Revision as of 22:26, 31 October 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Checkuser needed on User:linshukun

1) Checkuser needed on User:linshukun

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tree Kittens has been working on the mess since the beginning of the Human molecule afd and Gladyshev afd. In the Georgi Gladyshev afd, she discovered that Georgi, Lim Thibbs (Sadi Carnot in real life), and one Lin Shukun all were self published by the same publishing house, and were the only people published by that publishing house. Lin Shukun has been a quiet editor for a long time. Created Nov. 19, 2006, with one burst of edits between the 18th and the 25th of February. During the discussion of Sadi Carnot, Lin Shukun suddenly became quite prolific again, with since the 24th of October. Since the case is in arbitration, I cannot request a checkuser directly, but must request it in the arbitration page. I hope this is the right place.Kww 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this checkuser is required. There is a clear COI and the pattern matches the Wavesmikey -> Sadi Carnot pattern that was already observed. Edited articles overlap as well. — Coren  15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced of sockpuppetry. This could be a different person doing their own COI editing. Nonetheless, I think you could request checkuser citing diffs to support your case. - Jehochman 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot be requested by most editors about topics that are the subject of arbitration. Only the arbitration committee can do so. Diffs aren't really the convincing part on this one ... it's the pattern of articles combined with the timing.Kww 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a very civil discussion occuring about this case on User talk:Physchim62, involving many of the above parties. My own opinion is that a checkuser is unnecessary, but I am hardly going to object if it reassures other users. Physchim62 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on the pattern of edits (lots of small ones to articles that obscure the full impact of the work), type of articles (historical sciences, non-mainstream biological sciences), and the time of editing, I don't know that much more is needed for a finding of abusive sock puppetry to avoid a community ban (though someone should put an evidence section together with diffs, and commentary for the arbcom to review). --Rocksanddirt 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disruption is disruption

1) Positive contributions in one area of the encyclopedia cannot be used as a blanket excuse nor reduce the impact or significance of disruptive edits in another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It may be an issue of dispute on exactly what fraction of Sadi Carnot's edits were positive or not, but I believe that severity of damage should be assessed on absolute, not relative, terms. A single legal threat is sufficient to get an instant indef block regardless of previous positive contributions. An admin that would start deleting the main page would be emergency desysoped without counting how many good deletions he has performed in the past. Likewise, long term damage should be evaluated without regard to the existence or quantity of putative good edits intervening. — Coren  20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reworded 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) to clarify the original intent. — Coren 

I think this one is the key, and agreement on this principle would have eliminated most, if not all, of the conflict. The unblocking began not because anyone thinks that SC was not disruptive, but because one admin felt that his positive contributions outweighed his negatives. In fact, they didn't matter at all ... his negative contribution rendered them moot.Kww 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If somebody is 50% disruptive and 50% nice, a classic Jekyll/Hide, I think we would just call them disruptive and show them to the door, at least until they recognized the problem and offered to change their ways. If somebody is 0.5% disruptive, we would excuse those incidents as occasional lapses. Nobody's perfect. If a user is 5% disruptive, we would talk to them about the problem and try to work with them. - Jehochman 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a bit strong. If someone established made a few incivil edits, we wouldn't treat them the same as we would someone whose incivility started on their second edit. -Amarkov moo! 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm trying to say; I mean that (to take your instance) incivility is just as bad from someone with 5000 edits as it is from someone with 2. If anything, it's worse because then the editor should have known better. — Coren  01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, why wouldn't they be treated the same? On the severity scale, a few incivil comments is not very high. In both case a warning is warranted, isn't it? Experienced editors certainly don't get an "incivility allowance". — Coren  01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But they do. Experienced editors get every extension of good faith and allowance for poor behavior, unitl the patience of the community or other en.wikipedia mechanism is exhausted. --Rocksanddirt 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Allright then. Do I get one slightly incivil comment every 500 good edits? Does it take 1000 to "buy" a downright offensive attack? How about an edit war? How many good edits does an indulgence from that cost? — Coren  13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In case that wasn't painfully obvious, I was being sarcastic to illustrate how untenable that position is as a matter of policy.

On a more serious note, I do think its critical we look at this seriously. Disruptive edits are exactly as harmful when coming from an experienced editor as they are when coming from a freshly created SPA (although sometimes the presumption of good faith might be affected by that). Otherwise, not only do we give the appearance of favoring the in-crowd, but we are in fact creating an in-crowd.

I already have "racked up" enough thousands of edits that I can be called an "established editor". I am still bound by the same policies as the day I make my first typo fix over four years ago. I'm probably going to be an admin eventually. When I do, I fully expect to be held to an even higher standard because I should know better. — Coren  13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, that is not the way wikipedia works. We favor experienced editors and the "in crowd." However distasteful that may be. --Rocksanddirt 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken but I read "disruptive" very differently than "poor quality" or "misguided" or even "deceptive". Disruption seems to me to require at least two parties. I do not see any extensive evidence of SC being uncivil towards others or being childish or a vandal. The major places where s/he seemed to be in conflict with others s/he was either in the right or relented when wrong and always civilly. Even in the way this whole thing played out s/he eventually concurred with consensus speedy deleted her/his own articles and has not returned. Yes perhaps one could say as a whole s/he was disruptive or maybe more appropriately counterproductive to the progress of WP through some bad or even deceptive editing. I see many counterproductive edits by new editors and even experienced ones. I don't mean to wikilawyer but PC's position is that there was overreaction. I have personally dealt with very disruptive, uncivil, deeply mistaken and dogmatic editors that insist on inserting their OR everywhere, violating 3RR etc. I would even say I have seen more deceptive use of references through synthesis than any of SC's. Yet, they did not receive the treatment SC got. They got a fair hearing, a talking to and a limited ban just to certain articles. Nowhere in SC's behavior has s/he been a blatant vandal perhaps a limited ban is more appropriate. Also do we think that any ban would stop someone who is uncivil and doesn't respect the ban? I essentially agree with this principle but perhaps we need to recognize the reverse as well, given that bans are meant to be preventative and not punishment. Prevent the damage not the quality edits. So, while quality editing does not negate or excuse bad or deceptive editing, bad or deceptive editing does not negate quality editing and administrative actions should be used to prevent damage not punish. --Nick Y. 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

2) Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

2.1) "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking ...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy - Jehochman 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 2.1). Time for the ArbCom to decide where it stands on this: . Daniel 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

3) Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy - Jehochman 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus

4) Misplaced Pages works fundamentally by building consensus. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Misplaced Pages:Consensus. - Jehochman 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

we need somehow to develop a consensus on what keeps a community ban/sanction in place. --Rocksanddirt 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban

5) It is not necessary to actually unblock for an administrator/sysop to contest a Community Ban during a Community Ban Discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Simply stating the fact that one would be willing to unblock should be enough to reverse the presumption without having to actually unblock right then and there. — Coren  01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. This likely should be worked into the WP:BAN policy as well. It seems that folks feel like they have to actually do the action to make the point that they contest a ban. --Rocksanddirt 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but this should not be used against admins in the current dispute because there was much room for confusion. - Jehochman 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there does not appear to be any reason for sanction of admins, but that an endorsement from the committee of a principle like this (I'm not married to any wording) would also remind all admins and others that one doesn't have to be disruptive to have appropriate input. There was plenty of disruption last week (see miltopia on an/i, for example). --Rocksanddirt 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious cranks and disruptive editors

6) Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the nutshell of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. - Jehochman 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think SC was an obvious crank. S/he was a very un-obvious crank at the most. I don't think it is a stretch in my mind to say that s/he was misguided. There was nothing obvious about this situation. In fact I would say that SC was not disruptive and had a tendency to deal with disruptive editors with great grace. Even in the afd debates you do not see disruptive behavior. In fact once consensus was clear SC moved to speedy her/his own article and when challenged that he couldn't do that S/he was patient.--Nick Y. 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of opinion

7) Action is only taken against Misplaced Pages users on the basis of their actions on, or related to, Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this would apply to the current case. Weren't the links to pseudoscience sites inserted into Misplaced Pages? Weren't the sources falsified and distorted on Misplaced Pages? What actions made outside of Misplaced Pages's scope are being factored into this discussion?

I don't favor banning pseudoscientists from editing on the simple basis of them being pseudoscientists, and I haven't heard anyone speak in favor of that. I can understand how they may have useful things to say about literature and the arts. Once they start inserting falsehoods into science articles, I believe in swift and permanent injunctions.Kww 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We can have articles about pseudoscience topics that are notable, such as cold fusion or intelligent design, but we must not allow editors to misrepresent pseudoscience as scientific fact. - Jehochman 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Kww. I also understand the intentions of PC in proposing this. To a certain degree SC was persecuted for his beliefs. Although his actions were reprehensible and action was required the swiftness and degree of response seemed driven by anti-pseudoscience fervor. I think that if we look carefully some of his work in pseudoscience was decent quality and even some of the misleading use of references could have been misconstrued (of course in that case it was his failure to clarify, a common ruse of pseudoscience). Note also that use of ones own work is not necessarily COI or POV. He is clearly a leading figure in human thermodynamics. To a certain degree the issue with his pseudoscience articles are if they are notable subjects. Individually SC's actions might be reacted to differently if it was surrounding a different subject area. I think a few people reacted to the discovery of his external website as the smoking gun and I do thin it addresses motivation. PC was calling for rational reaction to the events not supporting SC actions. I still support a ban on him because we do need to deal harshly with intentional deceptive editing which I think this was, in my measured rational judgment.--Nick Y. 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sadi Carnot was aware of site standards

1) Sadi Carnot was aware of relevant policies and guidelines, including Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Spam, and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. He had been editing for two years and had been involved in AfD debates and a Mediation Cabal case where these policies were pointed out to him on numerous occasions. He had ample time to correct his editing to comply with site standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on Coren's preliminary evidence. - Jehochman 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the conclusion I have reached from the available evidence. — Coren  01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems premature given the state of the evidence at present. I would like to see more details of the MedCab case before being able to support this. In any case, the AfD debates cannot be used as evidence of a "warning", as SC simply stopped editing after he lost (ie, changed his behaviour in response to community criticism). The fact that he is a long term user is not particularly relevant either: I frequently come accross admins who are unfamiliar with some point or other of WP policy (and I no doubt make mistakes myself, after two years admin experience). Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Which AfD are you referring to? The ones two years ago where his OR was pointed out to him (as WavesMickey)? The ones one year ago where his OR was pointed out to him (as Sadi Carnot)? Or his latest ones where his OR was pointed out to him? We're not talking about some subtle point of an obscure guideline, here, but about one of the core policies— and having the same articles deleted multiple times because of that policy. — Coren  18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wavesmikey changed identities to Sadi Carnot in order to evade scrutiny

2) While the transition from using Wavesmikey to Sadi Carnot occurred prior to the formal procedure for changing identities, the timing of the transition demonstrates that the Sadi Carnot persona was a ruse specifically intended to allow Wavesmikey to continue to insert content in conflict with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Spam, and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Coren's investigation.Kww 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe "abusive sockpuppet" is quite right since the periods of edits do not overlap. It was a change of identity, and I do believe the purpose of that change was to evade scrutiny. — Coren  01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kww, can you change this to be very neutral. It's the same person, continuing a past pattern of behavior with a new identity. These are facts, not conclusions. - Jehochman 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Softened a tad.Kww 03:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the new wording. — Coren  03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is quite simply contrary to the evidence. Had SC wished to set up a "ruse", he could easily have split his edits between both accounts. He didn't. Neither was he obliged to provide verifiable personal details on the user pages of his accounts, but he did. The only relevance of SC's username change to this case is the fact that it is so obviously irrelevant, as could have been very simply verified in less than two minutes by any admin, and should never have formed part of block justification. Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A user who meets Sadi Carnot at an AfD debate will not immediately realize he is the same person as Wavesmikey. I don't investigate every new user I meet. Whether intentional or not, changing identity helped Sadi Carnot extend the length of time that good faith was assumed while he was repeatedly making problematic edits. He did not have a link on his userpage to the previous identity, nor was there a redirect from old identity to new. He could have done these things to avoid the appearance of using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. However, I agree with you that the proposed wording may be too strong. - Jehochman 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my phrasing. What good motive could the username change have had? To see that Wavesmikey and Sadi Carnot were the same did not require major detective skills, but was not obvious, because Wavesmikey blanked his userpage. You would have had to be curious enough to go to the history, and compare the historical record of his user page to Sadi Carnot's. To believe that the motive was not to avoid scrutiny is quite simply contrary to common sense.Kww 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I find this a somewhat odd conclusion to make since User:Sadi Carnot's main page declares his interest in these oddball subjects with even a link to his external web site identifying his real name and listing the books which he later self cited. Not particularly deceptive in my opinion. And as pointed out by Coren the editing periods do not overlap. Although Sadi seemed to use references deceptively he seemed to be quite open about his interests. It also seems clear that the change of user name may very well have been for the reason stated in the first sentence of his main page. I.e. he found a name that had meaning to him rather than just a random name. I don't mean to defend him but I think the evidence here is scant and mostly supposition.--Nick Y. 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrative actions were performed in good faith

3) All administrative actions that were done during this incident were done in good faith, and with no intent of wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it is very obvious by now that while there was a serious disagreement on the correct way to proceed, and that some actions may have been performed a little hastily, everything was done in good faith and with a desire to protect WP integrity. — Coren  15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with this, although I think the mention of wheel-warring is superfluous if we accept good faith. Physchim62 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing wheel warring is a good idea. We want to turn down the heat. - Jehochman 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree in the cases of Jehochman, Physchim62, and Sarah, even though it may have taken a while for me to see Physchim62's actions in that light. I can't enthusiastically state that protection of Misplaced Pages was behind DragonflySixtyseven's actions, although they don't seem to to descend to the level of bad faith. I think that reverting a block that had been already placed twice, with a large community asking for that block, not in order to protect Misplaced Pages but in order to protect Physchim62's feelings, deserves at least a negative comment.Kww 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that others have commented that this may have been– or has skirted close to– wheel warring, making an explicit comment that none was intended was a Good Thing. If you feel the need to strike that part, I'm not opposed. — Coren  18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This was apparent to me all along.--Nick Y. 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {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:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {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:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {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:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I essentially agree with Nick W., although I think that persistent, sneaky spammers should be blocked until they demonstrate a desire to be unblocked. This difference of opinion is within the range for which reasonable people disagree. Admins are expected to act in good faith. They are not required to be perfect. When admins disagree, we should talk, not revert. If blocking Sadi after 1:51 of discussion seemed hasty to Physchim62, surely unblocking him after 00:01 with no discussion was even more hasty. If we could just agree to talk before undoing each other's admin actions, we could all shake hands and walk away as friends. - Jehochman 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not consider myself a party to this case but would like to comment. Many of Sadi Carnot's edits to main stream science articles are factually correct and he had been a force that rejects common misnomers about science and had demonstrated a good knowledge of science. A good example would be his work at heat. I would also like to point out that there is nothing wrong with writing articles about pseudoscience as long as they are notable, well referenced and the content is verifiable. The bad edits of SC are not bad because of the pseudoscience but because they are about marginally notable (pseudoscience) subjects with sometimes misleading references and he spammed his own work for personal gain. I find SC actions in these regards to be reprehensible. Physchim was correct to call for calm and rational discussion before taking harsh action against SC. My reading of the unblock action that he took was to allow SC to comment and explain his actions more than to allow unmitigated vandalism and the action seemed temporary until a consensus or joint decision was reached. Although I think that Physchim's belief in the possible reform of SC may be too optimistic I do not find it unreasonable. I did not see the urgency to blocking SC and the lack of harm to actual wikipedia content of the unblock action demonstrates the reasonableness of PC's actions. I would tend to think that the status quo before any administrator action was taken would be the default status in which to have discussion. I personally am willing to support a permanent block on SC. I could also support supervision of SC and I see no problem with PS being the mentor. I find the effort misplaced but not the trust in physchim.--Nick Y. 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)