Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:42, 1 January 2021

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 User:Kolya Butternut

Proposed principles

Battlefield conduct

1) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

3) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Principles 1-3 are copied from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personalising disputes

4) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on content

5) Editors are expected to focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. We comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. When an editor is being uncivil, it is never beneficial to respond in kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted from WP:Dispute resolution#Focus on content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting

5) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equality and respect

6) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration case Chelsea Manning naming dispute. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of new editors

7) Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should therefore assume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner. Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2020 (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.

Flyer22 Frozen restricted

1) Flyer22 Frozen is placed under a site-wide indefinite WP:No personal comments sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize this existed until now, but it's somehow the perfect sanction for this case. Loki (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've literally never heard of this restriction before, and it seems to be very rare (and is odd in how it is in userspace). It would be unworkable and easily prone to WP:GAMING by opponents since they can simply claim that comments about certain edits are personal comments. And she would be unable to report vandals and sockpuppets, something she is very effective at. It's also one-sided to only apply it to her and not WanderingWanda. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crossroads that this would make it impossible for Flyer to report sockpuppets and the wiki would be worse off for it. I don't have an opinion at this time about whether to oppose or support this proposal, but that fact tells me it should be considered with caution. --Equivamp - talk 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer's views on socks are particularly personalized. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it appears that Flyer sees socks as personal opponents. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socks should be everyone's personal opponents. WP:Block evasion and votestacking are very serious. That doesn't mean that suspicion of sockpuppetry is a carte blanche, but sockpuppetry is a very serious and persistent problem on Wikipedia. Reminder, too, that it isn't wrong to ask if someone isn't new. [1] Something to keep in mind is that some of the socks Flyer22 deals with are extremely abusive WP:LTAs who spew misogynistic abuse at her when caught. And they return constantly. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that a continued focus on sock editors will foster a focus on editors in general, rather than content. This should not stop her from reporting harassment, as described in the similar WP:Thicker skin sanction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm completely wrong (possible) LokiTheLiar, it doesn't exist. What Kolya Butternut appears to have based their proposal on and linked to is in fact a user sub page which has even less authority than an essay in Wikipedia space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sanction can be found in the WP:AELOG. The important thing here is just the concept; I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before. Yes. A proposed sanction can be one that is entirely new, one that has been around many years or anything in between. Writing effective sanctions is difficult, and generally the ones that are widely used are those that have been shown to work (often after tweaking based on experience). However that does not mean that something new is not the right thing for any given situation (every sanction was new at some point). If you don't think a proposed sanction is appropriate and/or you think a proposed sanction will not work then explain why you think that with reference to what it actually proposed to do. Where the proposal originated, how long its been around, who wrote it, etc. are almost always going to be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen restricted

2) Flyer22 Frozen is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, personalises disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:47, 31 December 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 User:LokiTheLiar

Proposed principles

Aspersions

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:ASPERSIONS Loki (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

2) It is unacceptable for an editor to threaten or intimidate other users for any reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This might fit better as a clause of the above section, not sure. Loki (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Flyer22 Frozen incivility

1) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly engaged in uncivil behavior against several other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; also evidence for the below findings of fact is also evidence for this since aspersions and threats are also uncivil behavior. Loki (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC) amended Loki (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen threats

2) Flyer22 Frozen has threatened other editors several times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [7] Loki (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen aspersions

3) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly cast aspersions against WanderingWanda and others instead of going to the proper dispute resolution mechanisms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [8], [9], some of the diffs in [10]. Loki (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen canvassing

4) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly tried to canvass editors to disputes by pinging large numbers of uninvolved editors she believes will support her, while declining to ping editors she believes will oppose her.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [11]. Loki (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea to add "pinging" to the canvassing guideline has been discussed and there was not a consensus for it. [12] ArbCom cannot dictate that pinging is canvassing and thus overrule the community. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the opposing arguments in that discussion were, essentially, "pinging can obviously already be canvassing so there's no point to adding this". Many of the remainder were "this change is pointy". Not a single person argued that pinging should never be canvassing, which means that more people argued in that discussion that the canvassing guideline should be entirely deleted (yes someone argued that) than that pinging is not canvassing.

