case, mainly due to the subjective nature of common sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Bradv: it isn't. The page it's on is tagged as an "explanatory supplement" to the WP:IAR policy page. "Explanatory supplement" links to Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages which begins "Informative and instructional pages are [...] not policies or guidelines themselves..." and continues "...like essay pages, [they] have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community.". Given that two, good faith, highly competent editors may have completely opposite understandings of what is the "common sense" outcome in a given situation, I would oppose making this a policy. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way "common sense" has been used as a bludgeoning tool in portal MfDs this feels an unfortunate wording. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Portals (proposed by Robert McClenon)

Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that are intended to facilitate access to the articles that are the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. The creation, maintenance, and deletion of portals have been contentious and have resulted in conflict among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals happened without a plan. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus about whether this is all, part or none of the intent of portals. See also my comments elsewhere about how describing articles as "the raison d'etre of Wikipedia" is overly simplistic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portals do showcase content to readers but they also encourage editing and collaboration between editors, and encourage readers to convert to editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many many assertions along the lines of EA's claim that portals encourage readers to convert to editors ... but my many requests for evidence of this have produced zero evidence. So I conclude that this is just wishful thinking asserted as if it was fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have occasional experience with IPs or relatively inexperienced users contributing news, images or links to new articles to the portals I maintain (eg [7]), and an unquantifiable number of people might join WikiProjects having first seen the invitation in a portal, or respond to the list of red-linked articles or requested images by supplying them. (If the main page counts as a portal, which it functionally is, then there's a clear reader-to-editor conversion, particularly for In the news.) But my "claim" was intended to go along with "are intended to..." in Robert McClenon's principle, rather than to assert that this happens in practice. An aside, BrownHairedGirl, could you possibly refer to me by my full user name here, to facilitate use of the find function? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, I disagree that it's unquantifiable. All but a handful of portals have absymally low pageviews: in 2019, only 60 of the current 494 portals exceeded 100 views per day, and the median was 26 / day. So while we don't know the lower bound, we do know that the upper bound is tiny.

The example which you cite was actually the 479th edit by an editor who first contributed in January 2017. Their editing rate has been lower since the edit you linked than it was before, so if the portal edit had any effect it was to discourage editing. (No, I don't think it had any effect, but since EA is positing a causal effect ...)

As to WikiProjects, this again is just more unevidenced wishful thinking. The same low portal readership applies, and most WikiProjects are gathering tumbleweed. So the numbers aren't there at either end of the chain.

I have always found EA to be civil and honest, but I find it very depressing that almost a year after these dramas began, we still have this sort of highly implausible assertion being raised even at ArbCom. The numbers show that it clearly isn't happening, and if EA was noting it as a goal of portals, then it's a failed target. One of the most exasperating aspects of portals MFDs has been the repetition of notions such as this which need to be rebutted again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Guidelines

The community has never enacted guidelines concerning portals. Proposed guidelines concerning portals have failed to gain consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Guidlines do not necessarily have to be written. What we consistently practice can become in effect a guideline. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is correct and important. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the truth is more nuanced than what is stated here. First, I do not think guidelines need to be "enacted"; if so, how is that done exactly, and can we point to that process having occurred for every (or even most) guidelines on Wikipedia? Second, we need to recognize that WP:POG was tagged as a guideline in 2006, remained so tagged for over thirteen years, was stable for most of that time, was cited in multiple deletion discussions and the establishment of 2 WP:CSD criteria specific to portals, was the basis of an extensive featured content process, unilateral changes to it were reverted as requiring consensus, etc., etc. Which means it looks to me an awful lot like it was a guideline during that time. That there is now no consensus on a guideline for portals is of course correct, but I am pretty sure that does not create a license for uncivil behavior. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#No_portal_guidelines. There were pages marked as guidelines, whether or not we were able to find a drawn-out discussion. I've seen this quite a bit with guidelines from the early days. Who's to say they didn't just made sense back then and became de facto guidelines, even if they didn't have enough discussion by today's standards? And that it wasn't until recently that consensus changed on portals?—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly simplistic, and represents only one side of a many-year debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very important. The community has allowed portalspace to exist without achieving a clear consensus on any of the key questions such as:

what is a portal for? (navigation? showcasing? representative sampling? magazine-making to entertain the editors who like making portals)
why does WP have portals when web portals failed years ago?
What should portals contain or not contain?
what topics should have portals?
By what criteria should articles be selected for inclusion in a portal?

