Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Blu Aardvark

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Expand scope beyond Raul

1) I move that the scope of the case be expanded beyond Raul's statement when he filed to address actions surrounding the unblockings and reblockings of Blu Aardvark as brought up by several statements at Requests for Arbitration (since moved to the talk page), in addition to the question of whether Blu should finally be unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by me. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Lethe. Important Wikipedia policies were repeatedly violated by admins, with dramatic consequences, yet one of the admins has stated that he did nothing wrong, and the other says that "such experiments" are enrouraged. Further, the role of the IRC in this matter appears central. -Will Beback 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to include Mistress Selina Kyle and her merits to be unblocked as well. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might consider taking your own advice. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to withdraw case

1) Blu Aardvark has stated that he no longer wishes to become a Wikipedia editor and wants this announcement to be considered a request for ArbCom to drop the case. At this point, if Blu Aardvark still harbors considerable animosity towards some editors and no longer intends to become a productive editor, it would be unwise to take any further steps towards unblocking his account. I move that we reblock the account and forget about mentorship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

by lethe (11:33, 16 June 2006)

There are proposed remedies involving other parties in the case. The proposed ban and other remedies involving Blu Aardvark, all of which seem to have a strong prospect of passing, would also serve to provide finality to the case, avoiding the repetition of a similar blocking and unblocking squabble should Blu Aardvark ever change his mind. So from a purely procedural point of view I see no good reason to close. Only if the sole purpose of this case was the reinstatement of Blu Aardvark would it make sense to close it now. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on Blu talk page. [1] --FloNight talk 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Safe editing environment

1) A safe environment for editors in general and admin in particular is essential for the functioning of Wikipedia; without safety, building an encyclopedia is impossible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Encouragement of the harassment of other users is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this supposed to be a principle instead of a temporary injunction? Ral315 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, moved (including your reply). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

2) The IRC channel used by editors and admins of Wikipedia is external to Wikipedia itself. As such, it has no overruling power to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Decisions made or consensus reached at the IRC channel are therefore irrelevant at Wikipedia. This does not exclude private communication at IRC, e-mail etc. to consult with other editors on the topic at hand prior to proposing it at Wikipedia itself, nor does it extend to Jimmy Wales, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the e-mail list of the Arbitration Comittee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The very purpose of the IRC channel is to discuss Wikipedia problems and issues. In general there is no problem if an IRC discussion results in a decision which is carried out on Wikipedia. However care must be taken in the case of controversial issues where a less then full discussion was carried out. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment To add, the decisions by the arbCom are made here as well, it is at the same level, it is visible to everybody. (feel free to add a qualifier somewhere)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While I do strongly agree that IRC does not overrule policies and guidelines, IRC is one of the few ways to discuss measures in a semi-private to private context on Wikipedia aside from private mailing lists and direct person-to-person emails. Rather than completely nullify decisions and consensus made there, instead, require full disclosure and a chance for other parties to insert input prior to taking administrative action.

Ergo, it's fine if I ask a few involved editors for a opinion and gain consensus; But I still need to go to ANI, AFD, whatever and leave a summary of what happened, lay out who supported and who did not support, have those people verify their stance, and leave reasonable time for others to comment. The same could be applied to private mailing lists, etc; The goal isn't to allow for a closed decision process, it's to make things somewhat easier on sensitive topics.--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that as consultation prior to brining it to wikipedia, it can be used and I actually would say, it should be encouraged in sensitive cases to get a feel how things will work out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to endorse this proposal. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse this motion. -Will Beback 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support the idea that off site Wikipedia communication is appropriate but it must be used to supplement on site communication not replace it. This applies to IRC, email, lettters, phone, and person to person meetings. FloNight ^talk 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal and Flo. There's nothing wrong with private communication, but it can never be more than just private communication - decisions about the project cannot be made. Obviously this excludes the arbcomm mailing list. In addition, since conversations on WikiEn-L are publicly available, it would seem fair that you can reference conversations there (but not make policy decisions or seem "consensus"). Since IRC logs are not publicly available, this doesn't apply there; the old "X agreed to Y on IRC" is meaningless, because there is no way for others to verify it. Guettarda 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this motion as well, though, as Guettarda says, it obviously excludes the arbcomm mailing list. AnnH ♫ 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also support this idea—with the understanding/proviso that policy statements made by Jimbo and members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (acting in their official capacities) still constitute binding policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, added, and feel to tweek it as needed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As a historical matter, the pedophilia wheel war was resolved primarily through discussion on IRC. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure what Fred means by a "less than full discussion", and how non-IRC users are supposed to tell the difference. My ideal is that discussion of problems on IRC would eventually lead to an ANI posting of, "here is what we decided, what do you think." Thatcher131 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That'd be practical if others could review the logs and see what was really decided. Since that isn't possible, references to IRC discussions are simply the recollections of logged-in users. So the situation would be more "Here is what I think we agreed on in IRC, which means there is enough interest to bring this to AN/I". IRC should never replace AN/I. In this instance, the blocking policy specifies AN/I as the place to hold community discussions about unblocking. -Will Beback 20:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. WP:CON