The actual guideline simply uses the word "notifying" and does not specify method except when it, for example, refers to canvassing off-wiki as especially inappropriate. A ping is a type of notification and so, while not all pings are canvassing, pinging can obviously be canvassing. Loki (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Flyer22 Frozen civility restricted

1) Flyer22 Frozen is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from this prior case, which I found through WP:EDR. Loki (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this or the version I proposed. I had not seen your proposal before I also found the restriction at WP:EDR. I removed "casts aspersions" because that is part of personalization, which I think should be the focus. This remedy would be better than the WP:No personal comments restriction because it would also prohibit aggressive grandiose comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Thryduulf

Proposed principles

Bad behaviour is not excused by the bad behaviour of others

1) An editor who has been on the receiving end of bad behaviour from one or more others is still expected to behave in accordance with community standards. Accordingly they may be sanctioned if their own actions have fallen below the expected standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This needs much wordsmithing, but I feel it is important to include something like this. The evidence shows that both WW and Flyer have both been at both ends of the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, perhaps incorporate language from WP:Civility: If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind, and #3 and #6 from WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Aquillion

Proposed principles

POV-fighting and tendentious editing

1) Approaching a topic area with the intent of pushing back against advocacy for a specific point of view is, itself, a form of tendentious editing and is broadly inappropriate. This does not apply to pushing back against patently fringe perspectives or pushing back against all advocacy regardless of point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on WP:POVFIGHTER. The exact wording probably requires workshopping - probably ought to acknowledge the importance of addressing genuine problems and suggest better ways to deal with them, and implementing actual remedies on it may prove difficult. But this is something that needs to be stated clearly, since it is so, so easy for experienced editors to fall into this trap. While I do think most of the people who run afoul of POVFIGHTER are well-meaning and legitimately see themselves as serving an important purpose - and I suspect that much of their zeal comes from having encountered genuine and serious problems in the past - the obvious problem is that this leads to hair-trigger presumptions of bad faith that lead to intractable disputes, as well as vicious cycles and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct that cause topic areas to break down into warring sides each convinced that only they can save the wiki from the POV-pushing of their opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would have a chilling effect and inappropriately equates POV pushing and resisting POV pushing. Resisting POV pushing is good. In many topics, one form of POV pushing is predominant. If a certain article essentially only suffers from right-wing POV pushing, for example, pushing back against that more than other kinds of POV pushing, and "intending" to continue doing so, is not tendentious editing, but the right thing to do. It is indistinguishable from a "mission to protect article content from any edits that are against Wikipedia policy" as WP:POVFIGHTER commends. And POVFIGHTER comes from an explanatory supplement that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally seeking to resist a particular POV is a form of POV-pushing, because once you are committed to defending the wiki from one POV you lose perspective on which edits actually violate policy, fall into a reflexive hair-trigger assumption of bad faith when encountering editors you disagree with, and become entrenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. That this happened here is extremely obvious from the timeline and diffs FeydHuxtable presented - this edit may be debatable in terms of whether it's an improvement overall or the best way to address the expressed concerns, but the policy concerns it cites are valid and it was utterly inappropriate for it to lead to this response. Around the time of that edit Flyer22 plainly identified WanderingWanda as the enemy, dismissed all further engagement as coming from an inappropriate intent (something which was impossible to refute or discuss), and further constructive interaction became impossible. How is it possible to constructively engage in a controversial topic area with that mindset? You say that it would have a chilling effect, but sweeping accusations of advocacy are something that should be made with caution, since we rely on the assumption of good faith to make disputes between starkly divergent perspectives resolvable. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (WW's second attempt to insert the picture) cites no policy concerns whatsoever, and combatting "narrow mindedness" and "heteronormativity" with a WP:UNDUE picture is an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and contrary to the WP:NOTADVOCACY policy. Setting aside the specific wording of Flyer22's reply, the fact is that noting that sort of problem with the edit is perfectly fine, just as citing the WP:NOR or WP:V policies is fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the very first line of WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The argument that an image is biased due to placing undue weight on one aspect of the topic (which, of course, is what is being argued by saying that an image expresses heteronormative bias) is one of the most common arguments made in image selection discussions there is. Likewise, saying "viewers are not so narrow-minded" (in response to an assertion that the image is shocking) is simply a reasonable dispute over the applicability of the relevant policy. Both aspects are entirely reasonable and normal policy-based arguments to make. Whether it is strong enough to persuade people is another story (and of course the counterargument is that the replacement image just has a different bias, which is also a common argument in image selection discussions; that problem is part of the reason they are often difficult to resolve), but it's a reasonable, policy-based argument to present and in no way justifies the level of vitriol it engendered or the sharp discarding of WP:AGF WanderingWanda faced afterwards, let alone the actual sanctions people are calling for based on it here. And, to get back to my main point, the reason it led to such a disproportionate response is because Flyer22 was on a hair-trigger with regards to anyone who held a perspective on the subject that differed from her own due to her conviction that the entire topic area was under assault by POV-pushers who held that view (something she fairly flatly states in the second diff.