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 Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 10 December 2012 (→‎Statement by Cla68: one more request). 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
Amendment request: Race and intelligence Motion (orig. case) 5 December 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY|Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY]] none none 2 December 2012

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by SightWatcher (talk) at 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 6.1: SightWatcher topic-banned
  2. 7.1: TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned
  3. Cla68's one-way interaction ban
  4. The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

I request that all four sanctions are vacated.

Statement by SightWatcher

I don't intend to edit R&I articles anymore if my topic ban is lifted. I'm requesting that it be lifted because I want to go back to being totally uninvolved in R&I, the way I had been for a year before I was sanctioned. When I was sanctioned in May 2012, my last edit that had anything to do with R&I was in May 2011. But my topic ban has often made me a focus of R&I related discussions even when I avoid them, which makes me too uncomfortable at Wikipedia to keep editing articles about books and movies the way I used to.

In the recent request by Cla68, AGK made a very insightful comment [4] about the current R&I remedies: "I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration)." AGK's point can be seen from the history of requests there have been about the same issues after the review: May 17 June 10 July 8 July 25 October 22 November 10 I understand there was drama in the R&I topic before the review, but there wasn't so much of it that a new arbitration request was happening almost every month.

The goal of sanctions at Wikipedia is to prevent conflict, but the decision Roger Davies wrote in the review is having the opposite effect. I had already quit the R&I topic a year before I was sanctioned, so the only effect of my sanction was attracting more attention to me. The Devil's Advocate explained here how another of the bans I'm appealing also has created more drama, and he and Cla68 can speak for themselves about their own sanctions.

I still don't completely understand the basis for my topic ban, or why it needed to include an interaction ban with every other person who's edited R&I articles. My finding of fact says I was sanctioned because my involvement there was inspired by an off-wiki discussion, and both SilkTork [5] and Roger Davies [6] said the findings do not allege I was deliberately recruited. This needs to be pointed out because my finding of fact has often been misremembered as saying I was deliberately recruited, even though Arbcom was clear during the review they did not support this claim. SilkTork also mentioned here that it's not problematic for a person to become involved here because of an off-wiki discussion. Since my finding of fact does not allege I did anything against policy, I don't understand why I needed to be topic banned when I was no longer involved in the topic.

The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [7] and Elen of the Roads. [8] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also.

