| Revision as of 14:30, 27 June 2008 view sourceFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits post | Latest revision as of 09:02, 4 July 2008 view source Stephen Bain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,147 edits by the Committee, not by Charles, he just posted it | ||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The decision viewable in the history was declared to be vacated , by the Committee. The subsequent ] was by the Committee. This rejection was primarily due to statements by and arbitrator , in which it was announced that {{user|Orangemarlin}} had agreed to mentorship by {{user|Jpgordon}}. | |||
| <big>'''Case Opened''' on 14 June 2008 (UTC)</big> | |||
| This page and its history is preserved for transparency. | |||
| <big>'''Case Closed''' on 27 June 2008 (UTC)</big> | |||
| ==Final Report== | |||
| Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, or 2) an Arbitration Clerk. | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has issued this further statement. ] (]) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This case was heard by the Arbitration Committee following user request and investigation by the Committee. Due to the nature of the case and the extent of serious incidents noted in preliminary investigation, and in the interests of minimizing disruption, the Committee has discussed the situation privately. Evidence considered by the Committee is presented at ]. | |||
| The Committee has decided to issue a Final Report on the Orangemarlin | |||
| Once the case is closed, editors may add to the ] as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at ], and report violations of remedies at ]. | |||
| case, now resolved without formal proceedings by a voluntary mentoring | |||
| agreement. What is said here is on the basis of an exhaustive review of | |||
| all discussions relevant to the handling of the matter. It takes into | |||
| account feedback from observers on our ArbCom mailing list. | |||
| This report supersedes earlier statements. | |||
| ;(1) Role of FT2 | |||
| Presented by ], for and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, on 27 June 2008. | |||
| It was always an unlikely explanation that FT2, who is known for his | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| careful and thorough work on and for Misplaced Pages, had wittingly gone | |||
| outside and deliberately flouted our standard procedures. Part of the blame lies on email discussion | |||
| as a way to get work done. The Committee takes collective | |||
| responsibility for what occurred. Inferences that have been made, | |||
| adverse to FT2's reputation for care, are simply not well founded. | |||
| ;(2) Handling of matters in private and public | |||
| == Involved parties == | |||
| * {{userlinks|Orangemarlin}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Odd nature}} | |||
| We want to clarify the nature of two types of ArbCom "paths" - ways of | |||
| =Final decision = | |||
| handling matters, that are not the usual cases held in the Misplaced Pages: | |||
| == Principles == | |||
| namespace. These are | |||
| (a) Summary actions (such as are often applied to serious sockpuppetry | |||
| ===Hearing of cases=== | |||
| investigations); | |||
| 1) Deliberations in Arbitration cases are often held privately, but the Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public. Arbitrators reserve the right to take evidence in private in exceptional circumstances. | |||
| (b) Privately-held cases. | |||
| We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do | |||
| not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. | |||
| Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a). | |||
| We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in | |||
| ===Appropriate conduct=== | |||
| future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: | |||
| 2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of ], ], and the ]. If disputes arise, users are expected to use ] procedures instead of making personal attacks. | |||
| trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Harassment=== | |||
| 3) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See ]. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Perceived harassment=== | |||
| 4) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in ]) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Conduct outside Misplaced Pages=== | |||
| 5) A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages is generally not subject to Misplaced Pages policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Misplaced Pages and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Intimidation=== | |||
| 6) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Personal attacks, incivility, and smear campaigning=== | |||
| 7) ] and repeated ] are expressly prohibited because they make Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Especially, ] smear campaigns and related allegations are poisonous to the project and to participants. Misplaced Pages editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and address any concerns arising in an ]. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Gaming the system=== | |||
| 8) Policies and guidelines apply equally to all users; using them in a tactical manner or for the underlying purpose of subverting their intended function, is forbidden. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Intervention in disputes=== | |||
| 9) Users intervening in a dispute, whether as a contributor or in an administrative role, should familiarize themselves with the background, and act impartially in line with all ]. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Raising good-faith concerns=== | |||
| 10) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Compliance with basic policy=== | |||
| 11) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Misplaced Pages's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ===Circumstances=== | |||
| 12) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| == Findings of fact == | |||
| :''See ]'' | |||
| === Approach to distasteful subjects and personal views === | |||
| 1) {{user|Orangemarlin}} - and indeed a number of users - are reminded of the Misplaced Pages principle in this case, that personal beliefs whether "bad" '''or "good"''' should be left at the door and not brought on-wiki. This extends especially to matters where editors may be expected to have compelling personal feelings. It is also not merely applicable to stances deemed "negative": - both socially discouraged and socially approved views, whether strong anti-racism, strong advocacy, or strong support to any matter, may also be disruptive if editors forget this is an encyclopedia project and not a further battleground. | |||
| ] for ''any'' side, not just one. In particular, having unpopular views does not give a mandate for established users wishing to indulge in campaigns of personal attacks, incivility, and smearing — much less so when the unpopular views are themselves ''the established users' own preconceptions'' more than anything the user may have genuinely said, done, or meant. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Gaming the system === | |||
| 2) {{user|Orangemarlin}} has repeatedly ], in that we interpret an overriding sense that Orangemarlin has aggressively attacked other users, then when challenged, pleaded self-pity, or engaged in ], provocation and counter-attack (which he has at times used as a vehicle for further incivility, accusations of bad faith, smearing, threats to obtain a block, plain dismissal of concerns by uninvolved users and admins, and the like) in the attempt to remain unaffected by communal responses. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Other editors acted similarly at times === | |||
| 3) We note that {{user|Orangemarlin}} was not the only person to engage in these egregious activities. However in this specific case we look only at the actions of Orangemarlin and (peripherally in passing) those of Odd nature). | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| ==Remedies== | |||
| === Orangemarlin admonished === | |||
| 1) {{user|Orangemarlin}} is admonished not to: ], make or endorse accusations without careful checking, ] or ] users, and not to be ] in response, warning, or dismissing or marginalizing legitimate concerns by other users and administrators. | |||
| Orangemarlin is further admonished to avoid engaging in allegations (both explicit and implied, and interpreted broadly) that appear to be aimed at marginalizing or damaging the standing of another user, without first confirming with the mentor if his approach is appropriate. This is his responsibility on any incident he feels such action is needed, and having obtained such advice it is still his responsibility to choose his actions appropriately, regardless. | |||
| Finally Orangemarlin is cautioned to pay especial attention to the requirements of collaborative working, and to avoid ]. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Odd nature admonished === | |||
| 2) {{user|Odd nature}} is admonished to treat all parties appropriately, neutrally, and to a fair high standard, and to undertake reasonable and fair fact finding, in all editorial discussions and disputes. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Orangemarlin placed on parole and a mentor appointed === | |||
| 3) {{user|Orangemarlin}} is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Orangemarlin make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, harrasment (in the sense of ]), assumptions of bad faith, or contain unfounded or poorly founded negative claims ("slurs") about other editors' presumed or implied personal views or off-wiki activities, Orangemarlin may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. | |||
| Should Orangemarlin wish to criticize on-wiki, the personal views he believes another user holds, or the non-wiki actions he believes another user engages in, he should refer the matter to an Arbcom appointed mentor (to be appointed) who will assess whether the matter has merit and how best to raise it. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| === Rbj community ban to be reviewed === | |||
| 4) Rbj's 2007 community ban is to be reviewed either by the Arbitration Committee, or the newly formed Appeals Review Panel, and any relevant findings posted publicly for the community. As per the prior note on the ] Arbitration case, and more recently the racism issue, there may be further actions if these kinds of conduct are engaged in by others. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| == Enforcement == | |||
| === Enforcement by block === | |||
| 1) Should Orangemarlin violate any restriction in this case, he may be blocked by any ] administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at ]. | |||
| Such blocks may be appealed at the ] noticeboard, but are not to be reversed without the agreement of an Arbitrator, ex-Arbitrator or Arbitration Committee clerk, that a consensus has formed which appears to reflect a broad communal view, and which supports the proposed decision. | |||
| Such agreement should take into account whether there has been sufficient time for consensus to form, and (within reason) opportunity for the blocking administrator to notice the discussion. | |||
| :''Passed ] at 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC).'' | |||
| == Other Arbitrator comments == | |||
| A number of users have been, or may have been, improperly smeared or accused, over time, from incidents such as those documented above. | |||
| As a community, we cannot realistically fix everything from the past, nor would we wish to open floodgates for the cases where accusations were completely valid. The more so in contentious areas where sneaky sock use ''does'' occur and users must indeed be vigilant for ''faux'' editing. As a Committee and project we are interested in issues going forward, far more than issues looking back. | |||
| We therefore urge that responsible administrators and non administrators look forward if issues such as this come up, and we do not recommend the community to open up long-closed "history", unless it will have a significant effect going forward. Lesser matters may well have to be left as "historic issues", and the best approaches made going forward that are possible. If it is ever genuinely relevant, then it will be at least known the problem exists and we can address it at that time. | |||
| Finally, a last word of warning. Orangemarlin is strongly urged to understand that these are non-negotiables, and concomitant with editing as he does in a good way. They are ''"you just don't do that here"'' issues. We do not expect to see this user in such a case again, and if we do, are unlikely to be inclined to a view of endless chances. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:02, 4 July 2008
The decision viewable in the history was declared to be vacated here, by the Committee. The subsequent request for arbitration was rejected by the Committee. This rejection was primarily due to statements by Orangemarlin and arbitrator Jpgordon, in which it was announced that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) had agreed to mentorship by Jpgordon (talk · contribs).
This page and its history is preserved for transparency.
Final Report
The Arbitration Committee has issued this further statement. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Committee has decided to issue a Final Report on the Orangemarlin case, now resolved without formal proceedings by a voluntary mentoring agreement. What is said here is on the basis of an exhaustive review of all discussions relevant to the handling of the matter. It takes into account feedback from observers on our ArbCom mailing list.
This report supersedes earlier statements.
- (1) Role of FT2
It was always an unlikely explanation that FT2, who is known for his careful and thorough work on and for Misplaced Pages, had wittingly gone outside and deliberately flouted our standard procedures. Part of the blame lies on email discussion as a way to get work done. The Committee takes collective responsibility for what occurred. Inferences that have been made, adverse to FT2's reputation for care, are simply not well founded.
- (2) Handling of matters in private and public
We want to clarify the nature of two types of ArbCom "paths" - ways of handling matters, that are not the usual cases held in the Misplaced Pages: namespace. These are
(a) Summary actions (such as are often applied to serious sockpuppetry investigations); (b) Privately-held cases.
We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a).
We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us.