Similarly, the portals project was happy for years with a document labelled as a guideline, and made no attempt to deprecate it until other editors upheld it as grounds to delete abandoned junk portals. That failure by the portals project to build a community consensus for the purpose and nature of portals was one of the key factors in this mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say consensus changed. We can analyze what happened too, but "happy for years" and "mess" sounds like an unnecessary tone of blame. We try, we learn, we improve.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BrownHairedGirl: Additional questions might be: should all portals have the same function?; is there a role for portals in motivating/providing a framework for existing editors? I'd also question the characterisation of the portals project as a unified voice; this is certainly not the case. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, sure I just gave example, and many more questions can be asked (tho please please please, not the motivating chestnut again; see my comment above[8]).

I didn't try to depict the portals project as a unified voice. I know there have been various views on some issues, but it was dominated in 2018 by supporters of the automated portalspam, and dominated in in 2019 by angry opponents of deleting even abandoned junk portals. My point however, was that the project never set about building a community consensus on any of these questions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: if consistent practice can make a guideline, then I hope we can agree that the consistent practice developed in 2018 of deletion automated spam portals, narrow-topic portals, and abandoned or poor-quality portals is the basis of a guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Debates

Deletion debates, concerning articles, portals, and other types of pages have too often been disrupted by inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, battleground editing, gaming the system, and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you please provide a number of examples to support this FOF? Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this pretty much common knowledge about deletion debates in general--or indeed about all debates in WP; about deletion debates in this area, abundant examples havebeen presented in th complaint and hte evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, this or something like it needs to be included. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of Portals

In the second half of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, The Transhumanist and other editors created thousands of low-quality portals, in accordance with Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia policy was silent on the subject, but without discussion with the larger Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That is an unfair statement. His creation of automated portals that transcluded article lede contents instead of content-forking content was discussed and encouraged at WT:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 6#Portals are moribund. A reasonable number of Wikipedians contributed to the discussion. The Transhumanist is not a party in this case and he should not be subjected to this disparagement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a neutral statement. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an accurate statement. Following the WP:ENDPORTALS decision to not delete the whole portal namespace, a discussion on a project page let some editors to interpret this as a mandate to create ~4,200 automated portals. That discussion was neither formulated as an RFC nor notified at WP:CENT, so it was at best a WP:LOCALCON in respect of an issue which was the subject of wide community controversy. At worst it was end-run around consensus-formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist was attempting to respond to critique in the original RfC by experimenting with new techniques to create/improve portals. I don't agree with their solutions, but I don't think there was an intention to make "thousands of low-quality portals". I see it as an experiment that got out of hand. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, the facts seem to contradict your belief. TTH didn't create those thousands of portals by accident; the goal of speed was repeatedly stressed in their newletter, e.g. "We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).".

The low quality of those portals was agreed by overwhelming consensus at the mass deletion MFDs (one, and two). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Portals

In 2019, some editors have identified large numbers of portals that they have proposed for deletion. These portals included but were not limited to those created by The Transhumanist and others. These deletion discussions have been contentious and have resulted in personal attacks and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transhumanist not listed as an involved party, so doesn't need specific mention.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Between Editors

The conflict between certain editors over the retention or deletion of portals has been unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 have personalized the conflict over the deletion of portals to an extent that has been harmful to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs separation, and supporting evidence for both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainlyagree that this needs to be presented separately. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disagree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have been criticised but for different reasons. It may be better to assess their behaviour in two separate findings. Certes (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, User:Certes is correct that the conduct issues on trial about the two editors are different. I intend to propose findings about both of them. On the other hand, the purpose of this finding is to propose an interaction ban between them. Reasonable editors may disagree with that proposal, but it has to do with the interaction between the two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but I think it better to have separate findings about each of them (per Certes). There doesn't have to be an exact 1:1 relationship between findings of fact and remedies - one remedy can relate to multiple findings, so it isn't necessary to combine them to enable a mutual interaction ban (it would also hinder the imposition of a one-way i-ban if anyone was considering that). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 and Portals

Northamerica1000 has resorted to gaming the system and tendentious editing in order to retain portals, and has sacrificed quality of portals in order to maintain their quantity. Northamerica1000 has personalized disputes with BrownHairedGirl and other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs a more specific claim/finding and needs supporting evidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The definition, from Wikipedia:Gaming the system: "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support." I have not seen a diff in the evidence showing that any of Northamerica1000's edits met this definition: which specific policy was that editor using in bad faith? I also don't see the edits meeting the definition of tendentious editing, or that quality was sacrificed to maintain quantity. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl has resorted to incivility amounting to personal attacks on other editors in deletion debates concerning portals, alleging that the other editors are lying, and insulting their intelligence or reading comprehension. BrownHairedGirl has personalized conflicts over portals with Northamerica1000 and other editors.