Response to David Fuchs: the reason I can't just ignore discussions about me is because I can still get sanctioned in discussions where I don't participate about articles I don't edit. That happened to me in the review. If Arbcom takes Elen of the Roads' suggestion to sanction the four parties I named here, the sanction against The Devil's Advocate will be another example, because TDA hasn't commented in this request. After situations like these, it would be very naive of me to think I can avoid being sanctioned under R&I just by staying away from the articles and discussions about them. As for how these sanctions can affect someone who doesn't edit the articles, look at the explanation TDA gave here.
There is one thing that's already been a danger if I don't participate in the discussions where I get brought up. Mathsci has misstated the reason I was sanctioned so many times that other editors (including some members of Arbcom) have sometimes forgotten what the real reason was. There's another new example of this in his comment below about "proxy-editing", which has no basis in any finding of fact, and was contradicted during the review by Roger Davies and SilkTork and also afterwards by Jclemens. [9] I expressed concern to SilkTork here that if I don't do anything to stop this, Mathsci's version of events could become a sort of unofficial amendment that Arbcom never endorsed. At the same time I also have to be very careful what I do, because as Mathsci points out I've sometimes been threatened with blocks for participating in these discussions. It's very difficult to know how to avoid both these dangers at once, but if my sanction could be lifted I wouldn't be in this situation anymore.
I don't care whether Arbcom lifts the sanction, or finds another solution. I just want this situation to change somehow. SilkTork's suggestion to include Mathsci in the interaction bans also could be a solution, but I didn't request that because I knew I couldn't request it without being reported at AE. -SightWatcher (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as this one (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Wikipedia's disfunctional and immature administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing, personal, years-long feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor, while allowing thin-skinned admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. ArbCom, could you please put a stop to this nonsense? How many more times do you need to be hit in the face by it? Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies, of course SightWatcher is spending a lot of time trying to get the sanction lifted, because he likely feels that it is really unfair. I believe the rest of us unnecessarily santioned because we got in the way of the Mathsci steamroller feel the same way. Have you ever been unfairly sanctioned because you spoke up about something wrong that was going on, then got pounded by a misguided admin like Future Perfect at Sunrise or Timotheus Cannens have done here? It really sucks to feel that level of frustration. Good grief, Roger, stop contributing to the problem and do something about it. Please think like Newyorkbrad and get some empathy for everybody who is involved here. All the rest of you arbs, I will be filing an Arbcom request soon about Future Perfect's role in facilitating the obsessive BATTLE between these two editors at that core of this problem. It won't stop until you take the keys from the steamroller and put it in the garage. I'm not the one driving it. I'm the one standing in front of it trying to get it to stop, and I keep getting run over. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, if you all impose a sanction on Mathsci, please make sure it expressly covers his public interaction with suspected socks/IPs of this Captain Occam bloke. If Mathsci can only use private communication to alert you or other admins about problems with alleged harrassment from that banned user, then that should stop other editors from getting munched by Future Perfect or Timotheus Cannen when we raise warning flags about the BATTLE taking place in Wikipedia's public spaces. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare, from just a quick glance here, are you sure you should be clerking this? You know, if the ArbCom decides to open a case based on my request about Future Perfect, you could be a party to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Leaped before I looked. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it finally dawned on me what Roger Davies meant by "others are being trolled here." I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction from Mathsci with my comment above. I was restating the problem as I see it, which is that there is an ongoing, three-year battle in Wikipedia between two editors, one of whom is banned, that has been facilitated by poor decision-making by several admins, and which has resulted in arbitrary and unnecessary sanctions for editors who have tried to say something about it. I believe the evidence supports this problem statement, especially supported by the events of the last couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators, could you please consider banning Future Perfect at Sunrise from the topic area and from using administrative actions, including participation in AE, in any way related to Mathsci? If you do so here, it will save me or someone else from having to file an ArbCom case request in the immediate future. If you need more evidence of his lack of objectivity besides his telling you all "F-you" over this a few weeks ago, then I'm fine with filing a case request. You may remember that Future Perfect at Sunrise has previously been desysopped. Based on his strong personal feelings on this topic area and towards Mathsci, it would likely save you all future work and drama if you removed him from the situation now. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you were to ban Mathsci from public comments on-wiki related to Captain Occam or any suspected socks/IPs of his, that also save the wiki a lot of drama in the future. Mathsci should still be able to notify administrators (except Future Perfect at Sunrise) by email if Occam wiki-hounds him in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

It is hard to see how a further discussion on this issue would assist the encyclopedia, particularly after:

  • Amendment request Initiated by The Devil's Advocate on 25 July 2012; closed around 18 September 2012.
  • R&I2 Initiated by Cla68 on 22 October 2012; closed around 8 November 2012.

SightWatcher's contributions suggest that the last two edits not connected with R&I disputes were on 15 September 2012 and 25 February 2012. My view is that more emphasis should be placed on the encyclopedia, and less on R&I issues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Professor marginalia

Yougottabekidding!

If anybody falls for this bait (arbitrators, you're anybodies too) you're not being helpful in reducing disruption here. You're allowing yourself to be played.

It goes like this: when a decision's been made, and some user (puppets, much of the time but not not every time) pops the BigStinkbombs to unwind it all - it's not the user(s) targeted that are responsible for the "disruption" but the rest of us that chase and flap all about in these BigStinkbombs like moths to a flame.

Arbitration's ONLY function is to diagnose remedies when the "anybody can edit" needs umpires. Arbitrators are the umpires. Not that the umpire's call can never change, but it sure isn't the least bit constructive if the umpire's call can be changed for no other reason than because the injured player just won't stop making a nuisance of himself perpetually bellyaching about it. Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Heim

Risker, an entire case on one block, really? I was not under the impression AE required a consensus to impose a block or sanction; that rather, it was meant to be discretionary and require consensus to overturn. I wasn't a fan of the speed on the trigger, either, but a case would be really, really overkill and would undermine the discretionary nature of sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Fut.Perf.

