Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 2 January 2012 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers none none 31 December 2011
Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens none none 29 December 2011
Request for clarification: Abortion motion none none 12 December 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML]] none none 29 November 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers

Initiated by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) at 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by ASCIIn2Bme

Does ArbCom still recognize the principle it set forth in [1] where it stated that "Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so"?

@Lord Roem: I assure you that it has practical implications. And the ArbCom policy enumerates some powers that Jimbo has (e.g. as ultimate appeals instance), but doesn't say those are all of his powers as founder. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LR (2): Like [2] (scroll for the 2nd reply green chunk/reply) and [3]. And the putative RfC is about a future delegation of powers, which strongly implies that Jimbo currently has certain powers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Ok, I guess this shall remain a mystery in the sum of knowledge of the present ArbCom (unlike the 2006 one.) Happy New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold: Thanks for a the info on administrative actions. Assuming [hypothetically] that Jimbo decided to undo the closure of a RfC performed by another administrator, would that count as an administrative action appealable to ArbCom? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond my ken: From the pink header: "Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision." I don't see where it says that requests need be limited to "results". And principles in the final decision are results of a case anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

I do not think this Request for Clarification is properly made. This is likely an attempt to begin a Wikipedia governance debate at RfArbitration at its worst or an abstract question at its best.

Jimbo has stated in posts on his talk page in the past few days that he plans to open a community RfC later this year on a process to transition away from his traditional powers. It is this community-driven process that should be used to discuss such important issues, with an eye towards reaching consensus, rather than this attempt at "Clarification".

Lastly, I would direct my friend to the new Arbitration Policy which may provide the clarification he so desires. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ASCIIn2Bme - practical implications in what context? Why exactly are you raising this issue now? At the least, I'm very curious to know. Lord Roem (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(1) The question of what Jimbo can and cannot do is not within ArbCom's remit.

(2) This request is in itself improper, in that it does not ask for clarification of the result of a case, but seeks to force a discussion on one of the many findings involved in the case. There's no indication I can find that such a purpose is legitimate in a "Request for Clarification".

I urge the Committee to reject this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: The statement of principle from 2006 was made in the course of determining the outcome of a case. There is no case pending at this time which requires a similar determination, so no need for "clarification". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

I don't think anyone here believes Arbcom can outright rescind or really affect Jimbo's powers. That 2006 principle was an affirmation of the reality of the project at that time, and IMO what is being asked here is just a simple, similar statement on the reality of 2011. Consider an analogy to a newspaper that endorses a candidate, then down the road withdraws that endorsement.

To his credit, I do not believe that he would even try to "make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so", per what is laid out in here. Perhaps you could just issue a clarification along the lines of "The 2006 principle has been rendered moot by WP:JIMBO".

