Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Proposed decision

Thanks for the good work
Thanks in advance to the Drafting Arbitrators for all their good work, that allowed a timely publication of this Proposed Decision. Pldx1 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, it hasn't been published yet. They still have 16½ hours. BethNaught (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, you guys get till 23:59, so do we ;) Should be up somewhere in the 20-23:00 range. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure ! Have a good day. Added in advance, to be more precise. Pldx1 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now we can thank the drafters for their prompt work. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cases" cat
I've removed the Category:Cases category as I'm assuming it was a mistake, Probably should've come here first...,

Anyway if it was a mistake then by all means revert, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mz7's section
I'm pretty happy with this proposed decision. Back when this was at ANI, the reason I wanted the Arbitration Committee to hear this case was because of the overwhelming complexity of the issues presented – we needed an arbitration case to "break the back" of the dispute, and I think this proposed decision does a good job of doing that. It presents the issues in a far more organized, structured, and compelling manner than the messy, far less-structured and far more-heated ANI discussion. And it helps the community fix the issues, since it is now far clearer what they actually are. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv's section
I'm generally fine with this PD, though I'm not thrilled with the RfA principle. I get that the whole RfA dishonesty issue seems to present a case of first impression (and there was dishonesty, even if you discount the failure to correct hook I thoroughly relied on at workshop, Wikicology affirmatively made false claims during the RfA). That said, I can live with this given the probable remedies of a siteban and that ArbCom may make formal notifications to other bodies. Though I'd rather at least see a FoF on the RfA dishonesty, I think the principle at least gives ground on which to call for an RfC to implement a formal expectation of honesty at RfA. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't this subject addressed in proposed finding 3? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed my coffee this morning. On the plus side, I feel a lot better about this PD now. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

11th hour thought: When the clerks formally act on the now-elapsed motion to close and enact the ban, Wikicology's user page history should probably be restored given it was evidence in this case. It was U1ed a few minutes ago. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , undeletion is not necessary. If Wikicology would have come to me after enactment, I would have done the same. There is no reason not to honour the U1 request, regardless of it's use as evidence in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FoF 10: Wikicology has been harassed
I am disappointed and disturbed (though not really surprised) to read that Wikicology has been subjected to harassment. I am glad that ArbCom has acted on evidence of harassment because such behaviour is inconsistent with the decency I anticipate from fellow Wikipedians. I have presented evidence of your problematic editing, but I want you to know that I am appalled that you have been harassed and I hope you can accept that most Wikipedians bare you no malice. ArbCom is empowered to make evidence-based decisions which are necessary to protect the integrity of encyclopedic content. However, neither editing disagreements nor even an ArbCom sanction justifies or excuses you being mistreated. It is sad that others have acted dishonourably towards you and I am sorry that you have been harassed. EdChem (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not feel too bad EdChem. I was able to read the content before it was deleted. I understand why it was deleted, as it constituted among other things, outing. Tradedia talk 19:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Principle 3
I think you mean in 3 to say "with unverifiable statements" not "with unverified statements" because verifiability in the Verifiability policy means a reliable source exists. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a bit sloppy, thanks; fixed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Community is encouraged
As of now, there are 8/8 for: "The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions." Such a measure doesn't make sense when at least two Arbitrators are saying that the Wikicology's contributions were not that much disruptive. Pldx1 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not saying they weren't disruptive, just not disruptive enough to warrant banning..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Creating 500+ articles that Arbcom distrust sufficiently to encourage the Community to clean them one by one... And all of that to create the buzz in the Nigerian media and create the illusion of being the face of Wikipedia... What could be sufficiently disrupting in their mind to warrant a ban ?  Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Accounts are not banned, nor anything done to them for what's in their mind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Alanscottwalker, I don't want to lecture you about English grammar, but pronouns are the lieu-tenants of their nouns. Therefore the their in in their minds was a lieu-tenant of the last plural noun I had used. And this was two Arbitrators. Therefore, the question was :"What could be sufficiently disrupting, in the mind of these two Arbitrators, to..." .  Concerning Wikicology, we have the choice of attributing his behavior to an intentional attempt to increase his editcountitis (and his influence)... or to such a huge un-intentional lack of understanding of all theses rules he was preaching as a mentor and advertizing as an Ambassador. In my opinion, the second option is rather worse, and I don't perceive it as a more lenient way to state what was the problem. But this is only how I perceive the matter. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your vague syntax. As for the rest, there is no such either/or choice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The ban is only 1 vote shy of passing. There are several who haven't voted yet. Naturally those who are less certain that a ban is appropriate will wait before voting to consider both sides. ArbCom isn't an instant gratification process. I'm confident the ban will happen. That one Arb seems to want a proof of a malfeasant state of mind isn't going to stop that, particularly where we're 9/0 in favor of a principle that says this: Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology's section
Right now, I am writing something as fast as possible. I will post it very soon to show I am doing things the right way and unofficial mentorship has helped me follow Wikipedia policies. The people who said they are willing to mentor me said that ArbCom has to decide before they can be official mentors. I will bring you the diffs that show my improvement based on the feedback from the community, my unofficial mentors, and ArbCom. Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I followed User: SlimVirgin's directions here to not "edit any pages not directly related to resolving this dispute or to cleaning up affected articles. Please don't create or move any pages. And I would suggest that, if you do engage in clean-up, you should do so under the guidance of  if he's still willing to help. All the best and good luck" except this edit.

