< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | PHG Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:45, 27 January 2009 editCoren (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →Proposed principles: votes← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:21, 27 January 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk \| contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Mentorships: ; replyNext edit →
Line 155:		Line 155:
	:Abstain:		:Abstain:
	:# I think it's dangerous to make a principle that can be seen as making it risky to engage in mentorship. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)		:# I think it's dangerous to make a principle that can be seen as making it risky to engage in mentorship. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
			:#:Would be riskier for users to avoid them because it could mean a certain block or ban. :-( Mentorships are used to avoid an ArbCom case or a block, so I think that voluntary mentorships need to be evaluated as well as ones arising from sanctions. Also, an inability to work collaboratively is the main reason for a block or ban. So, realistically, the inability to have a successful mentoring relationship would be ''one'' sign that an user can not be a productive editors at Misplaced Pages. ]] 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Comment:		:Comment:

Revision as of 16:21, 27 January 2009

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 15 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reliability of content

2) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing

3) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Accuracy of sourcing

4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Compliance with sanctions; learning from mistakes

5) Users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper or unhelpful conduct, especially in an Arbitration Committee decision, are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. Continuation of the problematic behavior can lead to an extension of sanctions or more restrictive sanctions. Conversely, sustained improvement in editing may lead to the lifting or narrowing of sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mentorships

6) Users who have been placed under mentorship or entered into a mentoring arrangement, whether voluntarily or pursuant to a committee or community sanction, should consult and take guidance from the mentor or mentors when issues arise concerning their editing. Inability to work constructively with a mentor or series of mentors may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true. The time and effort of editors who volunteer to assist as mentors is appreciated.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

I think it's dangerous to make a principle that can be seen as making it risky to engage in mentorship. — Coren 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Would be riskier for users to avoid them because it could mean a certain block or ban. :-( Mentorships are used to avoid an ArbCom case or a block, so I think that voluntary mentorships need to be evaluated as well as ones arising from sanctions. Also, an inability to work collaboratively is the main reason for a block or ban. So, realistically, the inability to have a successful mentoring relationship would be one sign that an user can not be a productive editors at Misplaced Pages. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

"series of mentors" implies consecutive mentors rather than the more usual mentorship arrangements where more than one person is mentoring the person concurrently. John Vandenberg 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we shorten it to "mentor(s)" ? John Vandenberg 10:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He's had more than one mentor, already. His first mentor was replaced due to on site inactivity so I don't see a problem with the wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing by PHG (talk · contribs) on articles relating to medieval and ancient history, especially the articles previously examined at WP:RFAR/Franco-Mongol alliance; this case is a review of the editing restrictions on PHG.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations

2) When PHG's editing was unrestricted, the user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles related to medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continued likelihood of POV-pushing

3) PHG's behavior on several talk pages suggests user would resume POV editing on Mongol-related topics, and topics related to Hellenistic India (, ).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

PHG is a valued contributor

4) PHG has complied with his topic ban in good faith. PHG contributes resourcefully, cooperatively, and productively in many topics.

Support:

Statements and evidence by PHG (citing list of articles), Dr. Blofeld, YellowMonkey, Mathsci, Sponsianus, Dr.K., Akhilleus, Djwilms, and Abd. I strongly believe that PHG should continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
To Rlevse: like FloNight says, this finding explains why harsher sanctions aren't imposed. PHG's editing under the mentorship is generally good. I think this is an important part of the decision's logical structure; would a different heading make this more palatable? Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We should issue findings of this sort more often. Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In this instance we are evaluating an user's contribution in order to make decisions about their continued participation despite claims that some of his edits are problematic. Some justification for why he is allowed to continue to participate seems good. (We can change the wording of the header but I like the wording of the proposal.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate Rlevse's concerns and think that his point generally has value. However, I believe such a finding is important to the context of this case and our handling thereof, which is exactly when it is appropriate to use such findings. Vassyana (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with Rlevse but it seems like this case warrants an exception. Wizardman 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

I oppose "valued contributor" findings as it is not arbcom's job to provide barnstars. All users who contribute good content have value. Some of them may have issues to work on, which is why arbcom exists, but they all have value. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Mentorship renewed

1a) PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is extended. For the next year:

PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.

and

PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Support:

Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

He was never limited' to only use English sources that were widely available, rather, his mentor had to verify his non-English sources including French (his native language).FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I see. A lot of people didn't realize that the committee intended to let him directly use French sources with supervision. 1b makes it explicit. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Not opposed, but not thrilled about the language restriction. Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Prefer 1b or 1c. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

1b) PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is revised and extended. For the next year:

PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
PHG may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a French-language source, citation, or translation provided by PHG, the special language mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

and

PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Support:

I didn't previously run this by the committee, so I'm proposing it now. I think PHG should be free to use his native language if someone can check his work. This is my first choice. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) offsetting for now due to my addition. Cool Hand Luke 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This continues the existing arrangement. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Second choice, parts of the wording sound redundant. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

This would be my first choice, however there should be some requirement to report to the special language mentor whenever foreign language sources are used. John Vandenberg 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, if you have some language in mind, I would support. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: User:Vassyana/acphg. Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1c) PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is revised and extended. For the next year:

PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
PHG may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When PHG uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.

and

PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Support:

Suggested by User:Vassyana above, with no further comment so far. Equal preference with 1b. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Equal preference to 1b. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
First choice. Wizardman 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended

2) The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Support:

Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Targeted solutions are desirable. Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Invitation to editing

3) PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, may waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits.

Support:

I think this is key. PHG's work is generally not bad, and by this proposal he will be given a chance to edit articles on the periphery of his topic ban, which will build trust with the community—resulting in invitations to edit more articles. I think he can earn the community's trust, and this is meant to be an opportunity for him to do so. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The idea is that both PHG and his mentor should agree to lifting the restriction and allow a reasonable time for comments, perhaps as Elonka suggests. I would like to allow some flexibility for PHG's mentor to implementing it in a manner likely to benefit PHG's editing; some experimentation may be required. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I liked this addition. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

At this point, I am unsure of this. How exactly should it be implemented? Does PHG or his mentor post the suggestion on the talk page and then follow the results of discussion? Is it based on the mentor's interpretation of PHG's talk page interaction? Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If flexibility and experimentation is desired, I'm wary of the "guided by consensus on the talk page concerned" phrase. It leaves the door open to a lot of questioning and wikilawyering. Please note, I'm not opposed to a flexible measure in this regard. Vassyana (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG encouraged

4) PHG has complied with ArbCom's restrictions over the past ten months. PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects—even in currently-restricted subjects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

Support:

I hope PHG continues to improve. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I've been pleased with this mentoring arrangement and think it should continue with these modifications. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should the user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Routine. Cool Hand Luke 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

I'm not at all keen on the time limit. I see no reason to limit blocks to one week or to remove an indefinite block as an option. Vassyana (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Not sure per Vassyana. Will revisit. Wizardman 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.