@Risker: The opinions about the present block of Cla68 are currently pretty evenly divided on AE. I have made it clear that I don't consider it an "enforcement" block in the strict sense, i.e. I'm not squatting on its non-overturnability. As far as I am concerned, I will lift that block as soon as I am satisfied that it's no longer needed, and I've posted one proposal at AE [10] about an outcome that would allow me to do so. If somebody else wishes to overturn it, they can certainly do so. That's what we have block reviews for. But then they should take the responsibility for it themselves and should not expect me to do it for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the AE thread has been closed with reminders to both Cla68 and Mathsci [11] (and I have lifted Cla's block accordingly). I hope this sorry sideline can now be put to rest and the committee can concentrate of what this request is nominally about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the new motions: These same proposals were voted on just one month ago, and rejected. When people elsewhere on this project keep re-proposing the same rejected ideas over and over again to wear down their opposition, e.g. on AfD, their heads typically make contact with aquatic vertebrates rather quickly. Since when is "keep reproposing the same thing until you get your way" an acceptable strategy for arbitrators? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Enric Naval

WP:AE has proposed a solution. Can you let the AE admins solve this? Arbcom is supposed to intervene when the community can't handle the issues, it's not supposed to shortcircuit AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

The terms of SightWatcher's extended topic ban preclude him from making any request on behalf of others. He can make an appeal on his own behalf, but making requests for TrevelyanL85A2 (now AE-banned) or for Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate is not permitted. SightWatcher was advised by SilkTork in May to try to contribute outside project space.[12] At the end of June, EdJohnston spelt out that a request discussing TreveyanL85A2 was inadvisable;[13] at the same time MBisanz warned him that he would be blocked for one month if he attempted to make such a request.[14] If SightWatcher wishes to edit completely outside R&I with a different username, he can probably arrange that privately and discreetly with the arbitration committee.

Apart from monitoring sockpuppetry by Mikemikev (my userpage is protected because he made fun of my illness), I have not had any active involvement in project or article space related to WP:ARBR&I. Periodically there have been attempts to misuse arbitration procedures by a small group of editors, made up of the DeviantArt group of editors, some of whom are now site-banned, and their facilitators/sympathizers. I was a catalyst in bringing to light coordinated editing within the DeviantArt group, including proxy-editing and most recently sockpuppetry. Almost all of the arbcom procedures in 2012, although nominally for a different purpose, have been diverted into some attempt to "write me out of the equation" as Roger Davies has put it.

Each request after a certain stage degenerates into free-for-all criticisms of me which contradict previous arbcom findings and remedies (the original 2010 arbcom case, its amendment later that year (when sanctions on me were lifted after a four months) and the subsequently tightly framed review in March-May 2012). In this request SightWatcher has made no mention of me, but, as a named party, Cla68 took the opportunity almost immediately to divert the case in my direction. He has used this page and WP:AE as a place to make personal attacks, assuming some immunity in arbcom-related space. As Future Perfect at Sunrise carefully explained to him, it is possible to present arguments without undue personalization or insults. His attempted caricature of me here is not reflected in my editing history or the findings of the original report or review. The "battleground" word has been misused: originally phrased as applying to "ideological opponents", words dropped at my request, in the context used it referred almost exclusively to the DeviantArt editors.

So the post-review pattern is this: an arbcom request appears phrased in such a way that it might be related to me; an editor uses the opportunity to launch unreservedly into personal attacks on me, presuming immunity on arbcom-related pages; then I respond, or am asked to respond. That is my involvement at present with WP:ARBR&I. That is also how Cla68 has created interactions with me. We have participated in previous unrelated arbcom cases, eg MBLPs, and I believe he wished to use the review to criticize me for conduct unrelated to R&I.

The problem with any of the editing restrictions is that they are taken not to apply to arbcom-related pages. Roger wrote below that I was trolled, by which I assume he was referring to Cla68's first thinly veiled dig at me on this page. Later Cla68's gloves came off and he launched into a full-blown personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. He described me as "obsessive" and a "monster" out to destroy others—the Mathsci steamroller. As far as I am aware, that kind of conduct is not allowed anywhere on wikipedia, including arbcom-related space. Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SightWatcher has now commented on me, with the usual objective of the DeviantArt campaign: to have some sanction imposed on me. That and his own reluctance to take responsibility for previous coordinated editing, despite the off-wiki and on-wiki evidence in the review, is not a good sign. Captain Occam was himself just as evasive about that collaboration in this exchange on WP:ANI with Shell Kinney on 17 December 2010.[15] The pattern of "arbcom request on R&I issue --> parties sneaking in criticisms & requests for sanctions on Mathsci --> comments by me" could be halted by some form of motion restricting arbcom requests (the first step in the cycle), as Elen of the Roads suggests. Unsurprisingly SightWatcher is wikilawyering to keep that loophole open. He is also continuing to comment on other users, in this case The Devil's Advocate. In spite of the advice of SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz, SightWathcer made a conscious decision to include TrevelyanL85A2, Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate in his request. He is now complaining about the consequences of that. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold's motions

Beyond arbcom requests initiated by SightWatcher, Trevelyan85A2 or by others on their behalf, I have not interacted with these users or discussed them since the review closed anywhere on wikipedia, except in responses on arbcom-related pages. My own 2 requests to arbcom have just been to amend slightly the wording of the review and have concerned only myself. Of the mentioned parties, as Newyorkbrad has already pointed out, TrevelyanL85A2 will not be able to edit wikipedia in the forseeable future because he has an indefinite ban enforced at AE after violating his extended topic ban.

In the final vote for the PD in the review, the drafting arbitrator Roger Davies made this comment:[16] "I don't think it's in the best interests of the project for him to be prohibited from reporting DeviantArt recruitees at SPI and so on. If, in the reports, there's a connection to Ferahgo or Occam, Mathsci needs to be free, provided he stays within the rules, to mention it. I say this because the alleged steady recruitment of apparent DeviantArt friends to edit the R&I topic is probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen. Let's not forget that Occam and Ferahgo are DeviantArt alumni." That is exactly what happened with Zeromus1. The sockpuppetry issues with him were handled privately off-wiki with checkusers: firstly with Amalthea; and later twice with AGK when more on-wiki evidence was available.

I have not made any requests related to SightWatcher since the review, on-wiki or off-wiki.Almost nothing has changed since the review, except for sporadic periods of intense disruption from troll socks of a community-banned user. That user is wholly unrelated to WP:ARBR&I. On this page I mentioned three bits of advice or warnings SightWatcher received in May and June from SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz (diffs were added at Future Perfect at Sunrise's request). In the absence of any interactions and SightWatcher's own very rare editing, almost all in project space, Hersfold's motions do not seem to address any problems of conduct that have actually occurred or have any vague likelihood of occurring in the future. Nothing has happened since the last set of motions, except for SightWatcher making this request on behalf of himself and three users whom he is not allowed to mention. The only possible consequence of the motions would be that sockpuppets like Zeromus1, who seriously disrupted the last request for an arbcom case, would go undetected. That would seem to run completely contrary to Roger Davies' reasoning above. Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hersfold writes, "if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, ...". Since he was site-banned and community-banned, I have identified lots of sockpuppets and ipsocks of Mikemikev. That does not appear to be "editing R&I topics". I occasionally have to comment in arbcom-related space, as here, but again that it not "editing R&I topics". In the review the finding was that my reporting at SPI was quite accurate. Mikemikev accounts for almost all the sockpuppetry in R&I. Then there is the quite separate matter of Echigo mole. His socking, trolling and wikihounding have nothing to do with R&I. A question was asked about his attempted harassment of me in the review. His ways of socking keep changing but his edits are usually easy to identify. Most recently 6 open proxy socks of his were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Reaper Eternal. I have participated here because I was mentioned by Cla698, in a negative way, when there was no need. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On his user talk page and here Cla68 has indicated or "mooted" that he might be requesting a new arbcom case involving FPaS [17] as well as "evidence [which] directly touches on an item that I'm not allowed to comment on on-wiki at the moment, except on ArbCom pages like AE". Until it is clear how Cla68 intends to proceed, it seems premature to pass or discuss any motions that involve his actions and other users' reactions. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Fuchs, Sir Fozzie and Hersfold were inactive during the R&I review. My evidence and arbcom's findings in that review covered coordinated editing of R&I articles (to bypass topic bans) as well as coordinated editing on an RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji. That editing was not, as now, entirely restricted to interactions in arbcom space. If arbitrators are now proposing to modify the remedies, could they please confer with those who examined the evidence in detail, including the off-wiki evidence? Roger Davies was extremely careful and skillful in what evidence he elicited and used. As a result, very late in the day, there were findings and remedies on SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2. Despite being informed by the clerks, neither participated in the review. Consequently, following the review, some matters were left unresolved. As Roger put it, the issue of recruitment of friends is "probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen". If SightWatcher can have a fresh start under a new username, known only to arbcom, why not? Mistakes have been made and lessons learnt. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

Mathsci is, once again, being played here, and it would be better if his reaction to being played wasn't quite so predictable, since it likely gives his harassers satisfaction when he reacts as he does. Nevertheless, he is, as usual, not the one at fault here, and I continue to believe that sanctioning him -- however superficially "fair" it may seem -- would be a gross injustice. However, something clearly needs to be done, so I would urge that Elen's position -- which is basically Silk Torx's position minus a sanction against Mathsci -- be seriously considered. If the people harassing Mathsci on Arb pages are forced to stop, Mathsci will have nothing to react to, and there will be peace on earth all around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

  • Awaiting statements. Note that the relevant case link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review. Note also that TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely, so I don't think we need to consider the request as to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cla68, you've linked to a post by TCanens - I don't follow, whose reaction in that post are you calling childish? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing that Mathsci has raised this yet again at enforcement as a result of this case request (and the resulting admin frustration with Mathsci as a result) makes me think that we missed an opportunity to head off more issues by making the interaction ban mutual last time in the motion that was proposed. I'm neutral, towards leaning oppose to modify the other issues here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noted the unilateral block action taken by Future Perfect At Sunrise in the AE request based on this thread.. I think that this action will certainly be looked at (either in this request, or in the request for a full fledged case that is currently being mooted by Cla68). I would say FPaS's actions may not be strictly against consensus but solely on the basis that only a few folks had spoken, but I do note that FPaS's actions were unilateral and not in tune with those uninvolved administrators who had already commented on the AE request. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, folks. It seems that *none* of you is interested in editing in the area of R&I. It is also obvious to everyone that these continued requests for sanctions or variations in sanctions is doing absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee's mandate is to address disruption on Wikipedia, not providing due process or "fairness" to any individual editor(s). I'm thinking that we extend all topic and interaction bans in this area to indefinite, with the opportunity to appeal in six months, and that Mathsci be included in topic/interaction ban. Much as I understand that Mathsci is being trolled here, at this point his reactions to the trolling have become more disruptive to the encyclopedia than the trolling itself, and he clearly needs a break from this area. And Future Perfect at Sunrise, please lift your block on Cla68; I don't want to have to hear an entire case because you're being inflexible on a block that is clearly not supported by the consensus of admins on AE. Risker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sort of have to echo RIsker; what we have is a small-ish group of editors, none of whom seem to want to edit the R&I topic, and all of whom need to be kept away from each other. And at this point, that includes Mathsci; running to AE when we're already here was pretty much the definition of not helpful. I understand ou are getting trolled by a banned user, but every time this shows up I'm struck by how much battlefield conduct there is, and how much less of it there would be if the various parties would just act as if they had no need to comment on or to each other. Courcelles 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: I don't see much merit in this request; Sightwatcher's Wikipedia activities now appear exclusively directed to protesting his ban.
    On the broader issues, it's probably not just Mathsci who's being trolled here.  Roger Davies talk 21:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Games are being played here, and it is time this was stopped. I would support extending topic/interaction bans to Mathsci, and also adding a provision that nobody involved in these bans can appeal or raise the issue on Wikipedia, not on AE or through these ArbCom pages. All communications related to these bans, including notifications about infringements, would need to come direct to ArbCom, and to ArbCom only, by email. These public requests simply inflame matters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the Racepacket case has a model of interaction ban that could be useful here -- very broad, and pretty much a total cease and desist globally. Courcelles 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, comments on the initial request. SightWatcher, if you don't intend to edit R&I articles, I see no reason why you would need the topic ban lifted. You are not required to comment on any discussion related to R&I; while your name may be mentioned, you should be perfectly capable of ignoring them should you not wish to be involved. As to the rest of your request, you have no grounds from which to request the removal of other's sanctions; even if you did, the grounds on which you're requesting this are somewhat shaky. It seems as though the better approach would be to, as several other arbs have suggested, make the interaction bans mutual and in so doing prevent anyone involved from causing any problems in the area whatsoever, because they can't talk to one another. Would anyone care to post some motions to that effect? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • decline' per all of the above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple issues at play here; if Cla follows through, a case regarding FPaS is one of them that isn't really at issue regarding the initial request. As pointed out by Hers, I don't see how someone who isn't editing R&I articles is affected by a ban from them, or how they could be roped into the surrounding drama willingly therein; SightWatcher, I'd be happy for clarification on that point. I'm thinking Silk's idea might have merit to lessening the drama on-wiki, although given how invested the participants in I'm not sure that wouldn't just migrate the same issues into another sphere for them to blow back to Wiki with less noise but the same smell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline this request. While there are wider issues with this topic area, I don't think we need to open a case to examine them at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline request and would consider both a motion that none of the four named can request an alteration/lifting of the sanction for the next year, and a working practice to allow the clerks to remove requests made on behalf of a third party in this manner. I am very reluctant to consider anything that looks like a sanction for Mathsci, but would strongly recommend he avoids reporting any of this group onwiki at AE, as all it is doing is painting a target on his back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Motion 1: Mutual interaction bans

1) In an effort to prevent further disruption of the Race & Intelligence topic area, all interaction bans implemented as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review are hereby amended to be mutual. Specifically, editors who actively contribute in the Race & Intelligence topic area are indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs) and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section, however violators should be given sufficient warning prior to enforcement.

Support
  1. I think the crux here is if there's any reason for the involved parties to be communicating, period. From what I've seen it usually is only a prelude to grievances on all sides, and so a mutual ban seems a good option to try and prevent this occurrence in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator Comments
Due to the broad nature of the interaction bans as passed in the review, this is the literal interpretation of "make the bans mutual" - however it may be a bit of overkill, and could catch some editors not involved in this mess completely unawares, hence that bit at the end about "sufficient warning". However, it would probably allay SightWatcher's concern - which I still don't really understand - that he could be sanctioned for something he's not doing. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2: Mathsci interaction ban

2) Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs) and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section.

Support
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator Comments
This is the sort of "mutual" I think most people were thinking of; where Mathsci can't discuss those two. Note that this can pass alongside motion 1; the way motion 1 is worded, if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, he would technically no longer be under the interaction ban if motion 2 were not in force as well. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motion needs to add Cla68, I think we can drop the indef blocked user in its place, though, any objection to making the change? SirFozzie (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, TrevelyanL85A2 is pretty much never coming back, so passing any motion involving them is a waste of time. Courcelles 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of a waste when we're passing a motion anyway, and not including him makes it appear as though we're singling out SightWatcher for some reason. SirFozzie, do you mean Cla68 should not comment on SW/Trevelyan, or that Mathsci also shouldn't comment on Cla68? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on motions

I'm also wondering if it would be worthwhile to add an admonishment to "don't feed the trolls," but not sure. I don't believe it is appropriate to add a moratorium on appeals of these or related restrictions; it should be clear enough anyway that we're not willing to consider any for some time, particularly not from these grounds. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY

Initiated by My76Strat (talk) at 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by your My76Strat

Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior[19] I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?

@ Courcelles, I appreciate your comment, and the counsel within. I did consider that this request could fall contrary to the arbitration process, hoping that the function "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" might apply. It is possible that a community discussion could reach an improper consensus without any malice intent, encroaching legal ramifications beyond what a lay body would reasonably consider. It seems within the clause allowing the Committee to "interpret existing policy". Even these provisions might require the protocol of a full case, which I would understand if the mandate is clear that a clarification must be narrowly construed within the context of an existing case. I apologize to the extent I may have approached this outside of process, and will comply with any directive issued. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at WP:RIP, as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page.[20] This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ The Committee, The more I think about this question, the more it seems clear that there really could only be one answer. I can't even support the notion myself. I think my sensibility was temporally impaired by emotion, or something like that, I hope, or I am afflicted with chronic brain-fart. I'd like to withdraw this request as malformed unless you prefer ill-construed. But I will leave the task of removing it to the better discretion of the Committee. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Roger Davies, I agree. A significant factor of the counsel coming from this clarification, is the notion of "informed consent". This follows the insight Silk Tork elaborated on in saying; "when asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence." Further suggesting; "a guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up", acknowledging that this is a community prerogative. I am in full agreement. I am curious however, if this prerogative should be accomplished at the communities leisure, or if it is prudent for the Committee to direct a timeline? Besides a timeline, should specific points be directed for the community, to addressed? Like a protocol for soliciting informed consent. A guideline for designating which family member had the authority to speak for the entire surviving family. Perhaps even a protocol for the possibility that one member might give consent while another expresses dissent. In any regard, I am pleased that the Committee has rallied to provide this valuable insight, in such a timely fashion. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Risker

I am aware of the deceased editor whose obituary is being referenced here; as a matter of fact, I nominated him for adminship, and have long known his "real world" name. I've also read the obituary, and know that there is nothing potentially harmful in it. On looking at WP:RIP, I note many of the entries link to real-world names that were not necessarily attached to the accounts during the editor's tenure at Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it would be safe to link to the obituary and also to use some of the information from the obituary to flesh out the entry at WP:RIP. I'd suggest this is something better to discuss with the community as a whole, instead of asking Arbcom; there's no case to attach this to, and there are no concerns about sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The Interior

Thank you for the advice, Risker. I'm going to go ahead and add the information. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask the community if we need to add to WP:PRIVACY a clause about deceased Wikipedians, but maybe it's (hopefully) such a rare occurrence that it can be dealt with case by case. The Interior (Talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: will hold off until we here a few other opinions, but I trust Risker's assessment as they knew the editor better than I did. The Interior (Talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

Why not simply e-mail the link to the obituary to the other interested Wikipedians? This way, the info can be shared but still preserving their privacy on Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mors Martell

If a person wishes that their real name not be disclosed in public, I see no reason to stop respecting that after they die. In those cases their obituary at Wikipedia could include the person's username, and a summary of their contributions. --Mors Martell (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Can this request be archived? NW (Talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The request is a little too close to asking ArbCom to make policy, though as in one direction this could lead to oversight being necessary if the answer went a certain way, I can see the logic in asking us. IMO, if the user didn't reveal their real name on-wiki, I wouldn't make that connection now without the family's okay, but, again, this really isn't up to ArbCom. Courcelles 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Courcelles, while I can certainly understand why we would wish to do such a thing, I would suggest without it being disclosed previously, or with the family's ok, I would hesitate greatly to say "there's no problem with it". SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a bit of time to think about it.. I would tenatively see nothing wrong with it, but I think I'd be happy if we did a RfC (not a long one, just a quick say, seven day one with a link to the usual places.. and until a decision one way or the other, I would say, "Tenative ok" with the caveat that should the decision be against it, that the identifying info be removed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We respect users' wishes to conceal their real identity in order to prevent harassment, and will suppress edits in which the real life identity is revealed for otherwise anonymous accounts. Policy, however, is not clear on deceased users. While the user can not be harassed, their family could be. I can see a possibility that the family of an admin who had blocked trouble makers might experience harassment at a sensitive time. When asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence. A guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up; and that is for the community to do. As regards the Committee's involvement in these matters. If the real life identity of a deceased user were suppressed when there was no clear indication of permission being given, I would view that as an appropriate interpretation of policy. If another user tried, after suppression, to again reveal the identity, and this became a dispute which escalated until it was before the Committee, I would support the suppression and be inclined to support sanctions against a user edit warring to reveal a real life identity without evidence that this was the wishes of the deceased user or their family. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the time that I see a pseudonymous user named as deceased, it is at the behest or notice of the user's relatives or friends. Where such approval is not given, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and avoid tying the account to the real-world identity. While I think it's unlikely that the kind of harassment Silk mentions would actually happen, there's no reason to give an opening for that harm either. If it's considered important enough, I'd recommend an RfC for a line mention to be added to the policy or whatnot; as it is this doesn't seem like a clarification that we can decide as a Committee. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also recommend that community input be sought into this; my personal thoughts are similar to SilkTork's in that the family of the deceased should give consent prior to anything being posted. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to A Quest For Knowledge: If providing such an obituary link is determined to constitute outing, then that is not a feasible alternative and could result in more problems; any person with the email could very easily forward it on to someone else, and so on, until the point of using email is entirely defeated. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this a case where the Committee have no weightier insight than anyone else in the community, so it might be worth creating an RfC in a bit (there's no rush) to gauge the community's feelings. My personal feeling would be that if (as in this case) a relative unconnected with Wikipedia contacts the project, then they are surely telling us (as in this case) is that 'Joe Bloe, who edited as User:Foo, has passed away.' Usernames don't die, real live people sadly do. At which point, linking to the published obituary is a courtesy, not WP:OUTING. Attaching an obit to a username assumed to be the deceased would surely be a contravention of WP:BLP, never mind OUTING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is that this is entirely a matter for the family and, absent their explicit informed consent, the username should not be associated with a real life identity.  Roger Davies talk 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=527424079"