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.

Discretionary Sanctions for Deletion Discussions

ArbCom discretionary sanctions shall be available for all deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How would DS help with portal deletion discussions? – bradv🍁 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not apply DS on all deletion discussions without it having been clearly demonstrated that the entire deletion discussion area requires the intervention of the Arbitration Committee. This case would not be sufficient as it is well beyond the scope and much greater input from the wider community would be needed in order for us to even remotely consider taking such a dramatic action. Mkdw ^talk 19:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like bradv, I have yet to see any evidence that DS would be helpful in all deletion discussions. Regards So Why 20:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I as well do not see the point of this for a deletion discussions in general. Notonly would it be a great change incurrent practice, but I think it would not be the least helpful, and would make disputes more complicate and moredifficult to resolve. . We may possibly need some rethinking of how deletion discussions are conducted, but that would be for the community, DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposal is intentionally not limited to portal deletion discussions. A few editors have been disruptive in Articles for Deletion, and this proposal is intended to avoid the need to involve the community in sanctioning them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. There is a widespread problem with discussions of portals (not just deletion discussions) and the problem in other deletion discussions of other pages is related to specific users. The evidence presented is also vastly insufficient to justify such a massively broad imposition of discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction Ban

A two-way interaction ban is imposed between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Northamerica1000 Topic-Banned

Northamerica1000 is topic-banned from all edits in portal space and all deletion discussions involving portals. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arguably justified, but only in combination with a similar restriction on BHG. The evidence does not support NA1K as being the sole disruptive party. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist Topic-Banned

The Transhumanist is topic-banned from all edits in portal space. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This remedy is inappropriate on multiple grounds. The Transhumanist is not even a named party to this case. Furthermore, TTH received a community sanction in March 2019 in the form of a three-month topic ban (see also [9]) from creating portals, and despite the expiry of the sanction, has not since edited portal space. These points are missing in your evidence submission, which I believe you are using to justify this remedy; other currently present evidence submissions only mention TTH as part of a general background to the dispute. Effectively, the proposal amounts to sanctioning a user a second time for generally the same behaviour, which has not been an issue since original sanction. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The way this is supposed to work is that the proposed remedies are justified by the evidence presented. Unless you can provide evidence that TT is part of the ongoing behavioral issues in this subject area there is no reason to consider this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. their actions may have been part of the chain of events that led to this, but what they did is not part of the present dispute. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An inappropriate suggestion. Although The Transhumanist is significant in the history of portals, I do not believe he was ever a party to the long running incivility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Bradv

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals (principle proposed by Bradv)

2) Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.

2.1) Portals are designed to complement main topics in Wikipedia and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals can also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Copied from Wikipedia:Contents/Portals/Intro. I'm looking for feedback here on whether this is a useful principle as worded. – bradv🍁 22:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per comments below. – bradv🍁 15:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No, Portals DO NOT complement main topics, not in general. Maybe some good ones, but in general portals detract from main topics. They split content, split navigation roles, draw editing resources away from things that matter. They are detached from core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. Many nation portals became brochure-style promotion. Portal:Donald Trump inadvertently became an exposé of Wikipedian criticism of Donald Trump, due to the decoupling of portals content from content policy. ArbCom should not add the voice of ArbCom to backwater wishful thoughts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That comment needs a [partisan source] or similar tag attached to it. User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace is the best place to look for recent (but not finalised) balanced discussion of portals, where one can see that SmokeyJoe's view represents just one point near the end a spectrum of opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace is an excellent workpage that I watch, and I hope User:Scottywong continues to nurture it. My view as stated, I think we can agree, is on the spectrum of opinions. The point is that consensus on portals is still in development, and the role of portals is in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, would this be more accurate if we added the words "Portals are designed to complement main topics..."? I don't mean to imply that portals aren't flawed, but some sort of neutral description is useful here. – bradv🍁 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd think are designed to or are intended to would be helpful; more accurate and covers the bases as it's clear from this case that Portals are aspirational. Likewise, I think removing the comma before and expound would be good, as would saying Portals may also assist.... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bradv: the sentence from Wikipedia:Contents/Portals/Intro is of course aspirational, and would be improved if its aspirations were explicitly stated. I also find useful the similarly aspirational sentence from Wikipedia:Portals: "Portals serve as enhanced "Main Pages" for specific [very] broad subjects." (my addition in brackets) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with any contentious statement of fact, try putting it in the active tense. Who designed portals to complement main topics? I suggested that portals should be considered as a failed experiment. However, there was no experimental plan. There was no scoping statement. No record of initial assumptions and premises. BHG gave a better explanation: portals were an imitation of web rings, navigation tools that were common before the advent of good search engines (which predate Wikipedia). The conception, purpose, etc, of portals is disputed, and the arbs should not slip in any such implied facts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that is how it's billed to readers. The statement is directly accessible on the Main Page via the "All portals" link, and is available on any page via "Contents" and "About Wikipedia". As with all of Wikipedia, it's another matter of what state any individual page is in, whther it's a portal or not.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that there appears to be no definition of a portal's purpose that pleases everyone. It's not clear why all portals have to serve precisely the same goal, either. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this strays too close to trying to resolve a content dispute. There have been a number of discussions about the purpose of portals which have been contentious, and while well intentioned, this principle will likely be seen as trying to legislate from the bench by someone. — Wug·a·po·des 02:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion of portals, but no clear community consensus on what portals are for, how they should try to do it. (My own views is that WikiPortals have always been a solution in search of a problem; they are failed attempt to imitate the resource-intensive web portals which failed in the 1990s despite the huge resources allocated to them). Without a stable community consensus, this well-intended proposal looks like policy-making by Arbcom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be a mere statement of fact that this is what is readily accessible by readers at Wikipedia:Contents/Portals.—Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A statement of what is written at Wikipedia:Contents/Portals should be qualified by the lack of evidence for a consensus that it reflects either current or practice or desirable practice. It's neither a policy nor a guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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

2) {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:

@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
+::This appears to refer to {{u|Bagumba}}'s evidence at [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Deadlines_and_compulsory_work]], which sadly is replete with falsehoods:
-::
+::# Bagumba writes {{tq|WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing|q=y}}.  However, a portal is not an article, so [[WP:BEFORE]] is clearly inapplicable.
+::#Bagumba claims that the portal was fixed.  {{tq|BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals[192] I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect|q=y}}.  Bagumba fails to note the distinction between a one-off correction and ongoing maintenance. which I set out clearly in the MFD. Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading; it presents a skewed view of the discussion.  Note for example my reply[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Basketball&diff=922581885&oldid=922577818] in which i noted the lack of interest from WikiProjects.
+::#Bagumba invokes [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY]], but chooses to omit the subsequent discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FPortal%3ABasketball&type=revision&diff=922604779&oldid=922577818], several posts by each os us) in which I note that no individual is being asked or required to commit to anything more than they want to.
+::The sustained misrepresentation of policy, guidelines and previous discussions which Bagumba has indulged in both at MFD and here is timewasting, disruptive and highly uncollegial. I make no assumptions about the reasons for this msirepresetation, but IF it was done intentionally, it would be a form of GAMEing the system, by forcing other editors to choose between lengthy exchanges (for which they can then be accused of bludgeoning), or leaving the falsehoods unchallenged.
+::Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: {{tq|I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal|q=y}}. If Bagumba actually believed that there was such  a trend, they should have sought and presented actual evidence rather thanking arbcom to endorse an untested "suspicion".  The reality is that I personally made about 500 MFD nominations, of which the ~400 which dealt with non-autoated portals set out in structured form evidence of problems such as indiscriminate article selection, long-term neglect, narrow scope, low readership, lack  maintainers, lack of of interest from related WikiProjects. Many other editors (e.g. [[User:Newshunter12|Newshunter12]]) made similarly thorough nominations, but here's a sample of mine:
+::# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Bavaria&oldid=925950636 Portal:Bavaria]
+::# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Mathematical_analysis&oldid=915392130 Portal:Mathematical Analysis]
+::# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Weapons_of_mass_destruction&oldid=905409335 Portal:Weapons of mass destruction]
+::# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Computer_graphics&oldid=900347953  Portal:Computer graphics]
+::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Gaelic_games&oldid=898534085  Portal:Gaelic games]
+::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Reggae&oldid=898330803 Portal:Reggae]
+::Yes, this post is loooong.  But the reason is simple: it's very easy to do what Bagumba did, and assert a sweeping suspicion ... but it takes a lot more words to demonstrate that it is a falsehood. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 07:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''