User:Tryptofish/Sandbox/Workshop

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from Historicity of Jesus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise. This may involve the wider community, if necessary, through dispute resolution mechanisms like noticeboards and Requests for Comment. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally and by respecting the outcomes reached after dispute resolution.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from Iranian politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a battleground
3) Wikipedia is not a battleground.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Coordinated editing
4) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from Eastern European mailing list, except that I changed the title from "Meatpuppetry" to "Coordinated editing". I based this on the directly relevant sockpuppet policy, rather than on a guideline such as WP:COI or WP:CANVASS, because that makes for a firmer basis on which to form findings. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to resolve good-faith editorial disputes among editors. The Committee's role does extend to evaluating allegedly improper user conduct, which in serious cases may include persistent non-neutral editing or BLP violations, or a pattern of making unsupported allegations and personal attacks.


 * In general, the Committee requires that earlier methods of dispute resolution have been attempted before a dispute will be accepted for arbitration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from Manipulation of BLPs, except that I introduced a paragraph break between the two parts. Both conduct-not-content and last-step-in-DR should be highlighted in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute
1) This dispute centered on the topic of modern scientific skepticism, its proponents, and persons criticized by its proponents. Disputes concerned accusations of coordinated editing, accompanied by a heated and often unpleasant editing environment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editing environment
2) The editing environment in this topic area was frequently marked by bitter disagreements that were unresolved, making it difficult to reach consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia
3) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW) is an outside group that seeks members to edit Wikipedia to counteract what they believe are violations of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view in topics related to skepticism: . For the most part, their edits have contributed positively to content, and editors who have acted incorrectly have been cooperative in fixing the problems. However, there have been instances in which a lack of transparency about coordinated editing among their members has gotten in the way of reaching consensus:, ,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Prior dispute resolution
4) Editors have repeatedly attempted to resolve these conflicts at various venues, including but not limited to the Administrators' noticeboard: incidents and Conflict of interest noticeboard. These efforts at dispute resolution were inconclusive. Some editors were left feeling that they had been unfairly targeted and hounded, while others felt that their concerns had not received proper consideration or acknowledgment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration enforcement
5) In the Pseudoscience case, ArbCom has authorized standard discretionary sanctions "for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." At no time during the present dispute did editors seek to make use of these sanctions at Arbitration Enforcement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is important to point out, because (outside of matters of private evidence) everything in the case could have been handled within the structured environment of AE, without having had to come to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
1) The discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience are revised as follows, with added text underlined:
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience, and fringe science, and modern scientific skepticism and persons connected to it, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * Editors in this topic area who have come from an organized effort off-site must disclose this fact, subject to awareness of this requirement. Editors who wish to report violations of this requirement must not publicly post personal information in violation of the harassment policy; such evidence may instead be submitted privately to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors reminded
2) Editors active in this topic area are reminded to discuss disputes civilly, and warned that failure to do so is likely to result in sanctions. Editors are also reminded to make use of Arbitration Enforcement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Speaking broadly about my proposals, I have not suggested remedies aimed at individual editors. I believe that much of the submitted evidence is one-sided and overblown when seen in context, although I also recognize that there have been some genuine problems with incivility. However, there has been nothing in public evidence that could not have been addressed via Arbitration Enforcement. I therefore believe strongly that, because ArbCom only handles conduct problems for which other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted, and AE was never tried, ArbCom should not issue individual sanctions now – nor has it been historically useful to have remedies along the lines of "user admonished" or "user reminded", etc. If, subsequently, Arbitration Enforcement proves ineffective, then ArbCom can consider a clarification and amendment request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)