Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 13 May 2016 (→‎top: Closing case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerks: Amortias (Talk) & Miniapolis (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & Keilana (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 15:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by Jayen466

The current discussion at AN/I has been ongoing for close to a week, following much the same pattern as a previous discussion that took place in 2014. Pretty much everybody who has commented in the current thread, including Wikicology himself, seems to agree that there is a significant issue, involving a number of different perceived problems, from mis-stated credentials, self-promotion and past sockpuppeting to copyright infringements (due to unattributed copying within Wikipedia), made-up references that do not back up the article content (and at times seem to have been chosen completely at random), and basic competence to create reliable content. What is less clear is what should be done about it. Wikicology is a member of the Wikimedia movement's Individual Engagement Grants committee and plays a leading role in Wikimedia PR and outreach work in Nigeria, including the country's Wikimedia User Group and Wikipedia Education Program. An indefinite block/community ban proposal currently stands at 14 supports vs. 9 opposes; an additional, narrow topic ban proposal stands at 4 supports vs. 2 opposes. Mentoring has been offered. Given the scale and diverse nature of the perceived issues, I believe a formal investigation by the Arbitration Committee is warranted in order to gain a clear idea of the magnitude of the problem and devise appropriate remedies concerning both Wikicology himself and the Wikipedia content created by him. The AN/I process appears to lack clear consensus at this time and is too unstructured to address these issues properly.

Statement by Wikicology

Can the ongoing ANI be closed, or can this ARBCOM case be closed until that other discussion is concluded. It seems a bit unusual or even difficult to expect (or ask) that an editor should defend himself on two fronts at the same time.

Note - My credentials provided is not to support a claim of "Academic or Lecturer" but to support a claim of biochemist and a medical lab scientist. Just as I've earlier stated at the ANI, I was not directly employed by the university as at the time I lectured the students. My earlier thought was that an "academic or lecturer" is anyone who lectures a university students weather he was directly employed by the university or not. Now I see, this is awfully wrong which means I must have misinterpreted the true meaning of "academic and lecturer".

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Apologies to the community and the committee. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reformatted the section headings to be in the form "Statement by [username]", and dropped an anchor so that any relative links aren't broken. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a mass message list of everyone who has commented on this page here. Unless you are a party, you are free to add or remove yourself as you please. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as non-party participant, if that wasn't already obvious. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (12/0/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Andreas, I was hoping you'd summarize the entire ANI thread in one sentence. I have not yet read that thread as attentively as I should before speaking out on whether we should accept this, but I thank you for bringing it here since there certainly is a lot going on. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial impression is that accepting this would be prudent due to the scope and long term nature of this. I'll take a look at the thread...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to wait until a decision is reached at ANI. If that fails I'll vote to accept. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conur with Doug Weller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EvergreenFir: We understand the importance of this matter and the frustration of those who want us to act. But it is important that we allow the community to try to address the situation. A few days won't make a difference here if they don't find an appropriate solution at ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to accept this. I think the issues raised are complex enough that they are better suited to a more structured investigation, but the procedurally correct and consistent thing to do is to wait for a result at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. When last I looked at ANI, the thread had been closed. Since then it's been unclosed, reclosed, unclosed.... it is clearly suffering from a lack of structure, the tone seems to be degenerating, and I think the "wait for ANI" concept is rather fragile once a case request has been made; the two processes obviously can't run independently. I think the best way to handle this complex issue in a dignified way is to move to a more closely managed, structured forum. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept To add on to what OR says above, the prevailing consensus is to bring it here, which I believe will be inevitable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The community has spoken. Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With several members of the community requesting we take this on, possible privacy issues, possible vested contributor issues, and a mixed (votes on a) siteban proposal: Accept -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, particularly given potential privacy issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to remain inactive on this case, at least initially. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Doug Weller talk 13:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of imperfection

2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and these errors will sometimes result in errors or omissions occurring in mainspace articles. Neither editors nor edits are required to be perfect. However, when errors are repeated, frequent, and persistent despite feedback from the community, they may become disruptive even if made in good faith.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability

3) Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core content policy. When articles are written in violation of that policy, with unverifiable statements, or even statements whose references do not verify those statements, Wikipedia loses its credibility as an encyclopedia. This damage may be done regardless of whether the errors were introduced due to good-faith mistakes, haste, carelessness, deception, or any other reason.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of sources

4) To comply with the verifiability policy, the contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor implicitly claims that they have read and understood that source, and that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source. Failure to accurately represent sources undermines the integrity of the articles in which those sources appear and by extension the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. Even when caused by good-faith mistakes, repeated failures to represent sources accurately is disruptive and may result in sanctions.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

5) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license. Introducing text and media that do not meet these criteria compromises the encyclopedia's mission, even when done in good faith due to misunderstandings of the copyright policy or due to poor practice in avoiding close paraphrasing. Repeatedly introducing copyrighted text or uploading media without proper licensing is disruptive and may result in sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

6) Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. Disruption may occur in good faith and yet still be harmful to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to respond to community feedback; if the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

7) Sockpuppetry is not permitted, with limited exceptions. The creation or use of additional accounts to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Editors who have used sockpuppets outside of policy may find it difficult to regain the trust of the community.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Collegiality and self-representation

8) While Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to reveal personal information about themselves, and therefore are also under no obligation to actively take steps to correct others' mistaken impressions, it is uncollegial behavior to deliberately take advantage of mistaken impressions for the purpose of personal benefit.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Limitations of arbitration

9) The jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee is limited to the English Wikipedia. The Committee is unable and unwilling to conduct investigations of editors' outside activities in order to shed light on editors' on-wiki self-representations. The Committee is also unable to direct the decisions made by other projects, programs, and affiliates within the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella. However, best efforts may be made to ensure that these groups are aware of Committee decisions that potentially impact them.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Wikicology has used sockpuppets

1) Wikicology acknowledged in his early edits under that account that he had previously used the account Isaacatm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account had previously been found to have used sockpuppets.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has engaged in autobiographical editing

2) Under the Wikicology account and under past accounts, Wikicology has engaged in autobiographical editing, creating his own autobiography under various article titles a total of 14 times, most recently on 2 March 2016. In addition, he linked his own autobiography from other articles. All of the autobiographical material has been deleted. Wikicology has been banned by the community from further autobiographical editing.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has given the impression of self-promotion

3) Wikicology's behavior and self-presentation has given the impression of self-promotion to other editors. He has represented himself as a Wikipedia expert in an outreach context ([1]), asserted his own notability ([2]), accepted an RfA nomination despite the nomination's inaccurate description of his real-life work ([3]), and repeated that description himself ([4]). (He has since stated that he regrets doing so: [5].)

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has introduced numerous errors to articles

4) A review of Wikicology's editing has identified a large number of errors of fact, citations to poor sources, and citations to sources that fail to support the statements they are presented as supporting. Several examples of this have been analyzed in depth by community members here. These errors are primarily concentrated in articles related to chemistry and biomedicine ([6] cf. EdChem and Peter Damian, [7] cf. Anthonyhcole, [8] cf. Smartse), and articles related to Nigeria ([9] cf. Pldx1, [10] [11] cf. Tribe of Tiger, [12] cf. Jayen466), many of which were created by Wikicology himself. In addition, he has introduced citations that fail verification to a number of articles he was not otherwise involved in editing (e.g. [13], [14]).

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has introduced copyright-violating text

5) A review of Wikicology's editing has also identified a number of instances in which he introduced copyrighted text to Wikipedia or copied Wikipedia articles without attribution. In some cases text was copied wholesale ([15], [16], [17]) and in others sources were closely paraphrased ([18], [19]). After copyright violations were discovered in 2014, Wikicology explicitly acknowledged the problems and promised to educate himself on Wikipedia's copyright-related policies ([20], [21]). He has since, on multiple occasions, delivered warnings to other users about copyright matters ([22], [23]), implying that he understood copyright policy. He stated in his evidence that he has not violated copyright since the 2014 incident ([24]). However, multiple instances of copyright violations have been identified in recent contributions ([25], [26]).

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has uploaded copyright-violating images

6) Copyright violations have also been identified in Wikicology's image uploads on both the English Wikipedia ([27]) and Commons ([28]). In many cases these images were labeled as "own work" although Wikicology was not the photographer (e.g. local: [29], Commons: [30]). He asserted he had been unaware of the meaning of labeling uploads as "own work" ([31]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology is not a novice editor

7) Wikicology has been an active editor under the Wikicology account since 2014, has amassed around 8,000 live edits, and has created 547 articles. He has been given the rollback, account creator, and autopatrolled user rights (the last was removed on 4 April: [32]). He requested, received, and accepted a nomination for adminship. He has participated in outreach events.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has received feedback on his editing

8) Wikicology has received extensive feedback on the systematic errors in his editing, including image copyright errors (see here) and article sourcing errors, both from individual colleagues ([33], [34], [35]) and from the community (2014 ANI). He has often responded positively to this feedback and made assurances that he would correct his errors (2014 ANI apology, 2016 ANI apology). However, improvement has not been forthcoming and numerous problems have been identified in recent article work (see Softlavender's analysis).

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has held volunteer positions in other WMF-affiliated projects

9) Wikicology has participated in a number of Wikimedia Foundation-affiliated efforts, including serving as a Wikipedia Library branch coordinator, a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, and a member of the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria, through which he has participated in real-life outreach events.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology has been harassed

10) Wikicology has been subject to recurring harassment, which escalated during the course of the case, and much of which has now been revision-deleted or suppressed. One account was blocked during the case for this behavior.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Wikicology topic-banned from biomedical content

1) Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of WP:MEDRS, broadly construed.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology topic-banned from images

2) Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology site-banned

3.1) Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Community encouraged

4) The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Other projects informed

5) The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Template

1) ...

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology&oldid=720092831"