Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Waalkes

Current word length: 391; diff count: 3.

Overuse of insinuation and anonymous sources

BLP policy discourages the use of insinuation and allegations against living persons attributed to anonymous sources. At Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops it says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Will Beback and SlimVirgin have extensively used this sort of material at Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche movement, and have defended its use and refused to remove questionable material. For example, at Lyndon LaRouche it says that Frances Piven, a university professor, "was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent." There is no evidence that this has anything to do with LaRouche or members of his movement, but its inclusion in the article implies that it does. When challenged on this point, Will Beback said "The Piven material was discussed extensively with previous HK socks back in February. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 23#Sources and structure. Please stop repeating the same complaints." (diff) Following the link in this response, I found only this comment by SlimVirgin: "Once again—they appeared in the Washington Post, they do name LaRouche and his followers, and they're consistent with stories that appeared in many publications, including other high-quality ones." (diff)

At LaRouche movement, there is a very long section entitled "Alleged violence and harassment." It is a list of allegations, many of them from anonymous parties prepared by Will Beback. For example, "While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat." The inclusion of this in the article implies, without giving evidence, that this "someone" was a LaRouche movement supporter. As a typical example of an anonymous allegation, there is: "A student who asked a critical question of LaRouche at a rally was reportedly abused verbally by campaign workers and called a "prostitute" by a LaRouche aide." There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the length of the section, in which 9 editors say the section is a problem, and one editor, Will Beback, disagree. I raised the issue of the use of anonymous sources and cited the section of BLP about it. Will's response was to say "It's standard across Wikipedia to use reports in reliable sources, even when those reports use anonymous sources." (diff) Waalkes (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Current word length: 290; diff count: 0.

Wikipedia needs a guideline to distinguish between disruptive editing aimed at search engine optimization, and good enthusiastic editing.

• See, for example, the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing.

• Note a potential problem with the traditional formulation that the effects of edits matter more than the motivations. Such a supposition, without further clarification, would implicate as a WikiBomber anyone who writes a new article, makes links to it on other pages so it won't be an orphan, and nominates it at DYK.

ArbCom needs to get better at handling requests for recusal.

• User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 16#Political activism RfAr

• Noting also the e-mails that the Committee has seen, and which were subsequently leaked.

This is directly relevant to this case, because it speaks to the interactions between multiple editors with respect to Cirt's editing of BLPs. Requests that a member of the Committee recuse may sometimes be very legitimate, and should be treated seriously. If the member decides that recusal in not needed, they should explain that to the complainant. If the complainant persists in requesting recusal, the member should quickly disengage from further debate with the complainant, ask the rest of the Committee to evaluate the situation, and, generally, abide by the Committee's consensus. If the Committee agrees that there should be no recusal, there should be a clear statement to that effect, from the Committee as a whole. If, after that, the demands continue, that should be treated as disruptive editing. No single editor, nor small group of editors, should be able to to undermine the will of the community expressed in an election. Please note that the exact same pattern took place for Elen in the Noleander case. (Given that Cirt entered willingly into the e-mail conversations, which occurred off-site, I do not think that sanctions against SV can be justified, but I find the prosecutorial tone directed at Cirt disturbing. Clearly, Shell did nothing to require recusal.)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 400; diff count: 23.

Jehochman

(Placeholder; I respectfully request that the clerk block anyone but me who edits this section again. It has already happened three times: [1] [2] [3])

Will Beback

(Placeholder)

Prioryman

An editor account called Prioryman was fairly active in the Cirt RfC, mainly focused on attacking, casting aspersions upon, and enthusiastically bollocking other editors; primarily Jayen, but also other editors: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