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't cite a guideline or policy. One can engage in retroactive reinterpretation of what they just must have really meant, but what was plainly there was advocacy reasoning. And the entire topic area is suffused with POV pushing. That's why discretionary sanctions exist. As other editors have said, though, Wikipedia has lots of POV pushing on lots of topics. That's not news to anyone in these topics, and denying it would be naive. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing heteronormative bias as a problem with an image is obviously referencing WP:BIAS, which (while an essay) is grounded in WP:NPOV. Again, "this image is biased" is one of the most common arguments in image discussions - this isn't some obscure or convoluted policy argument that needed detailed point-by-point explanation. I think it's reasonably clear the word "heteronormative" set off some alarms, but that's specifically the problem I'm aiming to address here. And yes, I am aware of what you think about the topic area, though I would point out that the discretionary sanctions exist because of incivility and frequent intractable disputes, to which WP:POVFIGHTERs are also a contributing factor. More generally, though - if you genuinely believe that the topic area as a whole is overwhelmed with POV-pushers who are pushing a particular POV, you ought to ask for a broader ArbCom case to address that. If you don't think that you could prove that broad statement, or if you are not confident in the outcome of a broader case, then you need to stop making WP:ASPERSIONS. Everyone on Wikipedia is concerned, sometimes, that they are dealing with POV-pushers, people with an agenda, people whose arguments are mere sophistry, and so on; sometimes, when stressed, we may even feel set-upon by unfair hordes of people with whom we disagree. Nonetheless, in order to maintain a workable editing environment, we need to generally bite the bullet, WP:AGF, swallow those presumptions unless we have clear evidence of misconduct, and work with people who we disagree with and may not even entirely want to trust. Editors who are unable to do so should not be editing in controversial topic areas. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd replace a specific type of advocacy with advocacy for a specific point of view, and I'd also add or pushing back against all advocacy regardless of point of view at the end. Otherwise I like this proposal. Loki (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. That's roughly what I was getting at, yes. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should patiently be patently? I think I get it in as far as once you identify an editor as a POV pusher it is easy to see all their edits as POV pushing. However I feel this runs the risk of hampering editors trying to keep articles neutral. While Flyers method was probably not the best, resisting POV pushing should be encouraged. It also has the effect of painting editors who resist the POV pushing as being on the "other side" (see SMcCandlish's evidence for this happening in this case). AIRcorn (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:POVFIGHTER is that, once you've determined that there is one problematic POV lurking around and set out to fight that POV, you are the other side. Editors should not be fighting against a POV but against POV editing in general: if you're fighting against a POV that means you are implicitly supporting the opposing POV. This is only not problematic in the case where that opposing POV is unambiguously where all the reliable sources are, i.e. if the POV you're trying to fight is WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I feel Wanda having a POV and Wanda editing to support that POV are the same thing. Don't get me wrong, this is very common and they have generally been amicable (outside of interactions with Flyer22). I do however strongly feel that reverting a POV edit should not be characterised as holding the opposite POV, even subtly. Something along the lines of AGF would be better than this (i.e. just because an editor has made a POV edit in the past doesn't mean all their edits are POV). AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. And yes, it is complex; I'm welcome to proposed rewordings that acknowledge the complexity here. It is natural that users will be more sensitive to POV-pushing they disagree with and will notice it sooner; and when things like off-wiki canvasing can be demonstrated, or when plainly weak or repeatedly-rejected arguments are presented over and over, it is fair to respond appropriately and lower our presumption of good faith for a narrow area and timeframe. But I don't think it is tenable to have editors who edit under the long-term presumption that an entire topic area is under broad, sustained assault from POV-pushers with one particular (non-fringe) perspective - doing so isn't compatible with WP:AGF, will essentially lead to battleground conduct, leads to extremely disruptive vicious cycles, and ultimately means that they are editing to enforce their own POV. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those patient fringe POV pushers are the worst. Saying that I do think defining patently fringe in this case could also be difficult. I feel AGF is the key here. I understand that once things reach a certain point it is hard to do and obviously it is not a suicide pact, but it is probably the only way to edit these topic areas without it turning to custard. Maybe make clear it is with the "sole intent" although that too is easily gamed? AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought on this: Regarding the "intent of pushing back against advocacy for a specific point of view", Flyer22 hasn't done that. She has pushed back against anti-trans-advocacy POV pushing as well. [13] I don't see how this can end up in the final decision since she is not singularly focused on one kind of POV pushing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Crossroads