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The Arbitration Committee does not govern this project, and it would be a gross overstep of our role to rule on Jimmy's role on Wikipedia at this point. I will therefore not comment at greater length on this issue, aside from recommending that, if it is to be brought up anywhere, it is not here. AGK [•] 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't believe that this is an appropriate location for this discussion. While the principle you note was set down in an Arbitration case, it is important to note that the case took place almost six years ago; much has changed since then, which the community, Committee, and Jimbo are all aware of. Given that there is an upcoming RfC on the matter, I'd highly recommend you raise this there and see what feedback you get from the community on the matter. At present, the Arbitration policy holds that any administrative action by Jimbo (blocks, etc.) can be appealed to the Committee (as with the ban appeal currently being heard), however it does not mention his ability to declare policy by fiat. I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, however I don't see that it's really something the Committee is best able to respond to just now; at any time, the community may, as a whole, change policy in such a way that makes previous arbitration principles obsolete, and it's very likely that's going to happen in the near future. Making any official statement now could adversely affect that process, which - speaking for myself at least - is probably best avoided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck a portion of the above, it was pointed out to me I'd misread a section of the policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a huge question, which I'll do my best to answer succinctly.
    1. Part of the answer lies in the Arbitration policy, where it says: The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.... While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context (cf. Arbitration policy#Policy and precedent).
      So, from this I conclude that as ArbCom neither creates policy nor creates precedent, the 2006 finding is neither policy nor precedent.
    2. The next question is whether the committee has jurisdiction over Jimmy's conduct: there is no "Head of State" immunity in the arbitration policy and Jimmy has been a party to a number of cases. However, it is possible to conceive of actions where he is explicitly acting in a WMF capacity and, in these instances, the committee explicitly has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff... (cf. Arbitration policy#Jurisdiction). For transparency, such actions are usually made from an account clearly flagged as a WMF one (cf: User:Moonriddengirl and her WMF account, User:Mdennis (WMF)).;
    3. Finally, appeals of remedies in arbitration cases may be appealed to, and heard by, Jimmy unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions (cf. Arbitration policy#Appeal of decisions).
    So, in a nutshell, this is not the place to raise a complicated constitutional issue. Perhaps wait for the upcoming RFC on Jimmy and Governance?  Roger Davies talk 07:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we reiterated that statement today, a large portion, if not an outright majority, of the community would reject it as us making policy about making policy. Jimbo's role has evolved since the time that was written, and the community (not Arbcom) has assumed more responsibility for self-governance. This is a very good example why we fretted over the wording of handling precedents in the arbitration policy: we want to provide the greatest level of consistency, commensurate with the fact that the encyclopedia, its policies, and governing structures are all continuously evolving. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the Committee's responsibility is outlined here, which doesn't include general discussion on Jimbo's role as policy maker. That would be for the community as a whole to discuss. It would however be within our remit to examine Jimbo's behaviour, which would include the scenario of Jimbo edit warring over policy. It's worth noting that the Committee deals with conduct not policy; and in dealing with conduct incidents the Committee may make comments and observations on matters (such as consensus, guidelines, policies) related to the incident which exist at the time, though as matters change over time, these observations may become outdated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens

Initiated by brewcrewer (yada, yada) at 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Brewcrewer

User: Timotheus Canens is a former administrator[4] but continues to act as an administrator at AE, by for example lifting topic bans,[5][6] editing the Uninvolved Administrator section, and proposing bans.[7][8] Today I asked him to stop,[9] but he continued to act as an admin subsequent to my request[10] and refused my request.[11]

Firstly, I would like to clarify whether a topic ban validly enacted as part of AE enforcement is considered vacated when it was "removed" by a former admin if the former admin originally placed the restriction when he was an administrator?

Secondly, and this is not really to clarify anything, I would like ARBCOM to make clear that former admins should not be acting as if they are admins at AE. I would move TC's comments to the appropriate section, but wanted to confirm with ARBCOM first. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Fozzie. I don't think it is much of a concern that someone will claim that since the topic ban was not technically vacated, the editor under question is editing in violation of the ban. However it should be of concern when a former admin (even if good standing) is acting like an admin. No explanation is necessary. There is no good reason for Timotheus Canens to undertake admin actions or act like an admin when he isn't one. If he wants to act in an administrative capacity let him regain his tools (which I don't oppose). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. Timotheus Canens has reacquired his "bit" on his main account[12] so I guess this issue is now stale. I would however like to urge TC to avoid this type melodramatic behavior. Giving up the tools, acting like an admin without the tools, refusing to stop when asked to, then asking back for the tools a few weeks later, blanking his own talk page[13],and then changing his mind again a day later.[14] We don't want an admin who appears to spend the majority of his WP-activity at the AE noticeboard to exhibit the drama-queen type of behavior he himself should be adept at dealing with at AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

This was discussed last year on WT:Arbitration, I believe. I'm going from memory, but I think the conclusion is that administrators without the admin bit shouldn't be doing anything at AE. With that said, I think that lifting one's own bans is entirely reasonable and can/should be done by the user even if they don't have the admin bit. NW (Talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the discussion. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about though? I definitely remember Kirill stating something during the conversation, but that's it. NW (Talk) 06:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Some clarification on this would be nice. When I saw Tim commenting in the uninvolved admin section I actually thought he had returned to his admin duties as did an admin who apparently acted based on that perception. Several other admins also responded to him in that section as though he was just another admin suggesting sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

Speaking as another recently resigned admin, I think you have to be very careful in how you act if you remain active in areas where you previously acted as an admin. For example, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to close any DRVs that don't require the bit as the convention is that admins should close DRVs. Nevermind the fact that I have closed 100s of the darn thing. By the same token, if a user asked me to review a previous AFD close, I don't think it would be very userfriendly to refuse to engage because you don't have the bit. Personally, I think the situation is like an arb who is leaving the committee, they are allowed to participate in cases that they have already been involved in. To me, this suggests that its reasonable for Tim to act as an admin-emeritus in cases where they have imposed sanctions and that they can by virtue of the fact that they are reviewing their own action and have resigned in good odour remove a topic ban they imposed. Beyond this Tim shouldn't be involved at AE in any kind of quasi admin role. Spartaz Humbug! 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

I had always taken the view that administrators who turned in the mop in uncontroversial circumstances are still admins, just temporarily with the bit flipped off. Since they could receive the bit back by simple request at BN, I don't see the point of insisting on that empty formality.

In this particular case, I am currently traveling (you can check that out with a quick CU if you want), so I have been (and will be) editing from my alternate non-admin account. I intended to ask for my tools back when I return to my usual location.

If you really insist on the empty ritual of me asking for the tools that I would not be using anyway until I return from my trip, fine. I just don't see the point of it. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I agree with AGK that the sysop bit is binary - you either have an account with it, or without it. Accounts without the bit can't do a few things that accounts with the bit can do, and we don't (and shouldn't) attempt to differentiate between accounts without the bit.

My problem is, and where I think the confusion lies here, is that I dislike there being anything that an account without the bit CAN TECHNICALLY DO, but isn't actually allowed to do. That creates a status differential, rather than a differential of technical ability. And it is what causes the problem when someone has a right to the status, but lacks the bit. It is why I detest the practice of people saying "only an admin can do this". If only an admin can do this (i.e. bit needed) then this shouldn't need said - and it is technically the non-admin can't possibly do it (whether they are allowed to or not). I also hate the practice of people marking stuff as "non-admin close". A close is a close, it is either a good one or a bad one, who did it doesn't matter.

If adminship is "no big deal", then it only matters at the "being trusted with some tools" level. We don't do rights of status and access beyond that. So, in short, I agree with AGK that we don't want to try to work out who, that doesn't have the bit, still has the status of admin. But I also think that the user had every right to do exactly whatever he did at AE. The only question is - is he clued enough to do it, and did he do it right.


Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Considering it was the thought of the committee that this was a break, and that Timotheus could get the mop back on request, I don't have too much of a problem with it (especially since he was simply reversing an action he took while he was an AE admin), but I will wait for further comments/statements. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An administrator who gave up the tools non-controversially can request them back at any time; thus, if Tim were to encounter something in an AE request that he felt needed immediate administrative action, he could, in theory, request the tools back and take care of the matter himself, as an admin. If he then chose to, he could immediately resign the tools again, although speaking as a crat it would be a bit annoying. ;-) Barring any sort of incident that would bar him access to the tools, I don't see an issue with this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add, this is now somewhat moot, as Tim has requested (and been given) his rights back. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must take a more severe line. The administrator right is sometimes called 'the bit' because it is a binary assignment: an account either is an administrator, or is not. I think there are far more serious issues on Wikipedia, but nevertheless my view is that to allow this kind of thing is a slippery slope: if former administrators can enforce arbitration decisions, we then have to consider in each case whether they stepped down "under a cloud" and how likely they are to have their sysop right returned. In the past, determining whether a sysop resigned without controversy has not been simple, and ideally such a discussion would be reserved for the resysopping process - not extended to every enforcement thread the former sysop contributes to. Frankly, the enforcement process is complicated enough without adding the headache of checking up on whether an account that doesn't have the sysop flag is in good standing; the issue also complicates the process for first-time users of the enforcement process, which is suboptimal. While I agree with Hersfold that the opinion of T. Canens (whom I regard as a thoughtful and useful user, not that this changes the situation we are in) would be useful in appeals or amendments of his previous enforcement actions, I request that he abstains from taking new enforcement actions unless or until he is resysopped (which I hope he is in the near future). We don't need the headache, nor more scope for AE wikilawyering. AGK [•] 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mind is along Spartaz's thought process, I don't have an issue with Tim revoking something he imposed when he had the bit, but I would support a motion clarifying that AE remedies can only be imposed by flagged admins. AE is contentious enough, and the issues of whether an editor is an admin in good standing yet lacking the flag can only be unnecessary drama. (And personally, I think if you don't have the flag, you don't do things limited by rule to admins, as these style sanctions are.) Courcelles 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SirFozzie and Courcelles; I don't see a problem here. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....aaaand this is rendered moot now by Timotheus Canens getting the bit back, so I guess it's time to close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from this terse and inappropriate response to a comment, Timotheus Canens has behaved in the best interest of Wikipedia, so I don't see there's an issue with him. The clarification request is, however, interesting in that it has pointed to a grey area not just in AE, but across Wikipedia: how welcome are editors in good standing to do actions that don't require the admin tools, but which require good judgement? Generally it appears to me that we work with an understanding that if a discussion/action is straightforward it can be closed/done by any editor in good standing, if the discussion is controversial and/or has a big impact we prefer an admin to close it as an admin has the consensus of the community to make actions that require good judgement and understanding, if the discussion is mega (such as the recent verifiability discussion) we look to three admins to make the close. If there is some uncertainty about an action the action can be questioned or challenged, and if needed it can be looked at again; we have informal (and sometimes formal as in DRV) procedures in place for this. If in any particular area, or with any particular editor, there are repeated concerns, the community tends to resolve the issue, or bring them to ArbCom. As this is a one-off (and fairly unique) situation it is too soon for either the community or ArbCom to be looking into it. Is an admin's judgement impaired because they have temporarily relinquished the tools in order to take a break? No, I don't think so. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Abortion motion

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by HJ

procedure notes: first, I'm not sure who (if anybody) needs to be notified of this but I will leave a link from the discussion at WT:ACN and will be happy to notify any editor suggested if necessary ; second, I've never filed a request for clarification before, so guidance (and patience!) from arbitrators or clerks on any formatting errors would be appreciated.

This request pertains to the December 2011 motion (permanent link) which amended remedy 1 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion.

Having discussed the matter with arbitrators, predominantly on WT:ACN, it seems that this motion is ambiguous in its intent and I fear that what may be clearly implied to administrators currently working in the abortion topic area may not be as obvious to others and may not be retained in institutional memory. The current wording of the motion suggests that administrators may semi-protect articles related to abortion (an option already allowed to them under the Protection Policy) and that administrators may only semi-protect abortion-related articles for a maximum of three years.

Without wishing to speak for the committee, I believe the intent of the motion was to:

  • Encourage administrators to apply a lower threshold for semi-protection of abortion-related articles and in particular their talk pages—of which protection is normally discouraged by the protection policy.
  • Authorise administrators to pre-emptively protect particular abortion-related articles which are likely to suffer from sustained disruption with potential consequences beyond Wikipedia.
  • Provide administrators with the authority of acting under an arbitration remedy in the event that another administrator takes exception to a protection that would not be in "normal" circumstances.

I would also suggest that any amended motion should make clear that uninvolved administrators working in the abortion topic area still have the option of protecting articles under the provisions of the protection policy and that this motion is supplemental. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren, Fozzie: I disagree. It may be obvious to you and to those who followed the case closely what you mean, but to somebody who doesn't fall into those categories, all you've done is said that admins can protect abortion-related articles for three years. you haven't told us why that might be desirable, you haven't said anything about the pre-emptive protection which Roger Davies suggested was an important part of the motion, and your assumption that nobody would take this as meaning that it supersedes normal procedures would seem to be flawed, judging by this log entry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

First, I'd like to thank HJ for initiating this request. As will be evident from the WT:ACN discussion, I believe that clarifying the reasoning behind this decision and its intent is highly desirable. I recognise that comments below indicate that (at least) Coren and SirFozzie do not see a need for a motion to clarify the semi-protection issue in the abortion area (broadly defined) but I submit that their reasoning is flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that no clarification is needed as the remedy is already clear. I have no doubt that it is clear from their point of view, but the issue is whether it is clear from a non-ArbCom member's perspective. As you may know, I work as an academic. When I submit a paper for consideration by a journal I expect to have some issues raised where I believe the manuscript is clear and I need to remind myself that I *know* what I meant and I have to accept that the reviewers are better placed to judge whether a point is unclear. Please, try to step back and ask not whether the remedy is clear to you but rather whether the remedy can reasonably be interpreted in way(s) that you did not intend. Ask yourself how an unusual - or even extreme - remedy with no rationale presented might be seen by those who do not have limitless faith in ArbCom. Truly, a remedy contemplating semi-protection for three years with no accompanying explanatory finding and no rationale is deficient. I know from Risker's explanation that there is very good reason for empowering agressive semi-protection but had I not read that user talk page post I could have easily been wondering what you were thinking. I can easily imagine how the remedy could be seen as ArbCom over-reaching. This remedy will be in force for three years. There could easily be administrators applying it in eighteen months who have yet to even join the project; surely suggesting that you pass a motion to provide a rationale and to clarify what actions you are authorising is not an unreasonable request. EdChem (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I really don't see a point to further amendments or motions about this. Your reading above is pretty much on the nose, but that's also the straightforward plain reading of the amended remedy as currently written; and there is no way to write a motion in a manner that cannot hypothetically be misinterpreted or wikilawyered around.

    As far as I know, no arbitration remedy has ever been (seriously) read or implied to mean that they replaced the normal process unless it explicitly states that it does; certainly nobody interprets discretionary sanctions to mean that normal blocks or processes do not still apply, for instance. — Coren (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Coren. Anyone working in the area doesn't need another formal amendment to understand this is what we mean. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a comment by SirFozzie on the mailing list, I think we could make a note on the talk page of the case, and include a diff about this discussion. However, I agree that a formal amendment isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the amendment should be read alongside the remedy, in which case it allows admins at their discretion to semi-protect for up to three years certain abortion related articles which they feel may be or are vulnerable, and to do so under ArbCom sanction, logging the action. Other forms of protection, such as full protection or indefinite semi are still available, and can be challenged, though a three year semi-protection done under ArbCom sanction shouldn't be undone without going through the procedures outlined in WP:AE. The amendment removes the necessity of all the related articles being protected regardless of vulnerability, while giving alert admins the liberal power to move swiftly to prevent a problem before it happens. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML

Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me at 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

I am regretfully reposting this request for clarification, as it was archived without a single arbitrator commenting clearly on the issue I asked. Instead, the previous request seemed to have been hijacked (in an AGF meaning of this world) by the off-topic (to my request) discussion about the effectiveness and applicability of i-bans with regards to other editors. I kindly ask editors to not comment on broad topics; my question is very narrow and simple: was FSP correct in declaring that I was violating my i-ban and thus threatening me with sanctions if I failed to remove myself from the AE discussion or not?

I am seeking clarification of Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?). I participated in a discussion where I did not interact nor comment on Russavia, but I was nonetheless warned by an admin that I violated the i-ban. Did I indeed do so?

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:

  • Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
  • VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is that I took the notice of the part of VM's statement where he notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
  • discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
  • admin FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
  • almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Unfair_treatment, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#AE_thread), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
  • approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).
    • for the full record, do note that VM's block was indeed shortened.

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I was concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). As a reminder, the i-ban I am in states: "...prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia" - yet despite the fact that I was not commenting on or interactign with Russavia, I was threatened with sanctions by an admin.

To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly.

Is my interpretation correct and I did not violate my i-ban by commenting on VM's block? Or is my interpretation wrong and I violated it, and thus FSP was right to threaten me with sanctions?

If the latter, I'd very much like a clear explanation how one can stretch "prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A" to "prohibited from commenting on editor B". It is my belief that if such acrobatic justification is presented, it will support some extreme interpretation of i-bans, encourage admin abuse of powers (confirm that they can threaten editors with sanction on such extreme interpretations) and thus be a blow to free speech on Wikipedia. I hope that the Committee will not open that Pandora's Box, but a ruling on who was right here is necessary to clarify the situation.

Or the committee can just say that I was within my rights to comment on VM's block, admins should be more conservative in i-bans interpretations and threats than in the instance discussed above, and we can move on.

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FSP: "To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban." The problem is that your mind and the wording of the i-ban ("prohibited from interacting with or commenting on R.") exist in two different universes. Did I interacted with R.? No. Did I comment on R.? No. It's as simple as that. By interpreting it wider you assume bad faith, encourage wikilawyering and battleground mentality. If the Committee or anybody had a problem with me being able to comment on AE in general, or on other editors in general, or on VM in particular, or from discussing i-bans, and so on, they would have issued other tailored restrictions and banned me from AE, from interacting with VM or others, and so on. Since they did not, the only restriction on me is from "interacting with or commenting on R." which I most explicitly did not do. I believe I was within my rights to go to this AE thread and dispute the length of VM's block. Whom I was there for should be crystal clear from what I was asking: I was asking for a reduction of block on VM, not for an extension it on R. And there is nothing, nothing in the restriction on me that should prevent me from being able to discuss VM's block. Your arguments to the contrary are, I believe, an attempt to reduce my right to free speech on this project, with no basis in any existing restrictions. I am saddened to see that you assume bad faith on my part and that you assume that I came to the discussion to support an editor because of who he is, not because of the unjustice I perceived (and that was eventually recognized by others and led to the shortened block). From where I stand, sadly, if I was to abandon good faith, I could say that your action looked like you did not take kindly to me disagreeing with you, and threatened to sanction me if I did not withdrew from the discussion (with a distinct ring of admin power abuse in the air). But I refuse to let bad faith take me over; instead I still believe you acted in an attempt to improve the situation, not for any selfish personal reasons. I do believe, however, that you misinterpreted the boundaries of the i-ban in question, and in consequence, you set a dangerous precedence (see below for why and on what). Lastly, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd AGF my actions and consider I am acting for the good of the project ("believes an editor was wronged and acts because of that"), and not for any personal ("defends a friend because he is his friend") reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FSP and others: "If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread." I disagree with this. First, I do not believe this is covered by the i-ban. Either the i-ban need to be clearly clarified with this very example, to prevent future confusion (because at least for me, this does not flow in any way whatsoever from the wording "C is prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A", or a separate sanction should be applied to relevant cases (stating that "C is also prohibited from commenting on any editor whom A is in conflict with". Second, I believe such a restriction of free speech for no good reason would be detrimental to the spirit of this project in general, and would deprive those discussions of valuable input. I understand the need to limit the criticism and negative reinforcement, this is the purpose of i-bans I fully support. But the above interpretation would achieve the contrary - limit support and positive reinforcement. In other words, we do not need more persecutors, but we do need more defenders and advocates for leniency that can stand up to to the system and its enforces (admins) and speak out in favor of the accused. Penalizing people for saying good things on others and arguing for more lenient approaches is, to me, very much against the spirit of this project. PS. I linked a number of essays I wrote on the subject of wikigovernance to reinforce my arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FSP: I am willing to consider that some of my references that you cite where too direct and should not have been made, even if they were made with regards to another editor, and where not intended as criticism, merely as a comparison example. At the same time, you have already alleged here that there was something improper in my first post at AE you've cited ([16]), and your lack of clarification as to what you considered problematic caused me to also blank this post. Whereas I can see where you are coming from with regards to my second post, I stand by what I said above with regards to my first and third posts. In hindsight, I think that the best way to deal with this would've been for you to ask me clearly to blank my second post only. If you would agree with me that nothing in my first and third post constituted a violation, I can certainly take your comments about the second post to heart, and we could end this discussion here and now, shake hands, both of us having learned a little through this, and hope to avoid misunderstanding in the future. (For the record, we wouldn't be here if you had replied to me directly with clear examples and explanation earlier when I posted on your talk page in reply to your message to me (here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I have previously stated my detailed proposal for how i-bans should work, which I can re-post here. i-bans should in no way accord de jure ownership of any page on WP based on who got there first. That's censorship, plain and simple. The current interpretation of i-bans is inappropriate and an open invitation for abuse, aggravating—not dissipating—acrimony. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

@Fozzie: Let's not mix up the issues. This wasn't about "forcing people out of topic areas", and it wasn't about commenting on any article topics. I do in fact share your reservations about the use of interaction bans when it comes to article editing, but the case Piotrus is asking about was something different. It was about commenting on an AE thread. And this, I maintain, is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and I therefore stand by the warning I gave him in the situation. One of the core problems with the EEML team back in the day was that they had this habit of always turning up together as a tag team in noticeboard threads, supporting each other and pressing for sanctions against their common opponents together. This, I understand, is the main reason why the interaction ban with respect to Russavia was imposed. And these tag-teaming structures are still very much active. Even today, you will hardly find an ANI or AE thread involving any one member of the EEML team where at least one or two of the others don't immediately turn up in his support.

In the present instance, there was an AE thread in which Russavia was one of the parties involved, and had received a sanction, and his opponents were other members of the EEML group. Piotrus, who had no prior involvement in that specific conflict, turned up to argue for the use of interaction bans in general [17], which, in this situation, amounted to an argument for applying sanctions against Russavia. He then made another comment to the administrator who had just imposed sanctions on Russavia and one other party (Volunteer Marek) [18]. In this comment, he was making a comparison between Russavia and VM which was designed to paint Russavia in a worse light than the other party; hence, this too amounted to an argument in favour of sanctioning Russavia. He can now argue all he likes that he wasn't there because of Russavia but because of the other guy, but the fact remains that the effect of his intervention was to add pressure to the anti-Russavia side. To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban.

This is the message we really want to send through interaction bans: people, stay away from noticeboards; mind your own business. If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: are you still denying you were commenting on Russavia? This is mind-boggling. I'll quote from the exact posting of yours that's at issue here: [19] "an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations […] one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer) […] I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks […] the number of current incidents/violations […] the number of sanctioned violations […] one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one" – The "one editor" to whose sanctions you were referring was Russavia. Can you tell me in what world of your imagination each of these sentences is not a "comment about Russavia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About your first posting at question [20]: If editor A has an obvious stake in a noticeboard thread, because he is either the principal instigator/accuser or the principal defendant in the complaint at issue, or the potential subject of sanctions being deliberated, then any posting in that thread amounts to "interacting with" editor A. That, to me, is so basic and so blindingly obvious I really have to wonder why you apparently can't wrap your head around it. About the content in detail: you were responding to a posting that could be understood as an argument in favour of not sanctioning R.; you were arguing against that view, so you were, in effect, implicitly arguing for sanctioning R. Which means you were not just interacting with R by virtue of simply being there; you were negatively interacting with him (independently of course of the merits of your arguments, or of the preceding ones you were answering to.) More directly, though perhaps less importantly, there was also your question "why is a post by a non-admin still present in the admin only discussion?", which was referring directly to R. and obviously constitutes a direct comment on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Russavia

For the Committee, I only have one question...in 27 parts.

If you refer to Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted, I am restricted from interacting or commenting with editors from the EEML case. Firstly, this is somewhat vague, because one could wikilawyer until the cows come home (as is evidently prevalent in this area) that this could prevent me from interacting with say FPaS, given that he gave evidence, and hence is "from the EEML case". However, common sense, and the non-wikilawyering editor, would tell you "from the EEML case" clearly means EEML members. This restriction was placed on me ostensibly for reporting editors who were breaking their topic bans, or acting on behalf of banned editors, and at no time were my reports found by the Committee to be vexatious in nature (this was even stated by Shell Kinney).

On the other hand, we have Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted, only those editors who were named in sanctions are banned from interacting or commenting on me. This, ostensibly, is because of issues such as harrassment and vexatious reporting as described at Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination.

I made mention of this weird interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. One can refer to the current amendment request for a prime example of how that problem has played out.

A few weeks ago, I became aware of a potential sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:Poeticbent (User:A. Kupicki). I was made aware of a possibility that Poeticbent was socking. Once I glanced at the talk page, it was plainly obvious that we had another sock on our hands. Because of the interaction ban which the Committee placed on myself, I didn't report it. But it makes no sense to me that I, as an editor in good standing, would be unable to directly bring to the community's attention a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. This is kind of unusual, in that I have zero tolerance for sockpuppets, as does the larger community, but in this situation I was unable to do anything about it at the time. Some four weeks after I was made aware of the sockpuppet, another editor has obviously clued in on the situation and the sockpuppet has now been blocked. But shouldn't socks be nuked on sight? Eight weeks of clear sockpuppetry is eight weeks too much.

Additionally, although I tend to stear clear of topics which are magnets for nationalistic POV-pushing and which are favoured by these sockpuppets, instances can arise whereby I could find myself editing an article which has seen editing from an editor who is such a sockpuppet. What is one supposed to do in such circumstances? Because happily editing along with someone who the community has indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry is not something that any editor should need to put up with. There should be an avenue in which I can openly bring to the community's attention evidence of sockpuppetry. I would ask the committee to look at that, and advise accordingly, because it makes no sense that I should be prevented from presenting evidence on disruptive banned users having a presence on WP. This would entail Jacurek (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and I should state that whilst I do not keep tabs on any editor, obviously situations will arise where it is necessary to address issues, and without fear of dramuh or sanctions being enacted upon me.

Additionally, I would also like the committee to look at formally completely lifting the one-way interaction ban on myself with the following editors: Molobo (talk · contribs), Digwuren (talk · contribs)***, Alexia Death (talk · contribs)**, Biruitorul (talk · contribs), Dc76 (talk · contribs)*, Hillock65 (talk · contribs)*, Ostap R (talk · contribs)*, Tymek (talk · contribs)*, Sander Säde (talk · contribs)*

My reasoning for this is as follows. Those without * identifiers are active users, but I have not interacted, nor commented on them, since I don't know when (long time ago). Those with a single * are only occasional editors and it makes no sense to prevent editing on my part when things such as WP:BRD can easily be adhered to in instances when they are required, whilst also ensuring that commenting is only related to content. Those marked with ** are indefinitely blocked from the project. Those marked with *** (i.e. Digwuren) are still technically under Wikipedia:EEML#Digwuren_restricted, to be followed by Wikipedia:EEML#Digwuren_banned, and then followed by Wikipedia:EEML#Digwuren_topic_banned; in this case it makes no sense to technically stop me from editing when for all intents and purposes this editor has abandoned the account completely.

In many instances, I have never actually interacted with some of these editors, and my only involvement with them is that they were EEML members. So I would request that the committee look at those, and lift the interaction bans with individuals accordingly.

Given that Piotrus has stated that he has no desire of interacting with me, which has thrown me aback somewhat, interaction bans with Piotrus, Radeksz, Martintg and Vecrumba can stay in place, until such time as amendments are brought for the committee's action. The rest I see as a partial way to look forward in editing, which can only be a good thing. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I've stated before I have concerns that if Interaction Bans are being used as a blunt force instrument to force people out of topic areas ("I'm there already, so you can't edit the article because otherwise you'd be breaching the interaction ban!" Perhaps it's time to convert them into topic bans, to reduce the chance of this occurring. Furthermore, there is such a web of inter-connected people in this area that it becomes impossible to comment on one part of the topic area without engaging others in which you are not supposed to be interacting.. again, it argues that a different tact needs to be taken. I am disinclined to tell admins working in this highly heated topic area to be looser on the reins, but I will wait for further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering one side of this, while looking at the other side (which I touched on in my previous statement). The question I would ask myself in enforcing the interaction bans... "Would a reasonable person consider this commenting on the person they have an interaction ban with". If the answer to that is yes, then there's your answer if it's a violation of the interaction ban or not. A reasonable person would conclude that yes, he's at least bringing up the person he has an interaction ban with, so it would be a violation, and as such, should at least be warned not to continue with that line of conversation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the issue in a noticeboard discussion is "did X violate a sanction?" and Y is banned from interacting with X, then Y should not comment on the issue. On the other hand, if the discussion evolves into discussing a much broader general issue going beyond the specific case (e.g. "how should interaction bans work?) that can become a precedent, then I can understand why Y would want to comment and could reasonably perceive he was not violating the ban. I think this is such an intermediate case. Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a bright-line rule for these situations, and all I can do is urge both Piotrus and the AE administrators to be cautious and thoughtful and to avoid borderline cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused on EEML,  Roger Davies talk 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Banning policy mentions interaction bans, and says that if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, then editor X should not make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. In this context, commenting on an editor in a noticeboard discussion could be an infringement of the ban. It's worth noting that emailing the Arbitration Enforcement admins isn't a violation of an interaction ban, so the banned editors thoughts can still be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=469109478"