• This and this diff from above are significant, because in them, the person using the Prioryman account appears to outright lie, as later revelations would show.
• Between August and October 2010, the Committee noted in the ARBCC case that ChrisO (Prioryman's previous account) had received sanctions in four previous ArbCom cases, including being banned from Scientology related BLPs. In the ARBCC case, the Committee found that ChrisO had made personal attacks and had engaged in battlefield conduct. ChrisO, around 30 August, invoked Right to Vanish (RtV). The Committee noted that ChrisO had invoked this right while sanctions were being considered, and topic-banned him from climate change articles, apparently making that the fifth ArbCom sanction that ChrisO had received over his editing history. I, and I believe several other editors, assumed that based on his dubious editing history and the circumstances under which he vanished, that ChrisO was de facto indef community-banned, especially because of his apparent inability to edit BLP articles within Wikipedia's policies.
• ChrisO apparently started a new account, L'ecrivant, on 30 August, the same day he invoked RtV, and went busily back to editing. If I understand this correctly, ChrisO did not inform the Committee that he was invoking RtV, instead using WP's help desk. The Committee only found out after his abusive sock, L'ecrivant, was blocked. ChrisO then, apparently, lied to JoshuaZ about what had happened, judging by the misleading email which Joshua sent to the Committee to complain about ChrisO's sock being blocked.
• This appears to show that ChrisO was operating his old account under a new name at the same time he was operating L'ecrivant. He only stopped because he was forced to when an admin noticed what was going on and blocked it. So, how much good faith should we accord ChrisO's actions surrounding his RtV?
• For some reason, the Committee apparently agreed to allow ChrisO to start a new account, Prioryman, and resume editing if he promised to stay away from Climate Change articles. I guess they forgot to remind him that he was also supposed to stay away from Scientology BLP editing, which Prioryman subsequently engaged in by trying to influence the Cirt RfC, of which much of its evidence was related to Scientology BLPs (See diffs at the top of this section). Judging from the diffs above, they probably also should have reminded ChrisO to start following the WP:NPA policy.

More to come:

Evidence presented by Jehochman

Current word length: 57; diff count: 0.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Objection

I strongly object to being named by Cla68 on this page. It is abusive. There has been no prior dispute resolution between us whatsoever. I am busy and do not have time to address any evidence or participate in this case. Jehochman ^Talk 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

Current word length: 139; diff count: 0.

If I haven't provided diffs by the time the window for submissions closes, please delete or disregard this. I think I see an underlying problem wrt topics such as alternative medicine, fringe theories, cults, races, sexuality. In most of these cases it is clear which side the angels are on. We (angels) are opposed to racism, sexual bigotry, anti-scientific nonsense, cults, and evidence-free "therapies". Guardian angels have descended upon these areas to protect articles from the taint of the evil ones. And I, for one, am immensely grateful for their presence. I think all right-thinking Wikipedians are. (More to come)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence provided by Collect

Current word length: 403; diff count: 7.

Really - evidence is needed that WP:BLP is violated on a regular basis by those with POVs concerning categorization, labelling, and characterization in BLPs for people in some perceived religious (cult), political, sexual orientation or other group?

[22] showing clear COATRACK problems in BLPs. [23], [24], [25] etc. Many similar ones exist - this is chosen primarily because the people involved were in "in the news" recently - there are hundred of other examples.

[26] shows a typical categorisation/labelling "discussion" on BLP/N - showing that this is more than a mere "content dispute" issue. And, of course, [27] which led to the Jimbo page "discussion."

[28] showing problematic material deleted from a clear BLP by [29]. If an edit is a BLP violation in one article, it is a BLP violation in all articles. This shows a pattern of behaviour with which many other examples have been furnished to Arbcom by others.

[30] shows discussions on Jimbo's talk page (current page - there are a huge number in the past) showing the reasoning behind those who violate the WP:BLP requirements. Including such elucidating statements as:

Ok, I accept we know by wp:consensus that The Advocate is not re liable (and they practically think the same of Wikidpedia, duh [3], and OMG they getting parroted by E! Online [4]). The real question is whether ABC churnalism is any better. And by the way, that's a different article and different actor. It didn't involve the consensus decider Off2riorob yet, but I can presume what his AN-powered action will be given that his buddy Collect already weighed in. I guess Deep Throat would have had to wait for his name to be published before anything based on him could be included in Wikipedia, regardless where published. Shit, that took 30 years. Long live Nixon. inter alia

We also see how the POV of editors extends to using barnstars as rewards for such behaviour at [31] inter alia.

The evidence here given, and given by others, shows that Arbcom must require scrupulousness in editing of biographies and articles which in any way touch upon specific living people. This is part of the same principle that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and is not a "content dispute" but one of the greatest import to the survival of the project. Motions to place the issue under the rug will not help arbcom, or anyone. Else we shall have the default standard on biographies to "scruplelessness." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence provided by FuFoFuEd

Current word length: 128; diff count: 0.

Despite the fact that I am misrepresented above as a champion of BLP violations (and I wasn't even notified of this discussion about me), I invite anyone to read my posts at RS/N for instance here or here to get a true picture. Generally, WP:BLP points to the removal of contentious and poorly sourced information. Someone giving one or more interviews about his sexual orientation, interviews which get widespread media coverage, is a bit different than just a few tabloids making some assertions with the subject contradicting them or refusing to comment. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect also accuses other editors (like User:Elonka) in the diffs linked above of BLP violations, but they don't seem to have been notified either. Is this this how ARBCOM works? FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)