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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

Purpose of the workshop: 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.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may 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.

Can we have some input on analysis of the evidence please? We have two accounts in evidence, those of Wifione and Vejvančický (links: Vejvančický's evidence, Wifione's evidence) providing incompatible and contradictory interpretations of the same edits. After discussion with my fellow drafters, we therefore invite analysis of the evidence. Such analysis must be done (i) without introducing new material but instead pointing to policy and guidelines and (ii) without editorialising. At this point, best is to take a straight range of diffs, say all those within a given month or two, to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking. Please follow the model adopted here, by PhilKnight for what is expected. Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. As I mentioned on your talk page, I've only just read this. User:Begoon has posted a table analysing Vejvančický's and Wifione's views on individual diffs at User:Begoon/Wifione_evidence_summary. If that's the kind of thing you have in mind, should we paste it into the evidence analysis section (with a couple of blank columns so others can add their views)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer any analysis to closely follow the model by PhilKnight I mention above, which has brief factual comments and little editorialising. Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually need the extra time we've provided? Or shall we just move to the PD? Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need a couple of hours to place my proposals for the committee's consideration. Wifione ^Message 09:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I'll give it a bye. Please go ahead to the PD. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

About analysis

OK. How's that format, Roger? Should I paste the first two columns here, with a few blank columns for analyses? --Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs • email) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: To me, it makes little sense to briefly comment on individual diffs in a way User:PhilKnight did in a different ArbCom case. I would like to emphasize the comparison and broader context in Wifione's edits to the mentioned groups of articles, not separate edits. I've checked all Wifione's edits to those articles, and I've selected only the most striking examples of tendentious and manipulative editing. I'm fully aware that my evidence is subjective. I can speak only for myself so it must be so. I've provided my interpretation to ArbCom and my question to the committee is: Is this kind of behavior acceptable and allowed on this project? If it is, then my place is somewhere else. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vej, it's trees and forests, isn't it? The edits are the trees, the intent is the forest. You look at the forest and you know it's wrong, it shouldn't be there. Now, do you painstakingly measure every tree, agonisingly concluding each one could be just about ok, even if twisted, or out of line, or the wrong height, and then conclude "no, each tree can be justified in a roundabout way, if I squint and AGF till I die each time, so the forest must be ok"? Or do you say "no, hang on, this forest is just damn wrong, and intentionally so. It should not be here.", step back and see the clear reason the whole thing was planted as far more important?

The evidence clearly demonstrates this forest was planted to beautify IIPM, hide the faults of IIPM, and do the reverse to IIPM's competitors. That didn't happen by accident, and no careful analysis of bark thickness or leaf circumference of individual trees will show that it did. Sorry about the bad metaphor, but I find the unnecessary focus on small detail rather than the big, important, obvious picture difficult to stress otherwise. Narrowly justifying individual edits while steering the wider POV is exactly how tendentious editing works, and by allowing oneself to be steered into that mindset, one allows it to succeed.Begoon ^talk 12:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very good metaphor/analysis, actually. I have nothing to add. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken a look, and, frankly, I think it's obvious that the edits are designed to promote one university-- which is inappropriate enough -- but also to denigrate the other, which in my opinion is a particularly virulent form of POV editing. I've checked some of the edits Vejvančický highlighted, and I would have interpreted them the same way. (I'm replying as an ordinary editor; I'm recused from this case at Wifione's request; he is aware that this leaves me free to comment. If you really think it would help, I can repeat it, but in any case I see no point in taking a random sample: the point is finding the particular inappropriate edits.

He is not the only promotional editor in this field, but that's another matter, and it, too, is quite obvious. My personal opinion is that over the years I have found that most university articles -- not just for Indian universities-- are promotional editing by people who are most likely to be undeclared coi editors, generally in the direct employ of the university; to be fair, some are the work of over-enthusiastic alumni--they have a coi also, but at least they're presumably not paid for it.

But if you really think it will help the committee, I'll do an analysis of specific diffs. I don't see how that can be a "factual" analysis -- the only contribution I could make is to say whether in my opinion as an experienced editor here they are apparently fair and supported properly. What help can I possibly be, but to give an opinion? I could, for example say (dealing just with the Chaudhuri article that [1] removes a sourced claim for which other sources can almost certainly be found on the basis that it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources, which it is not, or that [2] adds acclaim to be called a management guru on the basis of a background story at a film festival, which in my opinion is cherry-picking from an inappropriate source for the material. There are in fact better sources for this term, not that it matters overall. Or that the talk p. (section 6) shows a persistent & absolutely erroneous attempt to remove material sourced to the NYT and other international reputable sources on the basis that they are primary and otherwise unreliable, because the reporters are talking about a book unflattering to the subject that the subject managed to get supressed in India. Shall I go on to the university articles? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I don't want to criticise your editorialised initial analysis. But would wish to point out a few details with respect to your analysis of singular diffs not in a range:

1. "[3] removes a sourced claim for which other sources can almost certainly be found on the basis that it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources, which it is not...": A claim of a police case against a living person is an exceptional claim. I don't see how it cannot be. Per our WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, exceptional claims include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream source". A police case claim is a surprising and apparently important claim. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL again, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Per the BLP policy WP:WELLKNOWN, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". Per our verifiability policy, "Please remove contentious material about living people that is...poorly sourced immediately... Do not leave...poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people". As I've mentioned in the edit summary, with multiple reliable sources, the claim can be added. More importantly, per the same verifiability policy, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

2. ""[4] adds acclaim to be called a management guru on the basis of a background story at a film festival, which in my opinion is cherry-picking from an inappropriate source for the material.: The diff you're illustrating already has three sources including the source that you're seeing. Perhaps you missed them. My edit was a revert to ce and add a deleted reference. Further, on the evidence page of this arbcom case, I've given the talk page discussions that led to this term being added. In other words, these changes are after relevant discussions and consensus, and include more than the one source you've mentioned, and include a multiplicity of sources mentioned on the talk page.

3. "talk p. (section 6) shows a persistent & absolutely erroneous attempt to remove material sourced to the NYT and other international reputable sources on the basis that they are primary and otherwise unreliable, because the reporters are talking about a book unflattering to the subject that the subject managed to get supressed in India.": I don't see a diff of this talk page section in the evidence section of this case. Please do point me out if I'm wrong, or do mention if you're adding new evidence. Yet, I'll respond. If you're alluding to my talk page view on usage of the NYT book review as reliable source for the topic of the book, then as I have mentioned through the NOR policy differentiating between primary and secondary sources, "Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book." Irrespective of that, post the talk page discussions that started on 11 Feb 2012 that you illustrate, it was I who on 20 Feb 2012 added the material to the article. I'll continue further when you provide your views on any other particular diffs mentioned in the evidence section. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here--by request--to give an independent opinion of the edits, based on my personal opinion of whether they conform to policy. I'm not here to make an arguement. I'm quite aware you disagree , from what has previous been said. This is my view of where the balance lies for anyone who may think it of help. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies DGG. Didn't want to convey anything otherwise. Roger had requested for an analysis referring to policies and guidelines and without editorialising. As I found your analysis of the diffs erroneous, without reference to any specific policies and guidelines, and more based on your editorialised opinions, and even introducing new material, I thought I'll put in my rebuttal. Like I said, didn't want to make you feel I was arguing. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione, I've noticed that you frequently quote WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think that it is important to note that it was you who helped to shape these policies. I've checked some of your edits to WP:EXCEPTIONAL: You seem to be the "inventor" of the WP:EXCEPTIONAL shortcut (8 February 2012). Here you've added multiple to the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources, with the edit summary "clarify... source's' means multiple"; here you add "Editors should avoid including exceptional claims that are not supported by multiple reliable sources"; here you (again) add multiple to the section (edit summary: "Clarifying plural: Source's'-> multiple"); here you add Any such claim not backed by multiple high-quality sources should be removed immediately (my emphasis). All these edits/additions/modifications are from 13-18 January 2012, and they were not discussed on the talk page, as far as I can see. On 11 January 2012 (days before you started editing WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:EXCEPTIONAL), you've completely removed referenced criticism from the article Arindam Chaudhuri, stating "Please don't use primary sources for exceptional claims". On 28 January 2012, you've removed a complete section (containing rather positive claims) from the article Indian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli, quoting WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This edit summary search shows what preceded your edits to WP:V and, in my opinion, it also clearly shows why did you become interested in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I have to agree with User:The Telephone Company who pointed out to you at Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri in February 2012: "It will also be helpful to note that you find it convenient to edit policy pages when it suits your interests." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vej, if you're adding new evidence, I don't know the procedure for allowing the same here. I'll recommend you take the permission of the Arbcom to introduce new evidence after the Evidence phase has closed. The editor you mention, The Telephone Company, arrived on the BLP page exactly three days before the sock puppet RobertRosen edited the page,[5] and undertook exactly the same edits[6][7] as RobertRosen. Still, to clarify your new evidence this time with respect to changes to policy pages, do remember that editors suggest changes to policy pages only after their experiences in editing have exposed them to areas where such policy pages can be improved. For example, adding multiple to clarify that sources do not mean one source is not a remarkable addition. The policy pages are the most watched pages on our project. It's not possible that a change that is irrelevant and insensible can go through without getting reverted, and stay there for years. I'm the author of many policy additions on the project, so my involvement in Exceptional or Wellknown is also not remarkable. For example:

Although I've replied to you here, I would still recommend adding new evidence only after following the procedure (which I'm not actually aware of). Wifione ^Message 08:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it is fascinating how many of the diffs from the above mentioned edit summary search (your use of the word "except"-ional in edit summaries) is directly related to your editing in the area examined in this ArbCom case. Not to mention that it was your frequent use of WP:EXCEPTIONAL in the evidence page and here what prompted me to do the research. In your response, on the other hand, you bring more and more trees from many different and completely unrelated forests, to continue Begoon's metaphor. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vej, to me, this is another piece of new editorialised material without referring to any policy or guideline. Please take the committee's permission before illustrating newer material. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's funny how different folks see the same thing, isn't it? I, for instance, don't see any real "new evidence" from Vej there, merely a response to the committee's request for analysis. It is interesting if a policy you call on repeatedly in defence is one edited heavily by you, and Vej did well to pinpoint that, after being asked to analyse. Anyway, as Vej points out, the trees you are tangentially dragging into this forest on the strength of that false premise, and the spurious appeals to authority, are deflecting from the real purpose of this case, as is surely the intention, so I'll leave it there. Begoon ^talk 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to PD

Proposed decision

Proposals by User:Begoon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda is prohibited. [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Wifione has edited wikipedia to manipulate IIPM's SEO rankings and visibility, contrary to WP:NPOV

1) This evidence about Wifione's edits to the IIPM disambiguation page and creation of stub articles clearly shows that Wifione's editing has been intended to manipulate the SEO rankings and visibility of IIPM, often to obscure information from internet searches, by ensuring searches would not go directly to the IIPM article. There is no credible, alternative explanation for this editing pattern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The hand waving phrase "clearly shows" should be changed to "suggests". Combine this with the lex parsimoniae principle below, and you've sufficiently proven the point. We can never know with certainty exactly what Wifione was up to. We have to make an informed conclusion based on the probabilities. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This diff, already linked in evidence, goes into greater detail about the purpose and mechanisms of this aspect of the manipulation. Begoon ^talk 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The summary linked by Begoon ([14]) seems highly credible, and it's very difficult to think of an alternate plausible explanation for WifiOne's behavior with regard to the IIPM acronym. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, thanks, but "clearly shows" is fine. No "hand waving". The evidence clearly shows the intent. Begoon ^talk 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione has tendentiously manipulated wikipedia articles, to better portray IIPM, and to denigrate IIPM's competitors

2) As is clearly shown by the evidence in this section, Wifione has deliberately and tendentiously manipulated wikipedia articles, including articles covered by the BLP policy, in order to better portray IIPM, and to denigrate IIPM's competitors, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability.

3) As outlined in this evidence, Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability. Good faith enquiries have been met with long periods of silence, diversionary attempts to discredit the questioner(s), or misleading, inadequate replies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See also this summary table which outlines many specific instances where Wifione's "explanations" during this case are inadequate: Summary table. Begoon ^talk 23:42, 20 January 2015 (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.

Wifione topic banned

1) Having demonstrated an inability to edit neutrally in this area, Wifione is indefinitely topic banned from all edits concerning education in India, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we decide to go for a topic-ban, I think the scope here is dead on target. Courcelles 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Kurtis has a point. The fact that Wifione doesn't seem to show self-awareness about the biased editing, or admit error, or suggest solutions, is an indication that strong external controls are needed, that leniency won't work. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis, I had noted your suggestion earlier itself. If you've noticed, my last edits to the articles in question are dated around two to three years back, which is evidence of my voluntary disengagement from the articles. I differ in the reasoning of disengagement from Jehochman. As per Jehochman, the disengagement is on cause of admission of error. As per me, this is because of my increase in administrative activities. And more importantly, these articles are contentious articles, as I've mentioned in the Background section of the Evidence page. Disengaging from these articles would allow a new wave of editors to take over the article and forge a new middle ground, be as it may. I'm quite aware of this and one reason I've disengaged (not only from these articles but from other articles too) is purely so that this may happen. A cursory look at these articles as of right now shows that there's much work to do, with the articles following more or less the patterns that I've described in the Background section on the Evidence page. I'm completely for encouraging new editors to engage themselves on these articles. I repeat, my past disengagement from these articles is already evidence that I've let go, voluntarily, but not for the reasons Jehochman says. In the future, of course, I may rather engage on the project on areas that allow lesser dissonance than these articles, voluntarily. Wifione ^Message 08:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I was actually hoping that Wifione would consider voluntarily disengaging himself from the articles in which concerns have arose, and that ArbCom could accept it as an assurance that there will be no further issues. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far too narrow. He/she should be banned from editing any articles related to currently existing commercial entities or educational institutions, and more importantly BLPs, inside or outside of India. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione administrator privileges revoked

2) For having edited, over a long period, tendentiously and in a manner inconsistent with the standards expected of an administrator, and for failing to be properly accountable for these actions, Wifione's administrator privileges are revoked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe that this proposal has the implicit, widespread support of virtually everyone watching this case, including most of the people who are opposed to a full site ban. The reason that this remedy has not been commented on by anyone is because a desysop is seen as pretty much a given, and therefore no real discussion of it is needed. That's why my opposition to it (based on the information that is currently available) will likely have little or no effect on the outcome. Wifione is a prolific administrator and has generally done a very decent job at it. His forte does not lie in content creation or copyediting, but in site maintenance. If he were to be desysopped, this would severely hinder his ability to continue doing work in those areas. If it can be conclusively determined that he is a paid advocate of IIPM, and that he's continued to edit in support of their cause, then it would be a totally different ball park. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis, no one will conclusively prove Wifione is being paid, short of a confession or a pay-slip. Per your last point, Peter Damian just pointed me to this November 2013 edit to an IIPM competitor's page. This was just before Peter emailed Wifione with questions for his then soon-to-be-published Wikipediocracy exposé. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was over a year ago, which isn't an especially long time. I don't know — for me, this is a tough one. The case isn't as cut-and-dry to me as it may appear to everyone else. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the "proposed principle", "Administrator conduct". It is often argued that one of the difficulties in appointing new admins, to replace those lost and inactive over time, is the perception that removal of tools is so rare and difficult, even when users with admin tools are shown to have edited poorly, tendentiously and against policy. If Arbcom allows a long-term tendentious editor to retain the tools, it reinforces that concern. Arbcom is the sole mechanism, entrusted by the community to remove tools from unsuitable editors.

I did not include any wording in the proposal about regaining the tools, but in general, Arbcom will rule that tools may be regained, perhaps after a stipulated period has elapsed, through a new RFA. In that case, if the community shares the views you express about Wifione's value as an admin, they could be reappointed in time. This would still be the case even after any site-ban had been served. I don't think, however, in these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the committee to leave the tools in place, effectively removing that decision from the community. Begoon ^talk 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am revisiting my initial opposition to desysopping Wifione. Begoon's sentiments above are valid, and I'll be the first to stand up for more accountability among those who have been entrusted with special permissions. But what really tips me over the scales here is Wifione's unwillingness to truly acknowledge and accept any criticism of his actions. He doesn't seem to fully appreciate the seriousness of the allegations against him. We aren't talking about a few bad blocks or misguided deletions here — this is a question of whether the integrity of the encyclopedia is at risk. If Wifione came out in the beginning and said, "yes, I did try to advocate for IIPM on Wikipedia (paid or otherwise), but I have since come to recognize the problematic nature of those edits and will work to help fix the mess that I've created," then we wouldn't be in this situation right now. Instead, he has gone out of his way to try and discredit his most strident critics, minimizing accusations because they were perpetuated on Wikipediocracy or at ANI, and ascribing battleground mentalities to his accusers.
I find the evidence suggesting that he is the same user as Empengent to be highly compelling, but that alone is not enough to completely erode my trust in him; although it explicitly states otherwise, WP:CLEANSTART does apply to banned users in practice. If someone with a particularly problematic history comes back under a new identity and distances themselves from what got them into trouble in the first place, then what's the issue? We aren't here to mete out justice, we're here to create the proverbial sum of all human knowledge. Wifione has ceased being a tendentious editor a few years back in favour of becoming an active administrator, which is one of the reasons why I didn't want to see him banned from this project. The problem isn't with his past actions, but with his present unwillingness to be accountable for them. It's his ad hominem attacks and evasiveness that raise some serious questions about whether he can continue on as an administrator, or as an editor.
Do I still think he has a lot to offer to this site? Absolutely. I also believe that someone with a perceived conflict of interest can go on to become an asset to Wikipedia, provided they move beyond what made their editing problematic in the first place. Regardless of how things turn out, I hope Wifione realizes what he must do to rectify his current standing within the community. I speak for myself and probably many others when I say that I'd be glad to have him around, but not if it involves conducting character assassinations against those that criticize him. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, then, you'd like to see something along the lines of this sage advice, given whilst this case was in progress: "Your reasoning doesn't seem true and transparent. … Come clean and accept your mistakes. That's a good way to start."? I agree that would be a good start. Begoon ^talk 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is ironic. The perceived hypocrisy of what he is saying may actually serve to undermine his involvement there. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious that Wifione should have to re-apply at RFA, given the breaches of trust brought to light in this case.--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione site banned

3) For egregious violations of the WP:NPOV policies, avoidance of accountability, and prolonged, tendentious manipulation of wikipedia articles for the benefit of an organisation, Wifione is site banned ~~for 12 months.~~ from the English wikipedia indefinitely. This sanction may be appealed after 12 months, and at intervals of 12 months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A topic ban would be sufficient. There is no evidence of problems in any areas beyond IIPM and it's competition broadly construed. If her whole motive is to spin this article then the topic ban is equivalent to a site ban. If she wants to help in other areas that should be allowed. Better to keep her involved and accountable than to be reincarnated as a new account un-accountable. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell: bad editors can become good editors. There is a large industry of SEO consultants in India doing bad work, like what we see in this topic area. Folks there need jobs and they do what they can to make a living. They aren't evil; they are just uninformed and financially vulnerable. If we can show Wifione and others that there are consequences, but that we are also kind enough to forgive them if they just stop diddling our articles, we will make more progress than if we ban her. If banned she may turn up tomorrow with a new account, working on a new project. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about site ban vs. topic ban. I take Begoon's and MastCell's point about sending a strong message, but there is also merit in Jehochman's "keep your enemies closer" position. I'll be interested to see whether this ArbCom thinks tendentious editing is grounds enough for a desysop. (I do.) -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for flip-flopping. Another aspect of this site ban/topic ban question has been pointed out to me. Until now, I've thought it might be a good thing to simply topic ban Wifione because there is a chance they'll slip up and make a Wifione edit with their sock account, tipping us off to their commercial editing account. Wifione is cautious, but he/she has slipped up in the past ([15]).