I started article clean up in response to feedback at 2016 AN/I. See diff:

I improved my interactions. I cooperated doing article clean up.

My article clean up work improved because of unofficial mentors and other community members. My recent article clean up is slower and more correct than when I started article clean up. I improved because of suggestions.

My unofficial mentor User: Cullen328 wrote "references look solid and back the content. Please be sure to include author names and publication dates". See diff:

I used feedback from unofficial mentor User: Cullen328 about author names and publication dates. I found mistake when I put years in wrong places that made the contents wrong. I fixed it even though User: Cullen328 didn't see it. I fixed it because I carefully read the sources the way I said I would in the workshop. See diff:

I used article talk page correctly. It is different in Nigeria when parents hail from one place but child is not born there. The indigene/settler issue is important in Nigeria. I saw this in some reliable sources but not with enough detail. I will look for a reliable source for Wikipedia. I didn't include this difference in the article because it would be original research. See diff:

Here is another example of an unofficial mentor feedback I used for article clean up. See part of talk page here:

When I have asked other members of the community for feedback on article clean up questions they helped me. This is one example but there are more examples of other community members:. I knew the importance of yams to the Igogo Festival. I was able to find another reliable source to show this after the community explained the first source is not clear.

My unofficial mentor User: Irondome also helped me understand how to fix mistakes and edit correctly. I am trying to post this fast. That is why I didn't post diffs of this help and improvement.

Here are some articles I tried to begin cleaning up:


 * Beacon of ICT Awards
 * Henrietta Ogan
 * Ahmed Tijjani Mora ‎
 * Akinyinka Omigbodun ‎
 * Ken Nwogbo
 * Ayo Fayose
 * Yoruba tribal marks
 * Women Health and Action Research Centre
 * Friday Okonofua
 * Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa
 * West African College of Surgeons
 * Akinyinka Omigbodun
 * Igogo festival
 * Femi Robinson
 * Mal regulon
 * Catabolite activator protein ‎
 * Talk:Buhari's anti-corruption war ‎
 * Talk:$2 billion arms deal ‎
 * Johnson Bamidele Olawumi ‎
 * Abel Idowu Olayinka
 * Buhari's anti-corruption war
 * Fulani herdsmen
 * Computer Village

The last four articles I started clean up in sandbox after an Arbitrator suggested I fix one or a few articles there. Diff:

I worked hard on article cleanup at the same time as ArbCom case even though I was harassed. I tried to stay calm and follow directions for if someone is harassed.

User: SilkTork was correct here: when he wrote, "I think we need to give greater assistance to users from difficult regions, and if the evidence does mount up that he is well meaning but slightly incompetent (rather than deliberately misleading) I do think the community will give him that special assistance". He was also correct about other things. This is just one sentence I wanted to show because my unofficial mentors and the community are helping me while article clean up.

I believe mentorship will help in my situation because it helped already for me. I made many mistakes. Only using sandbox or drafts to fix article mistakes prevents disrupting Wikipedia. I can work with official mentors by pinging them instead of editing their talk pages.

If I am banned and appeal in a year or longer then have mentorship after the appeal I will still have mentorship but it will not be for a year or more. Then I cannot help clean up for a year or longer. I am not saying this is unfair, but I can help article clean up and not disrupt Wikipedia for a year.

Maybe a six month block then mentorship another year then only create articles in sandbox or drafts for second year is a way to help the community fix the mistakes I made and not disrupt Wikipedia.

Photographer gave me permission to upload some photos for free use, but I did not understand "own work" was more than the owner of the camera and the uploader. I understand "own work" means who pushed the button now. I am confused because someone said for photographer to send a release to Commons. Another person said it is best to tell the photographer to make an account and upload the photographs himself. I am trying to do all the correct things but different people tell me different things are more correct. I am confused and want to fix all problems I created as quickly as I can. After harassment I do not know if it is a good idea for the photographer to create an account because I don't want more people harassed. I will fix every photograph mistake. It is very hard to fix all mistakes at the same time during ArbCom case and harassment. I think it is fair to be banned from uploading photographs on English Wikipedia even though I learned from my mistakes. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to volunteer to mentor you as well, Wikicology.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I am very grateful. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Real-life consequences
I have been considering these; although I admit that WP cannot necessarilly subvert its own policies for subjective reasons. Fortuna   Imperatrix Mundi  14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Information
My name is on the MassMessage list for this case. Now I find out that there has been a decision and there have been blocks. Yet I did not get a message about this on my talk page. My question is whether the MassMessage list was only installed to inform about the opening of the case and not about results. Best regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe (a fellow clerk on this case) created the mass-message list and is welcome, of course, to mass-message the decision. In addition to the other details involved in closing a case, I notified users and noticeboards in accordance with instructions 10–13 at Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Since you were not a party to the case, sanctioned or mentioned in a finding, you were not separately notified.  Mini  apolis  19:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)