Comment by Arbitrators:

True Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by me. -lethe ^{talk +}

[edit] Unblocking

4) If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate. WP:BLOCK

Comment by Arbitrators:

Best practice Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by me. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheelwarring

5) In the absence of an unambiguous error, don't undo another admin's administrator actions without discussing the issue thoroughly in advance with that admin, or in his or her absence, with other admins on WP:AN/I. WP:NWW

Comment by Arbitrators:

Best practice. Wheelwarring is evil. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by me. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Added "administrator actions", since this presumably isn't discussing regular editing. Kirill Lokshin 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed WP:1WW to WP:NWW, which is a more relevant shortcut. Should the ArbCom endorse a proposed policy, though? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to community ban

6) Editors banned based on community consensus have the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, should have a right to make their case, apologize if appropriate, etc. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

7) Community bans may only be made after interaction with the community on WP:AN/I and with the community's support, and may only be undone after similar community interaction and support (or by a decision of the Arbitration Committee). This is consistent with the way that Arbitration Committee bans are made and undone with Arbitration Committee interaction and support.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, if a user is insufferable any administrator may make an initial indefinite ban for good cause. They should then discuss it and be ready to change it if it was inappropriate. They are responsible for using this mechanism only when there is good cause. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needs tweaking. Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to suggestion made at my talk page. I think this is better. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to Fred Bauder)

Please change it as you want, my main objective for this point is the consistency, the rest is up to tweaking. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a good stance to take.

If there's very blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, such as vandalism or a legal threat, it's a full policy supported block. No question, not much controversy.
If there's issues which haven't followed the path of DR up to ArbCom, they should.
If they have been through DR multiple times, block for a short duration while discussing on AN:I if it's required. In some cases where it's a very built-up, long duration issue, there is no call for hasty and urgent action in the day it takes to have a full discussion. A block can always be added if the user is very incivil in dealing with the issue or begins other blatant violations of policy.

A indefinite block is a very serious issue; Is it a good idea to have a "shoot first, ask later" mentality? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki activity

8) An editor can not be judged on actions or the lack thereof at off-wiki locations, as it is beyond the power of wikipedia to judge them properly. However, unambigious direct quotes by the editor made off-wiki, can taken into consideration when they have on-wiki consequences, or have consequences for the editors of wikipedia IRL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Users are responsible for their activities on sites such as Wikipedia Review. Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the quote idea at all. If a Wikipedia editor violates WP:NOT by turning it into a soapbox/linkfarm and linking to a page containing personal attacks, fine, let's skewer them. That's on-wiki action (the act of linking) getting on-wiki consequences. However, quotes are far too easy to falsify or tamper with, far too easy to take out of context, and the list goes on. None of that. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you add you version as a different proposed principle. This are proposals, and there can be conflicting ones. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a debate currently on-going to add a clause like this to WP:NPA (see talk). It represents a compromise between the camp which thinks off-wiki behavior should never be considered and the camp which thinks it must be considered. The compromise seems to be garnering widespread support from both camps, if I may put forth an opinion. I endorse this proposed principle, though it's not clear to me whether the ArbCom, a judicial body, can rule on it. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

if they cannot, it will not make it to the proposed desision page, or voted down there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A good point was raised at that talk page; policy pages exist to describe existing policy, not to prescribe what policy should be. Thus the fact that whether it should be codified is still under debate does not affect whether it is practiced. I believe it is practiced that off-wiki attacks have consequences in evaluating good faith, and that therefore there should be no obstacle for the ArbCom to rule on this proposal. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placing users in danger

9) Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a block of any length of time, including indefinite, may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely Fred Bauder 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Blu Aardvark

1) Blu_Aardvark (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is a user who has been banned as the result of disruptive behavior. The ban followed community discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive87#Blu_Aardvark:_I_recommend_a_permanent_ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia review

2) Blu Aardvark is an administrator on Wikipedia Review, a website devoted to criticism of Wikipedia. He uses the same user name on Wikipedia Review Blu Aardvark's posts on Wikipedia Review

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am no longer an adminstrator on that particular forum, as Wikipedia Review has undergone a split. I currently am an administrator of wikipediareview.org, however. We are hoping to operate this in a slightly different vein than the first two forums were run, with (hopefully) some specific policies in place to deal with such issues at the publication of personal details, among other things. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Encouragement of misogyny

3) Blu Aardvark has encouraged harassment of a female administrator of Wikipedia by the banned user Amorrow (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) [2]. However, eventually, Amorrow's game became apparent to Wikipedia Review and he was banned with Blu Aardvark supporting the ban [3]. A ban supported by Daniel Brandt [4], Hershelkrustovsky [5] and others, but opposed by Everyking [6].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Submitting comment to arbcom by email. FloNight ^talk 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)~~

There is little evidence submitted of Amorrow's misogyny, and I am unsure if it is really true. Does he harass these people because they are women, or because of some wrong or perceived wrong done onto him? The only thread supporting this proposition includes his admiration of a woman even. In other posts he has said that he does not specifically have issues with them and just wishes to be left alone. Since people will not leave him (or his edits) alone he does toy with those that revert him by not using more secretive means[7] and by planning when he does his edits[8]. Of course, this is all only tagently related.