Now I think that would be a mistake and support a permanent site ban, because responding with just a topic ban would send the wrong message not only to COI editors but also (something I hadn't considered) send the wrong message to the world at large about Wikipedia's attitude toward biased, socking administrators. There is a chance this will make news in India, and as well as doing the right thing we need to be seen to be doing the right thing. We might understand the benefit of keeping the Wifione account active, but that would be impossible to convey to the world at large through a sound bite or an ill-informed editorial. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with User:MastCell: [16]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Wifione's reaction I think a site ban is the inevitable outcome. The evidence of socking and COI editing is too strong to be ignored. It demands explanation and Wifione has failed to provide any real answers. Deflection isn't a good response. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Jehochman, there may be some merit to what you say here. Of the utmost importance is that Wifione should not be permitted to edit articles in this area again, and that they not retain administrator status, given the proposed principles and proposed findings outlined above. That should be the absolute minimum result here. I still feel a siteban would be an appropriate remedy, given the weight of evidence, and the egregious, tendentious, long-term editing pattern, but I also concede that banning one particular account is unlikely to prevent the use of other accounts, as you say, and as is also strongly indicated in evidence. Begoon ^talk 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jehochman. If these allegations are true, then Wifione has behaved with a degree of dishonesty and deceptiveness which should exclude him from any further participation in this project. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable co-editing with him on any topic. Thus I don't think a topic ban would be sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I don't quite follow your reasoning. Wifione might create sockpuppets regardless of whether he is topic-banned, site-banned, or not banned at all (indeed, there is some evidence that this has already happened). How does choosing a topic-ban make him less likely to create and use sockpuppets? I'm all for forgiveness and kindness as general principles, but I have never seen a Wikipedia editor-redemption project like this succeed (not for lack of trying). It's just impractical (and more than a bit hubristic) to think that we can change someone's fundamental personality and motivations through a set of online inducements and manipulations—all the more so when the strong financial incentives you've described are at play. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is why I still think a site-ban is appropriate. The reality that a user may evade a ban is not a reason for not imposing a ban. Additionally, as you say, there is little difference between the likelihood of evading a topic-ban, and that of evading a site-ban. Begoon ^talk 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either she's telling the truth and is truly ignorant or deceived, or else she's playing us for fools. I don't know how we are going to distinguish these two cases. To prevent harm to the encyclopedia, she should be topic banned from IIPM, it's competitors, and related things. Perhaps I assume too much good faith, but I am unwilling to run a 10% risk of over-reacting, and would rather under-react, especially because the harm of under-reacting is negligible, and the harm of over-reacting would be substantial. If you believe she is guilty, the topic ban stops the problem and allows us all to monitor future editing. If she's not guilty, it prevents an unfairness. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to "distinguish" anything. The evidence is quite clear. You do "assume too much good faith", but I can understand why you would, under the circumstances. I prefer an evidence based approach. I fixed the grammar in your comment. Hope you don't mind. "Playing us for fools" was correct. Begoon ^talk 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My assuming too much good faith is a result of having been targeted with false accusations. Sometimes an editor takes a peculiar view of a topic and sticks to it as a matter of pride. You all assume Wifione is being paid, but you underestimate the power of incompetence: perhaps she's just taken the wrong side in an editing dispute and doesn't want to admit it. Instead, she's been digging herself into a hole after being pressured by an offsite-coordinated group of editors and banned editors. Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Descending into incivility and off-topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't underestimate incompetence at all. I see it right here. I can't fix your first sentence, sorry, I did my best to help by fixing your previous post. Not sure what you meant here at all. You can maybe edit it yourself. Begoon ^talk 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't be obnoxious. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you took it that way. Not my intention at all. I replied to your other response on my talk page, though I'm not sure why you would post there. Begoon ^talk 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any potential solution being more suitable than this. The fact that Wifione has had the audacity to propose a site ban for both Anthony and Vejvančický, to me, suggests that even desysopping and topic banning is not enough. They are so desperate to avoid the questions and silence the questioners, that they simply have no place here. They've gotten away with this rubbish for so long, that a site ban is the only thing that actually will carry a heavy enough weight behind it. We need to protect against any further disruption from this user, and also send out a strong message that this sort of activity is not welcome here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't sanction users, generally, for making absurd arbitration proposals. I agree that the proposals are ill advised, and they are evidence that Wifione is tone deaf, and has not taken the accusations against herself seriously enough. Is there any evidence Wifione has made serious errors outside the IIPM topic? Everybody is concluding that she's a paid editor, but there has not been anything more than circumstantial evidence, and it is quite possible that she has just taken a wrong position and stubbornly held onto it. It is not necessary to assume payment to explain what she's been doing. The cleanest explanation is that she's responsible for tendentious editing and thus should be topic banned. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than aware of that we don't sanction users for that, thank you very much. If you actually read my comment, you'd see that I was using those proposals as yet another attempt to avoid the questions ask, and silence the questioners, which is the sort of tendentious editing that can be sanctionable. Likewise, it doesn't matter one jot if they were paid or not to edit; the behaviour is bad enough to justify a full-on siteban. Deliberately undermining the IIPM's rivals whilst bigging up the IIPM is evidence enough. Anything else this user has ever done is a smokescreen for those real goals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my thoughts in the section directly above this one. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I updated the wording of the proposal, from "12 months" to "indefinitely", to better match the wording and structure of remedies in recent cases. On reflection, I can see that a fixed-term ban, with no requirement to establish that issues are seen to have been understood and will be addressed, is not a good solution. Additionally, respondents in this section seem to have this in mind, too, so this makes the proposal consistent with their comments. I'm not totally familiar with procedure here, so if this was inappropriate, any editor may revert (or fix) my change. Begoon ^talk 03:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban would have been sufficient had Wifione "come clean" during this case, but given her failure to do so (not to mention the almost ludicrous proposals to ban her opponents), a site ban is the only reasonable solution. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Lex parsimoniae

1) Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. In arbitration, it is not necessary to prove wrongdoing with certainty. When circumstances and evidence demonstrate the likelihood of wrongdoing, the burden shifts to the presumed wrongdoer, who must explain their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure I like this one. It comes too close to saying that without absolute certainty, ArbCom must accept the simplest explanation given. I'm also not a fan of such formally shifting the burden of proof towards the party facing the case. The core idea, though, that the standard of proof in an ArbCom case is not absolute certainty is correct, though. Courcelles 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The simplest explanation, the one that requires the fewest assumptions, is that Wifione has been involved (knowingly or unknowingly) in IIPM's search engine optimization and online reputation management campaign. Their activities are entirely consistent, and any other explanation for Wifione's activities requires a greater number of less probable assumptions. If there is another explanation, the burden is on Wifione to present a convincing explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Equivalency

2) If an editor behaves like a paid advocate for a business, they will be sanctioned accordingly, even though it may be impossible to prove a connection due to Wikipedia's policy against outing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think, sometimes, trying to demonstrate paid-editing is going further than is necessary. Demonstrating non-NPOV editing is often easier to do without the extra necessity of demonstrating motivation. (Not that I am condoning paid editing, mind) Courcelles 18:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Due to the tension between COI and outing policies/guidelines, we need to have a principle that proof usually isn't practical. Therefore, we have to use a lower standard of evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

The Fifth Pillar

1) Wiki-lawyering (i.e., using policy and process to avoid direct discussion of the issue at hand) is harmful both to reaching consensus on article content and to project governance, which is precisely why we have the 5th Pillar (WP:IAR).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. So much disruption could have been avoided with concise, frank answers, rather than long, legalistic briefs that are anything but brief. Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See Threaded Discussion section, above. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:08, 24 January 2015 (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:

Extended content; proposals going nowhere

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposals by Wifione

Proposed principles

Burden of proof

1) When editors place assertions on any forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those assertions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is true, the thing is there is enough serious evidence here to at the very minimum have ArbCom sort through it. Courcelles 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There is colorable evidence of wrongdoing. Whether it is sufficient to support the sanctions requested is a decision for the arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This principle is generally assumed in ArbCom cases. However, it never hurts to explicitly state it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating conflicts of interest

2) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

True. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest

3) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

True, though doing so may help resolve the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This statement is entirely too weak to be considered, imho. Something along the line of "should not be asked to disclose" would be more appropriate. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this bothers me is quite simple: We don't ask people to out themselves. While I'm not sure if/where the principle is found in our policies, I've always understood it to be foundational to how Wikipedia works. Even asking the question is quite inappropriate. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the edits not the editor

4) Per policy, "comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not quite right. If evidence of wrongdoing is given, which it was in this case, there is no personal attack in calling a spade a spade. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment

5) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not relevant to this case. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Conflict of Interest guideline

7) Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not appropriate. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, policy and guideline based review must focus primarily on the edits of those editors about whom problems are claimed than on editorialised opinions or allegations about their real life background.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, but this principle hurts your case. Because nobody knows with certainty who you are or what your connection to the topic is, everybody judges you by the tone of your edits. By the tone of the edits, you look like somebody involved in promoting IIPM, contrary to Wikipedia policies. You also look like somebody who operated a prior account that was blocked, and didn't disclose this fact on your RFA. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If there is no requirement to disclose identity, then it is fair game to infer COI (and/or sock puppetry) by the nature of the edits, even though that method has much uncertainty. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What is the proposed finding of fact here? Begoon ^talk 12:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was supposed to go under "proposed principles"? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess so. No links to where it came from, though, which is confusing. I agree with Jehochman that this is more likely to hurt the case than help it. Begoon ^talk 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický: battleground conduct

8) Vejvančický has initiated or been a participant in multiple discussions where he has repetitively alleged claims against Wifione, disparaging and casting aspersions on Wifione, without raising it to a legitimate dispute resolution noticeboard, despite Wifione's request, as documented at Wifione's two ANI reports.[17][18] (Illustrative examples from the ANI reports: "Btw, you don't work for Mr. Chaudhuri anymore? I mean, you don't manipulate those articles since it was exposed in your editor review and in other places", "I don't want to be in the same elevated rank with dishonest manipulators, such as Wifione", "Would you trust administrator Wifione as your "confidant" after reading the review?", "...the presence of Wifione in the role of a polite and discreet behind-the-scene mediator is unacceptable to me. Find a better company next time", "I've seen a lot of your "work" (many examples of your manipulation and subsequent super civil prevarication/obstruction) to be sure that I'm not mistaken, so I won't redact anything.") This is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think Vejvančický would be well advised to disengage from this whole debacle from here on out, but I think he has good enough judgement to recognize this and I don't think his actions were carried out with a desire to incite needless drama. He was trying to protect the integrity of the project, and that should never be a cause for derision. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vejvančický would be "well advised" to carry on doing precisely what Vejvančický has always done, as far as I can see - edit this project honourably, and with concern for its policies and values. I don't see why an evasive, deflective "proposal" in an Arbcom case should change that at all. Begoon ^talk 13:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made it clear that I did not find fault with anything Vejvančický has done, merely that I think any future involvement on his part is likely to be counterproductive given his history with Wifione. My comment above was not intended as a criticism of his actions in this case. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Surely, though, if an editor who has acted only to defend Wikipedia's neutrality from tendentious editing is driven from participation in that area by deflective attempts at misdirection from the tendentious editor, in their attempt to shift the focus and avoid accountability, then Wikipedia is the loser? We should do better than to allow that. Begoon ^talk 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonycole: battleground conduct

9) Anthonycole, after initially alleging that Wifione is "an employee or contractor of the company",[19], has continued disparaging Wifione on the Arbitration Committee workshop talk page, commenting that Wifione is a sock of Mrinal Pandey (Illustrative examples: "As for you editing from the Wifione account and the Mrinal accounts in the same minute...", "I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks...", "I won't be reading the above...", "I'm happy with the status quo" (when repeatedly pointed out that Anthonycole was not forwarding the required evidence)) This is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You have a cleaner path forward to admit anything in the accusations that is true, than to let people draw those conclusions. If you aren't engaged by IIPM you need to explain clearly and succinctly why your editing is indistinguishable from those who are. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do support your continued participation in this project, but you cannot deny that the evidence connecting you with Mrinal Pandey is extremely compelling. Anythonyhcole isn't trying to attack you, he's trying to get to the bottom of things, and he finds your activities highly suspicious. It wouldn't be fair to fault him for pointing out what appear to be striking similarities between yourself and another editor; he's just calling it as he sees it.