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, describing the world as it actually is with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs or advocate for any cause whatsoever, as this is incompatible with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy and activism

2) Editing Wikipedia in order to influence wider society is prohibited. Wikipedia cannot be used to try to change social norms. Advocacy and activist editing - the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies - is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral editing

3) All editors must strive to edit in accord with a neutral point of view. Editing with a focus on raising the visibility or credibility of a specific point of view, term, or topic at the expense of a neutral point of view and due weight is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The last three include some wording adapted from that found at WP:RGW and WP:Advocacy. Since the case so heavily revolves around advocacy, the arbs should not let this go uncommented on and so seem to endorse it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

WanderingWanda has harassed Flyer22 Frozen

1) WanderingWanda has engaged in a pattern of harassment toward Flyer22 Frozen. [14] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WanderingWanda has engaged in advocacy

2) WanderingWanda has engaged in POV pushing and editing for the purpose of advocacy. [15] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WanderingWanda interaction banned

1) WanderingWanda is indefinitely one-way interaction-banned from Flyer22 Frozen. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WanderingWanda admonished

2) WanderingWanda is admonished for not respecting the neutral point of view policy in their editing. They are further admonished that future tendentious non-neutral editing may result in a topic ban. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Aircorn

Proposed principles

Casting aspersions

1) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This applies to accusations of being an activist looking to promote a point of view or of being transphobic, homophobic or a TERF. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A modified version of Lokis to more specifically include potential aspersions made by both editors. Based partly on the WP:ARBGMO one. AIRcorn (talk)

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.

Interaction ban

1) Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) and WanderingWanda (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems the most logical solution. Not sure how it will work as WanderingWanda and Flyer intersect a lot in topics of interest. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:MJL

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the GamerGate case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I worked on that case, I'm curious as to why you believe it is relevant here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Essentially, practically everything in dispute within this case is within GamerGate's pre-existing discretionary sanctions. We can definitely say they didn't work here. I sort of hope users start looking at things from that end. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the GamerGate sanctions applied to the Chelsea Manning naming dipute case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Proposals by User:George Ho

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 result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Purpose of Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) The role of the Arbitration Committee is to decide on Proposed Decisions, including the Finding of Facts based on examinations of the evidence (e.g. "diffs") presented in the Evidence Phase and written analyses presented in the Workshop Phase (if made available), and the Remedies based on the Finding of Facts. Characterizing named parties involved in the case, especially based on how evidence is presented, is not part of the Committee's role.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on one of arb's comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence#purpose of evidence. I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Role of the Arbitration Committee, but I'm not copying that one exactly. Well, this principle is still in the works, so I expect one of case drafters to fix up my prose. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (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:Example 3