From there we jump to the conclusion that not only is Amorrow misogynistic, but that Blu encourages and supports Amorrow's view or his harassment? The post in question can be read in this light, but it is certainly not the only interperation or the most likely. Blu has said that was not his intention, yet he agrees that they may have been ill-conceived[9][10].

He simply expressed his opinion that even edits from banned users may have merit, which is at least supported by FloNight even when she is reverting his edits[11]. It seems odd to censure someone for suggesting that Amorrow should revert vandalism. Musical Linguist, or anyone else, is under no compulsion to track down every one of Amorrow's edits and roll them back (even after Jimbo has declared "revert on sight, block on sight") and I am unsure of the value that the encyclopedia gains by doing so. Kotepho 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen evidence to support the assertion of misogyny. Google is your friend. Guettarda 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's kind of unfair to call Blu Aardvark, in that post, encouraging harrassment of anyone. He was encouraging evasion of a ban, nothing else. Even if his suggestion entailed harrassment of MusicalLinguist, he made no mention of gender and gave no indication of his reasons, so I think attributing misogyny to him is quite unfair. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He was calling for positive contribution; I can't say how that can been seen as supporting harassment. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies and confessions

4) Prior apologies and confessions include this partial [12] and this confession [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Personal attacks by Blu Aardvark

5) Blu Aardvark has made personal attacks [14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Violation of GFDL

6) Blu Aardvark has violated GFDL by importing at least one Wikipedia article to Wikipedia Review without meeting the requirements of a link back to the original article and a link to GFDL [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thank you Blu for fixing this. Fred Bauder 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While he may have violated the GFDL, it certainly isn't for the reason listed. It in no way requires a link to the text of the GFDL or the original source and the copy he has provided is a transparent copy. I, as at least one of authors, release him of attributing my edits under section 4, part B (in fact, I release all possible rights to all of my contributions thus far). Kotepho 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 3: "You may copy and distribute the Document . . . provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies". The Wikimedia Foundation generally feels a link to the document is sufficient to meet the license-inclusion requirement for online posts, and that a link back to Wikipedia is sufficient for inclusion of copyright notices (i.e., list of contributors, see 4(D)–(E)), although of course any contributor could always sue possible infringers if they disagreed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any legal liability would be the contributors of that version of the article to follow, as it is their copyright. The issue is instantly solved by explicit citation. Right now, there is a link at the top of the article to the Wikipedia page, which casts doubt onto any legal motion. I submit that as the opinion of a layman and I pray that I do not hit another edit conflict. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is serious straw-clutching. The Arbitration Committee does not have the authority to determine whether or not my use of the text is in violation of GFDL, nor does the Arbitration Committee have the authority to determine that the use of the text did not qualify under "fair use". With that aside, one will note that I have now edited the post to contain a link back to the article, and also a link to the text of the GFDL, in addition to a full list of contributors to the article. This is still an absolutely ridiculous assertion, nonetheless, having no place whatsoever in this Arbitration case. --Blu Aardvark 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (This comment was added as Blu not logged in. [16] Kotepho 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

He has proceeded to cite all contributors, the Wikipedia article, and the revision number, all he can be expected to do considering a lack of easy access to a full revision history. I think we can safely shelf this issue. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The thread it was in cited the URL it came from, and it was quite obvious that that was what he was referring to- the only thing he really failed to do was link to the GFDL, but he indirectly did, because there's a link to the GFDL on every page of WP. Either way, it's possible that he could assert fair use, too. --Rory096 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Blu Aardvark banned

1) Blu Aardvark is banned for one month for pissing around.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Linuxbeak admonished

1) User:Linuxbeak is admonished to follow the blocking policy, and specifically to avoid unblocking contentious users without full discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Will Beback 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Aardvark banned

3) Blu Aardvark is banned pending resolution of all violations of the GFDL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Probation Trifecta.

4) Blu Aardvark is placed on probation for one year. If he makes unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, he may be banned for a length of time up to one week. He may be banned from editing any page which he is deemed to have disrupted. Both of these shall require a good-faith belief of three administrators to effect. In addition, Blu Aardvark may be blocked for a longer duration with the consensus of five administrators. Blocks should be noted at log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Changed 1/3 to 3/5 to reflect the need for administrative consensus. Wording on the third implementation (assorted misc) probably needs to be changed. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically innovative but has antecedents in general probation. --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship

1) Blu Ardvark is placed under mentorship for the duration of his probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think having someone to guide him could help Blu Ardvark stay the good course that he has begun to shift back towards. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: