Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

BLP case closed; Cirt–Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

Manipulation of BLPs closed

In the case, opened to examine the meta issues involved in biographies of living persons, all proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies have passed. All but one (Manipulation of search engine results) passed without opposition.

Among the findings, the Arbitration Committee reaffirmed that "all editing of articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy", but did not find any specific editors at fault. "The subject-matters of the evidence and workshop proposals in this case have been wide-ranging, including evidence of some troublesome edits and problematic interactions between editors, but not to a level that the Committee believes necessitates any findings or remedies against specific editors at the present time."

Drafting arbitrator Newyorkbrad acknowledged that some may "feel that the decision comprises a series of generalities and does not discuss or resolve the specific BLP and user-conduct disputes raised in the evidence", but explained that he did not "find this case to be a suitable vehicle for proposing findings and remedies aimed at specific editors".

Cirt and Jayen466 nearing completion

This dispute, between Cirt and Jayen466, is also nearing completion.

The committee passed relatively standard principles on collegiality, maintaining a neutral point of view, undue weight, biographies of living people, and fair criticism and personal attacks. A more atypical principle on "bias and prejudice", which passed only 6–4, argues that editors should avoid "engaging in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes[, bias or prejudice]." Concerns that the new principle judges "outcome rather than methodology" were raised by one arbitrator who argued "NPOV contributions that use RS'es" should not be rejected merely because of the subject matter of their edit, writing that "if one is to observe that in America, Asians tend to be better educated than whites, is that promoting a stereotype against white people?". Concerns were also raised about the principle applying to religious groups; some anti-religious editors, particularly those focusing on fringe groups, arguably do very necessary work fighting bias, but yet could be said to be evincing their own "bias and prejudice against the members of the group". Another arbitrator wrote that "there are plenty of hypersensitive people on Wikipedia floating around any topic of high emotional content. What such editors sincerely believe to be [so] may [in fact] be dispassionate, NPOV editing." Another arbitrator, clarifying the wording, said, "Work done by the words 'gratuitously' and 'invidious' should not be underestimated; legitimate criticism of any group or individual, consistent with applicable policies, is not proscribed."

Both proposed findings of fact are in the process of passing. Cirt was found to have placed undue weight on negative issues in BLPs and articles on new religious movements using poor sources, which he had previously admitted. Jayen466 was found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct in respect of Cirt, primarily by being over-focused on Cirt's editing and by being indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt.

Remedies that have passed so far include a topic ban prohibiting Cirt from making any edit to articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, and another restriction prohibiting Cirt from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person where (1) the notability of the BLP subject relates to politics, religion, or social controversy, or (2) the subject of the edit relates to politics, religion, or social controversy. A proposed remedy to desysop Cirt, introduced late in the process, is being voted on. Interaction between Cirt and Jayen466 will be restricted. Administrators have been authorized to enforce the restrictions with blocks starting at up to one month in length and the committee has reserved the right to desysop with a simple motion in the future.

Open cases, AUSC reshuffle

Abortion, a dispute over the lead sentence of Abortion and the naming of abortion-related articles, also said to have been exacerbated by disruptive editing moved into its fourth week.
Senkaku Islands, which looks at the behavior of editors involved in a dispute over whether the naming of the articles Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute is sufficiently neutral. It is alleged that the content dispute has been exacerbated by disruptive editing moved into its third week.
Following a period of inactivity,
User:AGK, as the reserve candidate drawn from recent elections, replaces him. It is not known when bahamut0013, who began his term on the subcommittee in April, might return to regular editing.
Postscript. In September 2011, The Signpost learned that User:bahamut0013, aka Sergeant Robert P Lemiszki Jr., United States Marine Corps, died. (Signpost coverage
.)

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

The coverage of Bahamut0013 is rather abrupt. Per
•] 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- I hurriedly expanded it (because it was mea culpa), although that led to the comments below. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damned either way: it's a sign that you did a good job, or a very bad one.
    •] 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

"It is not known when Bahamut, a former US marine who began his term serving on the subcommittee in April, might return to regular editing." This is in fact hideously incorrect: there is no such thing as a "former" Marine! It is one of the ten commandments of the US Marine Corps: "Once a Marine, ALWAYS a Marine." I have taken the liberty of fixing the mistake, but in future please, PLEASE make a greater effort to check these little facts before publishing. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "former US marine" is incorrect, but changing it to "a US marine" implies to the general public unfamiliar with USMC traditions that he is still on active duty. I changed it to "formerly active US marine." Is that acceptable wording? Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An active marine until 2009? (or whenever it was) Tony (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Fact checking priority is given to Wikipedia-related facts, rather than tangential factoids. Nonetheless, it would be nice to get these things right (I will remember this forever!). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what extent 'real life stress' has to do with Bahamut's inactivity, and it should be noted that only checkuser and oversight permissions were removed - he remains an administrator. And keep in mind that he held these permissions only by virtue of his being a sitting member of the Audit Subcommittee, and it is standard operating procedure to withdraw any advanced permissions that were not previously held upon the conclusion of community members' term on the subcommittee. –xeno^talk 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that none of the information relating to Bahamut13's personal circumstances were included in the article, given that this page is linked to hundreds of others. The statement that Bahamut was replaced on the Audit Subcommittee because of inactivity on the project, and that his associated checkuser and oversight rights were withdrawn, should be sufficient. I'd still like to see the change made, actually, though I won't do it myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I hope Jarry thinks it's ok; left him a note. Tony (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should point out that the information on his life was drawn directly from his public blog, which is linked from his userpage. However, as I said to Tony when he queried this after NYB's message, there was probably a differing of opinion over the meaning of the word "stress" which gave the impression that the report writer knew more than was included on the blog (which he did not). If in doubt, cut, I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing one's own Signpost article?

I noticed on User:Cirt's talk page a statement that he should only edit the Signpost article about him in case of "grievous factual errors". Looking here I see that User:Jayen466, also a party to that case, edited somewhat more substantially: [1] I don't see any edit notice when I go to edit the page, nor any clear warning here. Is the bot right, or is it overwrought? Wnt (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has set up a thread at

WT:SIGNPOST. I shall reply there. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Look at the diffs and somebody tell me again that this wasn't a dirty deal done to Cirt by a small circle of axe-grinders. Complete bullshit. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up if true. jp×g 21:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!

Home

About