For me, the fact that you've disengaged from IIPM articles shows that your editing is no longer problematic. Whether it sets a bad precedent or gives the wrong impression to other paid editors is another story. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:37, 26 January 2015 (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.

All of these proposals are ill advised and will be viewed as an attempt to misdirect attention away from wrongdoing. I suggest Wifione hat this section. It's not going anywhere good. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochman. If I'm being completely honest, Wifione's responses have caused my defense of his continued participation on this project to become tenuous, even uncomfortable. I came out in full support of him at the start of this case and maintained that position throughout; I could easily change my mind, particularly if he fails to distinguish between harassment and legitimate grievances. By attempting to divert attention from himself onto others, Wifione is sabotaging his chances at emerging from this case with the best possible outcome. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický: advised

11) Vejvančický is advised to use legitimate dispute resolution procedures than make allegations against Wifione in general discussion forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vejvančický: admonished

12) Vejvančický is admonished for his suggestive battleground conduct and violations of harassment policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vejvančický: site banned

13) For egregious violations of harassment policy and for having a battleground conduct, Vejvančický is site banned for a period of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

For many reasons, no. I haven't seen anything in the evidence to support this at all. Also, three-month bans went out a long time ago. Courcelles 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Another ridiculous attempt by Wifione to cover their own tracks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický has done nothing that warrants any sort of sanction. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonycole: admonished

14) Anthonycole is admonished for his battleground conduct and for violations of harassment policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anthonycole: site banned

15) For egregious violations of harassment policy and for having a battleground conduct, Anthonycole is site banned for a period of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, just, no. Courcelles 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anthony has done absolutely nothing to warrant any sort of sanction. This proposed remedy is preposterous. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly preposterous, yes. Sadly, this kind of attempt to discredit good faith questioners rather than address the issues is a pattern. I linked from the relevant proposed finding, above. Begoon ^talk 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a frankly pathetic attempt to discredit everyone who has the audacity to see through Wifione's deceit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Roger Davies

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Quality of sources

2) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Multiple accounts to evade scrutiny

3) The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. The use of sockpuppets to run for adminship deprives the community of the opportunity to properly scrutinise all a candidate's contributions and thus arrive at a genuine fully-informed consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Who's who

4) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Determination of motives

5) For all practical purposes, POV-pushing, either by intent or by incompetence, and paid editing are indistinguishable. The Committee has neither the mandate nor the resources to pierce the veil of editor anonymity. Given the practical limitations of arbitration, the Committee is unable to determine what motives impel misconduct but instead reports in findings of fact from what is observable (and occasionally what inferences may be drawn from these observations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Paid editing

6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing - POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry - through the application of existing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I think it has been said before, that if someone is really doing paid-editing totally in compliance with the existing enwp policies, no one likely to notice. Courcelles 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

~~Begoon, it is correct as typed.~~ I personally proposed a policy against paid editing, and it was rejected. The WMF terms of service prevent paid editing. If there's an infraction, it's up to the WMF legal team to respond, not ArbCom. This principle means that any action taken by ArbCom is for the associated problems, not the paid or purported paid editing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Probably a typo: "The Committee does [have]?, however," Begoon ^talk 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, I was just pointing out a typo, nothing major, I didn't feel I should edit R's post even if it was obvious.: The Committee does, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing The word "have", or similar, is obviously missing. That was all. I don't disagree with any substance. Begoon ^talk 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Limitations of arbitration

8) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

* For discussion, Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment by parties:

I like this because it prevents a decision here from being held against a party in real life. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add something to the effect that due to the limitations of arbitration, the standards of proof are more relaxed than in a legal case, and therefore you need to take the decisions with a grain of salt. We do the best we can under the circumstances, but we our decisions have a considerable margin of uncertainty because we can't subpoena documents, cross examine witnesses, or even identify users. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Would this principle, which I see is taken from the "Gamergate" case, be better worded with "proceedings", rather than "decisions"? I'm not sure about this, but I don't see how a decision can be "used, or misused", but I do see how a proceeding can. Begoon ^talk 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, post Jehochman's post I see the point a little more - but that's not something we can "prevent". I still think this principle, whilst noble, needs work in order to be useful. Begoon ^talk 14:25, 30 January 2015 (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:

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: