Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
Case Opened on 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, or 2) an Arbitration Clerk.
This case was heard by the Arbitration Committee following user request and investigation by the Committee. Due to the nature of the case and the extent of serious incidents noted in preliminary investigation, and in the interests of minimizing disruption, the Committee has discussed the situation privately.
Evidence considered by the Committee is presented at /Evidence.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
Presented by FT2, for and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, on 27 June 2008.
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Final decision
Principles
Hearing of cases
1) Deliberations in Arbitration cases are often held privately, but the Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public. Arbitrators reserve the right to take evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Appropriate conduct
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Harassment
3) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Perceived harassment
4) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Conduct outside Wikipedia
5) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Intimidation
6) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Personal attacks, incivility, and smear campaigning
7) Personal attacks and repeated incivility are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Especially, bad faith smear campaigns and related allegations are poisonous to the project and to participants. Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and address any concerns arising in an appropriate manner.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Gaming the system
8) Policies and guidelines apply equally to all users; using them in a tactical manner or for the underlying purpose of subverting their intended function, is forbidden.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Intervention in disputes
9) Users intervening in a dispute, whether as a contributor or in an administrative role, should familiarize themselves with the background, and act impartially in line with all policies and guidelines.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Raising good-faith concerns
10) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Compliance with basic policy
11) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Circumstances
12) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Findings of fact
- See Evidence page
Approach to distasteful subjects and personal views
1) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) - and indeed a number of users - are reminded of the Wikipedia principle in this case, that personal beliefs whether "bad" or "good" should be left at the door and not brought on-wiki. This extends especially to matters where editors may be expected to have compelling personal feelings. It is also not merely applicable to stances deemed "negative": - both socially discouraged and socially approved views, whether strong anti-racism, strong advocacy, or strong support to any matter, may also be disruptive if editors forget this is an encyclopedia project and not a further battleground.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground for any side, not just one. In particular, having unpopular views does not give a mandate for established users wishing to indulge in campaigns of personal attacks, incivility, and smearing — much less so when the unpopular views are themselves the established users' own preconceptions more than anything the user may have genuinely said, done, or meant.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Gaming the system
2) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has repeatedly gamed the system, in that we interpret an overriding sense that Orangemarlin has aggressively attacked other users, then when challenged, pleaded self-pity, or engaged in forcibly blocked communication, provocation and counter-attack (which he has at times used as a vehicle for further incivility, accusations of bad faith, smearing, threats to obtain a block, plain dismissal of concerns by uninvolved users and admins, and the like) in the attempt to remain unaffected by communal responses.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Other editors acted similarly at times
3) We note that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) was not the only person to engage in these egregious activities. However in this specific case we look only at the actions of Orangemarlin and (peripherally in passing) those of Odd nature.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Remedies
Orangemarlin admonished
1) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) is admonished not to: assume bad faith, make or endorse accusations without careful checking, make personal attacks or harass users, and not to be uncivil or pre-emptory in response, warning, or dismissing or marginalizing legitimate concerns by other users and administrators.
Orangemarlin is further admonished to avoid engaging in allegations (both explicit and implied, and interpreted broadly) that appear to be aimed at marginalizing or damaging the standing of another user, without first confirming with the mentor if his approach is appropriate. This is his responsibility on any incident he feels such action is needed, and having obtained such advice it is still his responsibility to choose his actions appropriately, regardless.
Finally Orangemarlin is cautioned to pay especial attention to the requirements of collaborative working, and to avoid edit warring.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Odd nature admonished
2) Odd nature (talk · contribs) is admonished to treat all parties appropriately, neutrally, and to a fair high standard, and to undertake reasonable and fair fact finding, in all editorial discussions and disputes.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed
3) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Orangemarlin make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, harrasment (in the sense of harrassment policy), assumptions of bad faith, or contain unfounded or poorly founded negative claims ("slurs") about other editors' presumed or implied personal views or off-wiki activities, Orangemarlin may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Should Orangemarlin wish to criticize on-wiki, the personal views he believes another user holds, or the non-wiki actions he believes another user engages in, he should refer the matter to an Arbcom appointed mentor (to be appointed) who will assess whether the matter has merit and how best to raise it.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Rbj community ban to be reviewed
4) Rbj's 2007 community ban is to be reviewed either by the Arbitration Committee, or the newly formed Appeals Review Panel, and any relevant findings posted publicly for the community. As per the prior note on the Jim62sch Arbitration case, and more recently the racism issue, there may be further actions if these kinds of conduct are engaged in by others.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Enforcement
Enforcement by block
1) Should Orangemarlin violate any restriction in this case, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin#Log of blocks and bans.
Such blocks may be appealed at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, but are not to be reversed without the agreement of an Arbitrator, ex-Arbitrator or Arbitration Committee clerk, that a consensus has formed which appears to reflect a broad communal view, and which supports the proposed decision.
Such agreement should take into account whether there has been sufficient time for consensus to form, and (within reason) opportunity for the blocking administrator to notice the discussion.
- Passed nem.con. at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
Other Arbitrator comments
A number of users have been, or may have been, improperly smeared or accused, over time, from incidents such as those documented above.
As a community, we cannot realistically fix everything from the past, nor would we wish to open floodgates for the cases where accusations were completely valid. The more so in contentious areas where sneaky sock use does occur and users must indeed be vigilant for faux editing. As a Committee and project we are interested in issues going forward, far more than issues looking back.
We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward. Lesser matters may well have to be left as "historic issues", and the best approaches made going forward that are possible. If it is ever genuinely relevant, then it will be at least known the problem exists and we can address it at that time.
Finally, a last word of warning. Orangemarlin is strongly urged to understand that these are non-negotiables, and concomitant with editing as he does in a good way. They are "you just don't do that here" issues. We do not expect to see this user in such a case again, and if we do, are unlikely to be inclined to a view of endless chances.