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

Analysis of one exchange from Feyd Huxtable's timeline

I've discussed this above, but it seems so crucial to the case and the broader dispute in the topic area. that it requires in-depth analysis here. The root of this particular breakdown is vividly obvious in these two diffs:

This edit by WanderingWanda, while it is debatable whether the chosen image was an improvement or was the best way to address the issues she raised, was expressing entirely reasonable policy concerns and was a valid content dispute over which reasonable editors might differ. WanderingWanda is entirely correct that we are supposed to push back against biases; it is entirely reasonable to suggest that we push back against (in some cases) heteronormative bias, and it is entirely appropriate to question an image on those grounds. That doesn't mean that that particular change was necessarily the right way to go about it, or that those arguments were strong enough to actually convince editors for that particular change in that particular context, but it was a reasonable content dispute based on a reasonable disagreement over policy. The argument for why that edit is evidence of a conduct violation seems to amount to "saying that we need to address heteronormative bias on Wikipedia is advocacy", which sets such a broad definition of advocacy that it becomes impossible to engage in discussion on the topic without being accused of it. (Would we likewise accuse someone of advocacy for saying we need to address gender bias? If not, what is the difference? Is there a "correct" way to raise concerns of heteronormative bias, or is simply using the term grounds for sanctions?) And that led to...
This edit, especially the presumption of bad faith in the second half. This is entirely inappropriate. Note in particular the strident "you are just like all the other bad editors who held your point of view that I have fought on this battleground" tone of the final part of that reply - once WanderingWanda became identifiable as holding a point of view on the topic opposed to Flyer22's own, she was an enemy whose every edit was presumed to come from a point of view of advocacy.

These diffs are particularly telling because they are ones people from all perspectives on this dispute have focused on (ie. there is a broad agreement that they are central, especially the attempt to change that image), but there is a stark disagreement over what they show - it is reasonably plain that several editors, not just Flyer22, feel that the attempt to change that image was stark enough misconduct or sufficiently far out of line that it justified Flyer22 discarding the presumption of good faith, and, indeed, it serves as a crucial part of purported evidence among people calling for sanctions against WanderingWanda. Many other editors (including, obviously, myself) feel that Flyer22 essentially crossed the line at that point in her reaction to it. Therefore, if the goal is to address the underlying long-term dispute, it's important to look at them and understand what went wrong there. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analyzing Ozzie10aaaa's evidence

So far, Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) has made 6 claims in the evidence phase of this case. Here is my analysis.

Just one diff

First of all, two of these claims ("WanderingWanda has terribly harassed Flyer22" and "Accusations of WanderingWanda's advocacy are well-supported/Wikipedians are not to engage in it") aren't really Ozzie's own evidence. These are each sections of Crossroads' evidence that Ozzie has lazily linked to instead of providing their own research for. Either way, This diff (provided by Crossroads) comes up a bit later, so I will debunk it now. In it, Wander suggests using this photo to illustrate human male sexuality. It's been referred to as a depiction of gay sex (which I disagree with since they appear to just be hugging as that was the focus of the photo), but we're talking about a potential lead image to use for an article about human male sexuality here. Two men expressing their love for eachother is an obvious potential example of human male sexuality. Do you need to agree with it as the lead image? No, of course not. However, Wander's proposing of that clearly falls closer to common sense rather than advocacy in my opinion.

If the premise that WanderingWanda has engaged in activist editing is based solely on diffs like this, then in my opinion that proposition is without merit.

Proportionality

Original section: "There is more to say about Flyer22 than there is to say about WanderingWanda"

None of this is actually evidence for arbcom to do anything for or against either party. Ozzie seems to just want to dismiss the concerns of editors who have registered their concerns by dredging up previous interactions with Flyer. Even still, this entire section contains no true diffs (apart from a single quote from Beeblebrox which I doubt Beeblebrox would find necessary). It would seem Ozzie10aaaa has misunderstood the purpose of this phase of the case. I therefore can't really adequately respond to this at all.

Anti-POV Fighter

Original section: "Opposing POV-pushing, advocacy, and reporting sockpuppetry is not a "POVFIGHTER" approach. It is the Wikipedia approach."

This is the section that inspired me to write this analysis. In the first half, Ozzie dismisses WP:POVFIGHTER as WP:ONLYSUPPLEMENT and having little support. Anyone who reads the diff can attest to its support. Yes, it is only a supplement, but so is WP:RGW which Ozzie later lauds as critical to how Wikipedia should operate. ~~To add some further irony here, while Flyer sought to remove WP:POVFIGHTER,^[16] Wander tried getting rid of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.^[17]~~

In the second half of the section, there is a bit more to chew on here from Ozzie10aaaa. They bring up similar MOS:LEADIMAGE debates as discussed earlier. In the first diff, we have Wander probably arguing the most absurd point in the history of Wikipedia (this is evidence I find to be helpful in making a case against Wander). On the other hand, we can contrast it with the second diff...

A second diff

I find the behavoir put on display by Flyer in that conversation to be unnecessarily personal. For the most part, Flyer argues a fine point against Wander's proposed change to the lead image to that of one depicting a threesome. She then does a hard turn in discussing WanderingWanda as an editor rather than what they have proposed. Flyer then proceeds to aggressively assert that Wander is completely out of line for their edits and will likely be blocked soon for them.

This is nothing short of intimidation if you ask me. That kind of conduct should never be allowed to occur on an article talk page.

Cantor and the art of wit

Original section: "WanderingWanda mocks those with differing opinions and belittles experts to further own advocacy"

Besides the diffs that can easily summarized as "Wander disagrees with James Cantor" (last I checked, editors are allowed to disagree with other editors even if said editor is famous, notable, and/or an expert), there are a few things still worth responding to here.

In my personal experience, WanderingWanda thinks of themselves as pretty funny (In the Eeng type of mould). In a surprise to no one, Wander actually isn't that funny. However, that does not change the fact that they occasionally bury a good point in some feudal attempt at being witty.^[18] A random website that shows a bunch of people tweeting about they hate X group does not provide any actual evidence the term used to describe said group is an insult. On the other hand, this does show some clear attempts by Wander to stir the pot if you ask me.

Conclusion of analysis

Gosh, that was a lot of writing I just did. I see why these things always turn into walls of text now.

Regardless, I hope Arbcom and other interested parties find what I had to say at least marginally helpful in determining the validity of some of the evidence presented by Ozzie10aaaa. While it is obvious someone else looking at this might come to drastically different conclusions than myself, I do think I did a decent job at being fair despite having my own biases.

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What Flyer22 said about WP:POVFIGHTER has not been represented accurately above, seemingly in service of a narrative of equivalency between her and WanderingWanda. Flyer22 said about the section, [19] "I understand why you added this (the section). And it is an okay addition." Then she relayed what I've noted above - some topic areas essentially only have POV pushing from one side, giving the example of "men's rights" and pro-pedophilia pushers. She didn't try to delete it, while WanderingWanda did say about RGW [20] "The "Righting Great Wrongs" section of this page should be deleted, or drastically rewritten, and its various shortcuts should be deleted too."

Additionally, it's worth noting that RGW has been around much longer and is more widely cited than POVFIGHTER. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Stricken. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 255: / Line 255: @@
 :::::::Unless I'm  completely wrong (possible) {{U|LokiTheLiar|}}, it  ''doesn't'' exist. What {{U|Kolya Butternut}}  appears to  have based their proposal on and linked to is in fact a user sub page which has even less authority than an essay in Wikipedia space. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 ::::::::This sanction can be found in the [[WP:AELOG]]. The important thing here is just the concept; I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
+:::::::::{{tpq|I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before.}} Yes. A proposed sanction can be one that is entirely new, one that has been around many years or anything in between. Writing effective sanctions is difficult, and ''generally'' the ones that are widely used are those that have been shown to work (often after tweaking based on experience). However that does not mean that something new is not the right thing for any given situation (every sanction was new at some point). If you don't think a proposed sanction is appropriate and/or you think a proposed sanction will not work then explain why you think that with reference to what it actually proposed to do. Where the proposal originated, how long its been around, who wrote it, etc. are almost always going to be irrelevant. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::
 ====Flyer22 Frozen restricted====