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 Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 17 September 2013 (→‎Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta: archiving declined appeal to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/3/0
[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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence Motion none 8 September 2013
Amendment request: Scientology Motion (orig. case) 5 September 2013

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

Clarification request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
WP:ARBR&I
Extended topic ban of SightWatcher: Wikipedia:ARBR&I#SightWatcher topic-banned
One-way interaction bans imposed at AE (logged by Timotheus Canens): [1]
Instruction about reporting violations of interaction bans (logged by Future Perfect at Sunrise): [2]

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

Notifications: [3][4][5][6]


Statement by Mathsci

Three users were given one-way interaction bans in October 2012: Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. An instruction was later logged by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in December 2012 concerning the reporting by me of these users when I thought they might have violated their interaction ban. Zeromus1 was identified as sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin and their name struck from the list of interaction bans. I am not under any arbcom restrictions at the moment. Sandstein has decided that the extended topic bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher are also interaction bans. SightWatcher recently commented out of the blue on a noticeboard in connection with disruption being caused indirectly by the site-banned user Captain Occam. Sandstein is treating the instruction from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it were an arbcom sanction and has declared unilaterally without having consulted any colleagues that he intends to block me for two weeks for reporting SightWatcher. Sandstein has not sought input from any other administrator and has ignored the fact that he has been told that the original disruption, caused by Captain Occam off-wiki, is being discussed by arbitrators.

I have never understood SightWatcher to be subject to a "one-way interaction ban". That is Sandstein's own interpretation. There was a lengthy but inconclusive discussion of interaction bans in the request for amendement by SightWatcher in December, when he asked for the topic bans of himself and TrevelyanL85A2 to be lifted, as well as the two iteraction bans.[7] Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now provided some clarification at WP:AE.[8] As an admin policing WPAE, he had originally formulated those instructions for me as applying only to the one-way interaction bans imposed on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. That has been my understanding. In those circumstances Sandstein's interpretation is unorthodox (in fact Cla68 was the person who suggested the instruction might apply [9]). As a result I find myself placed unfairly in an impossible situation.

Sandstein has made a number of errors recently by policing WP:AE on his own. He has not waited for or sought input from other administrators. He wants a rapid turnover even in complex cases. In this case he is treating FPaS's instruction as if it were a heavy arbcom sanction. I have observed the instruction. When either of the two editors under interaction bans has appeared to violate their ban, I have consulted a trusted administrator, e.g. MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), by wiki-email. From memory, his last response was that although a post looked problematic, it was best ignored because its intent was trolling/baiting. It's fairly obvious that any such request would be made in private. No mechanism has been suggested for indicating whether any private request was made.

I have also recently been in contact with arbitrators (including AGK, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare) about ongoing and related problems created by Captain Occam. Wer900 has made public part of an email from AGK. He claims that that email gave him permission to start an arbcom case centred on me on behalf of Captain Occam.[10] In his edit summary, Wer900 has accuses me of lying. On a previous posting on WP:ANI,[11] Wer900 wrote that I am "the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths" on wikipedia. SightWatcher's posting took place in this context.

I have in the past made AE reports about Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2. SightWatcher was reported because he made statements about the conduct of editors who have been active in R&I (Mathsci, Mors Martell, arbitrators), when his own conduct had not been under discussion.[12] Sandstein has decided unilaterally that SightWatcher is under an interaction ban with me. That is not the case. When Ferahgo the Assassin had her extended topic ban, we edited and interacted on the same pages Orson Scott Card and Talk:Orson Scott Card about how to find a neutral way of phrasing sentences in the last part of the lede. So there was no interaction ban. In my AE report I certainly made no mention of an "interaction ban". The ban was on making general comments about WP:ARBR&I. There have been three recent problematic accounts. I have been the main user to point out (in private) the problems with those account (Zeromus1, Akuri and Mors Martell). These have been a problem, e.g. Akuri's contributions to the Race and politics case and Zeromus1's contributions on arbcom pages.

It's unclear why Sandstein has chosen to interpret the extended topic ban as a one-way interaction ban. It's also unclear why, when problems have been pointed out, Sandstein has refused to seek input from other adminstrators, as is normally required. He has effectively treated the advice from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it had been a heavy sanction handed out by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Sandstein for requesting comments from all the other administrators involved in the December AE request where Timotheus Canens and Future Perfect at Sunrise formulated the instructions for me. Only Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate were under discussion there. The instructions have worked smoothly: it was a very efficient "are you being trolled?" check. In SightWatcher's case, where it is an extended topic ban instead of an interaction ban, there is the added problem that it's impossible to tell whether anything he writes in project space is by him or by one of the other members in his DeviantArt group. As Johnuniq writes, however, the "are you being trolled?" question still applies. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Seraphimblade and The ed17 to Sandstein's list of admins. ErrantX was trolled by Mors Martell in January about starting an arbcom case about me; and Sandstein was similarly trolled by Akuri in April.[13][14][15][16] All these socks probably come from the same drawer. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as banned users are concerned, A.K.Nole (Echigo mole) recanted on 24 May. And Mikemikev has at last found fulfilment on Metapedia. There was a slight glitch in July when he was accused of making pro-Zionist edits in their R&I article, but he got himself off the hook by linking to his postings on Stormfront. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on interaction bans The 22 Oct IBANs on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 followed their responses to removal of Echigo mole posts and have no direct relation to ARBR&I. On 25 July TDA requested an amendment to the R&I review partly based on my removal of a notification of a fake RfAr of Keystone Crow on TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. After that arbcom passed a motion on removing posts in Sept 2012. An AE notification from the ipsock 80.237.226.76 was removed from Cla68's talk page on 19 Oct. The AE request concerned Zeromus1 (later blocked as a Ferahgo sock) and The Devil's Advocate. At AE Cla68 requested that I be blocked for removing the posting. The interaction bans were enacted at that point. The instructions were issued on Dec 5 2012 in a very short AE request following a personal attack by Cla68, for which he was independently blocked. SightWatcher was not mentioned in that request. I will comment on Captain Occam, proxy-editing and the extended topic ban of SightWatcher in private on arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

My quick reading suggests Mathsci asserts the following:

  • SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from discussing R&I or the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic: ARBR&I: SightWatcher topic-banned.
  • SightWatcher commented at ANI (diff) and Mathsci thinks that breached the topic (not interaction) ban.
  • Mathsci initiated an AE request based on the above and some other issues I did not look at: AE: SightWatcher (permalink).
  • Sandstein intends to block Mathsci for what is considered a breach of a sanction stating that Mathsci must refrain from posting AE requests regarding interaction bans without certain prior agreement: sanction diff.

My suggestion would be to tell Sandstein that interpreting a topic ban as an interaction ban is not appropriate, particularly when Mathsci has been the editor who has probably done more than any other to protect the encyclopedia from the R&I POV pushing that occurred. Also, I think something needs to be done to make it clear to SightWatcher that no R&I topic or editor comments are permitted (with the standard exceptions). Finally, Mathsci must stop feeding the trolls, and perhaps the logged sanction should be extended to include just about any R&I-related report anywhere on Wikipedia (with the standard exceptions). The banned users will probably never go away, but others at the bad website will eventually tire of their moaning provided there is nothing new for them to moan about. However, the excitement associated with this current incident will allow the discussions at the bad website to bubble along for at least a year. The feedback cycle must be broken. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

This pertains to a currently open enforcement request by Mathsci, WP:AE#SightWatcher. The question is whether Mathsci has, by making that request, violated a restriction imposed on Mathsci by other admins in 2012 directing Mathsci to "refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case". My initial impression is that it does because the wording of the topic ban applying to SightWatcher comprises elements of an interaction ban ("... from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic"). However, the wording of the restriction isn't very clear as to which bans it applies. I've asked for additional input by the admins who then participated in formulating the restriction.

Procedurally, should we wait on this clarification request to conclude before taking any enforcement action? It seems to me that seizing the Committee of what is in effect an appeal before any sanction has even been imposed is premature.  Sandstein  06:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The motion to make the interaction bans mutual appears to me to be a reasonable reaction to the AE request at issue. I take it to mean that additional administrative action with respect to Mathsci is not required, but at the AE thread I've raised the question whether action with respect to Cla68 is needed because of their interaction ban violation. Additional arbitrator or administrator input at WP:AE would be welcome.  Sandstein  11:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SightWatcher

I have a question for the arbitrators, especially Newyorkbrad. When Cla68 requested arbitration about this situation last December, you declined the request "in the hope and firm expectation that it will deescalate rapidly." [17] I think you should have known it was awfully naive to expect that. Other arbitrators such as SirFozzie and AGK had already pointed out that the current sanctions were a source of disruption, and there was no reason to assume that would change unless the sanctions were changed.

You say below that you want us all to stop paying attention to each other, but this is no different from what you and the other arbitrators said in December, which was not enough to change anything. December also is not the first time an arbitration gave these instructions and had it do nothing. Risker gave a similar instruction here in 2011, and that had no effect. SilkTork gave a warning about it a year later, and that had no effect either. [18] My question is, many years does the problem have to keep recurring before you accept it will not go away on its own? For most other intractable disputes, you understood they required your intervention much sooner than this.

There does not seem to be anything I can do to stop being a focus of Mathsci's attention, because he's kept focusing on me even when I avoided him for months or for a year. His comment about me that led to the current situation was made when I had avoided him for the past 9 months. In May 2012, he was attacking me on Arbcom pages when I had avoided him and the R&I topic since May 2011, and he gloated here about how his doing this caused me to be sanctioned. My experience has taught me that if I ignore him bringing me up I might be sanctioned when I'm not paying attention, but also that in the long term there's no way to make him stop. If staying away from him and his articles could make him stop, he would have stopped when I left him alone for a year, or more recently when I left him alone for nine months.

If you think your "enough" comment will change any of this in the long term, please try to remember how similar it is to what you, Risker and SilkTork said in the past that had no lasting effect. And if you want something to change, please don't just keep doing the same thing you've been doing for the past two years, while expecting it to have a different result this time from every other time. -SightWatcher (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Could someone please either remove the one-way interaction ban I and other active editors have with Mathsci, or else make it two-way so that things will be fair and even? Otherwise, this nonsense will never end except with an ArbCom case. I don't know if Mathsci will ever give up his campaign against two or three banned editors, while he drags in as many other editors and admins as he can, until it's made clear to him that there are actual consequences for his actions. If you will get him to let it go, then this recurring problem will probably go away. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Enough.
This entire situation is degenerating into self-parody. I have studied the AE thread below, and frankly I find the procedural discussion of the history of the interaction bans to be nearly incomprehensible. And I am not asking anyone to help me unravel it, either; I don't see that inquiry as being productive in the least.
For a long time, the race-and-intelligence articles were plagued, and Mathsci was being harassed, by one or more banned users (not involved in this thread). Mathsci correctly brought the problem to various people's attention, and it was addressed. While I don't say the problem is solved, and it could flare up again at any time, I think it's fair to say it has been substantially reduced.
Separately, there is the discussion concerning Mathsci at Wikipediocracy. Much of it too is nasty, but the nastiest parts have not overtly spilled onto Wikipedia recently, and I hope they won't.
There has been a good deal of discussion of whether Wer900 or someone else might file an arbitration case on behalf of Captain Occam. I welcome Wer900's statement that he has no intention of filing such a case. I hope no one else does either; I can speak only for myself, but I would have no interest in accepting such a case.
At this point, I see no reason for Wer900 or Sightwatcher to be mentioning Mathsci on-wiki, and I equally see no reason for Mathsci to be mentioning Wer900 or Sightwatcher.
As a procedural matter, Sandstein is quite correct that an editor shouldn't ordinarily be allowed to open a thread here seeking to preempt a pending sanction that is under discussion against him. (Sandstein is also correct that the tone of much of the ANI discussion is awful.) Nonetheless, I will offer what again is my own personal observation only, which is that I would prefer not to see any editors blocked in this situation, but even more than that, I would prefer not to see any more of the situation itself. Everyone mentioned here is very, very strongly urged to either sign off for awhile or to go edit something productive.
Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brad's sentiment, but, since just saying "enough" hasn't brought about much improvement so far, I'd say it's high time we turned all one-way IBANs into reciprocal ones. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Salvio. I'll wait for a few other arbs to chime in but making the IBs mutual seems like a useful option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ongoing wikidrama is an enormous distraction to the project's volunteers. I will support making these interaction bans two-way, and will propose a motion to that end. AGK [•] 14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Mathsci interaction bans (Race and intelligence)

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:

This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.

Support
  1. Proposed. The language for the SightWatcher provision is different because the other two provisions were imposed under AE, whereas that one was imposed as an arbitration remedy. AGK [•] 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 18:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It would be less problematic for the project as a whole if interaction bans were always two-way. An interaction ban does not prevent productive work - it simply prevents users interacting with or complaining about each other. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 04:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: Scientology

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. at 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Other remedies
  2. Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request
  • Other remedies
  • The restriction against me that was issued by Sandstein is lifted.
  • Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions
  • A note is added below my warning and Peter's stating that the claims of misconduct underlying Sandstein's warnings were invalid.
  • Furthermore I would ask that the oversighted edit I made on Sandstein's talk page be restored as it only contained public information available on the arbitration pages, a recent highly-trafficked noticeboard case, and a mention of an editor's previous username.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Note:Originally, I sought to appeal this restriction by e-mail out of respect for the privacy issues alleged by Sandstein, but was instructed to make the appeal publicly. My appeal below is a slightly altered version of that e-mail.

In the initial comment I made to Sandstein I noted User:Prioryman's previous account name was ChrisO (disclosed plainly on the ARBSCI page), pointed to a rather recent public discussion that concluded giving out Prioryman's real name was not outing, and described how the WP:ARBSCI case page itself plainly gives out Prioryman's identity in the finding of fact about him. The closest I personally came to giving out Prioryman's full name was noting his username.

Since Sandstein had blocked an editor for the apparent offense of noting Prioryman's name and conflict of interest regarding Scientology in the context of that editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article, this was all germane to the discussion. However, Sandstein's sanction against me did not even come at that point, but only after I responded to his warning. It appears the sanction was imposed solely because I mentioned Prioryman's previous username after Sandstein's warning.

At the AN discussion there was majority support, though not a clear consensus, for lifting the restriction against me. At the request for clarification several Arbitrators agreed that, in the specific case of Prioryman, even noting his real name was not outing and certainly not noting his previous account name. The one Arb who commented on my sanction directly said it should be lifted.

Seeing as all I did was note the name of a previous account and point to public arbitration pages and noticeboard discussions, the underlying charge of outing is invalid. A majority of those who commented say the restriction should be lifted and at least one Arbitrator said the same. The restriction should thus be lifted and the warnings, having been based on a false premise, should be noted as containing invalid claims of misconduct. My desire to see the suppressed edit on Sandstein's talk page be unsuppressed is to avoid the appearance of misconduct that goes with having an edit oversighted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio, as stated, my suggestion is to simply note the warnings were not making a valid claim of misconduct. It is less a questioning of "unissuing" the warning and more a matter of repudiating it. A note to the effect of "the warnings issued to The Devil's Advocate and Peter Cohen are found to be without merit" is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

To summarize the background from memory (without links so as not to link to private information):

I indef-blocked Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for outing and/or harassment by unnecessarily and despite another admin's warnings publicizing private information about another user in the course of a WP:AE request related to Scientology. I understand Drg55 unsuccessfully appealed that block to WP:BASC, and remains blocked. I also understand that the other user at issue, who may previously have engaged in significant misconduct themselves, is at the center of numerous controversies related to Gibraltar and Scientology (which are topics subject to discretionary sanctions) and also the target of off- and onwiki harassment activities because of that.

On my talk page, The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen protested against the block of Drg55 and threatened community noticeboard discussions about it. To prevent such discussions becoming fora for continued outing and/or harassment, I warned both not to do that and to pursue private venues of appeal instead. Because of their misguided insistence, I also forbade The Devil's Advocate from engaging in public discussions related to this private information. Part of this talk page thread was suppressed by the oversight team because it contained private information. Nonetheless, Peter cohen launched a long and acrimonious ANI discussion which, as I predicted, did become a venue for outing private information, but did not achieve consensus about the appropriateness of my warnings and sanction. To understand how discretionary sanctions apply to such situations, I sought clarification by the Committee, and my impression of the tenor of their response was that discretionary sanctions may be used in the way I did, even if the misconduct by Drg55 might have been "only" harassment and not outing in the strict sense because the private information at issue might, as I then learned, have been indirectly acknowledged on-wiki years ago.

As a result of the clarification request, I wrote that the sanction regarding The Devil's Advocate could probably be lifted because it has proven unsuccessful in preventing the kind of problematic ANI discussion we then experienced, but that the two users at issue here, and others who participated in the ANI thread, should be warned that they may experience discretionary sanctions if they publish private information without compelling reasons. But I forgot to follow up on that - sorry. That is still what I think would be an appropriate course of action going forward. As for the warnings, I think they were appropriate and can, in any case, not be undone in any meaningful sense (though, if I may remind the Committee, we are still waiting on the result of your review of the rules about warnings and other aspects of DS). As to the oversighting, that is a matter for review (if needed) by the appropriate functionaries and processes, and probably not suited to onwiki discussion. All users should be reminded that our privacy rules must be taken seriously and that private information is not an appropriate subject of ANI drama fests, but that conflicts related to it should be resolved in the appropriate private venues.  Sandstein  09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Arbitration Committee come to the conclusion that my warnings and/or sanction were in error, I'd appreciate more detailed guidance as to how I can avoid such errors in the future. For instance, is the problem that it is an inappropriate use of discretionary sanctions to direct editors not to initiate public discussions (including public appeals) related to private information, or is it that the information at issue (the user's real name and the former username derived from it), which they want to be treated as private, should not in fact be treated as private? Additionally, I'd appreciate it if the Committee also considers whether additional warnings or actions are appropriate with regard to Peter cohen's approach to contesting his warning, which include numerous personal attacks here and in the earlier ANI thread.

I'd also appreciate it if the Committee could come up with a way to set up appeals against discretionary sanctions such that they are much faster and more conclusive. Because these sanctions are designed to be routinely and quickly used, we must expect that there will be disagreements concerning their application, and we should set up a dedicated, orderly process to handle these disagreements. Prior to this appeal, all users involved in this matter were forced to spend inordinate amounts of volunteer time discussing the same issues in an inconclusive and very lengthy and confrontational ANI thread.You should set up an appeals framework (whether before the Committee, the community, administrators or another authority) that has a defined structure, some degree of oversight, and is designated as the only place in which discretionary sanctions may be contested, much like WP:DRV for deletions and {{unblock}} for blocks. The present lack of structure contributes to the waste of our principal resource - time and attention - and contributes to an unnecessary personalization and emotionalization of good-faith disagreements that ought to be resolved in a professional and dispassionate manner.  Sandstein  07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, thank you for clarifying that an administrator may still modify their sanction even as it is being appealed. As I wrote above, I am of the view that the sanction can now be lifted. That is not because I think that it was in error (though like in the case of most actions requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, opinions may legitimately differ about whether it was in error) but because it has proven to be ineffective in reaching its goal, which was to prevent a discussion on public fora in which the alleged real name of a Wikipedia user was likely to be (and was indeed) publicized, in what I think is, on balance, a violation of our rules concerning privacy and harassment. Considering that several arbitrators have now expressed the opinion that the sanction was in error, but have not specified why (see my preceding comment), I think that if I were to lift the sanction now, this would not bring about the clarity which I think would be helpful in any future disputes regarding that name.

I would therefore prefer it that, if anything needs to be done regarding that sanction, it is done by a Committee decision about this appeal that authoritatively determines (a) which if any identifying information about the user at issue is to be treated as private under which circumstances; and (b) whether discretionary sanctions may be used to direct that issues related to private information are not to be discussed publicly.

As I wrote above, I would also appreciate it if the Committee would determine if the approach taken by Peter cohen in contesting their warning here and at ANI was appropriate and, if not, what consequences should ensue. I imagine that it will materially impact the willingness of administrators to engage in arbitration enforcement tasks if they must anticipate that their actions will be contested, without reaction by the Arbitration Committee, in the manner they were contested in this case, rather than in an orderly and disciplined appeals procedure. A reaction by the Committee appears particularly necessary because, in such cases, administrators face the dilemma of either having to ignore unseemly and disruptive conduct such as personal attacks, or (by acknowledging them) creating the appearance of bias and personal involvement, which may disqualify them from future enforcement actions – which may well be the goal of those engaging in inappropriate conduct. Such conduct should not be incentivized by Committee inaction.  Sandstein  16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Thanks for clarifying your views about the matter. I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on Peter cohen's conduct any more than I already have. Could you please also clarify whether, in your view, the other user's alleged full real name should be treated as private? That is, I think, a more clear-cut privacy concern than the username, and the publication of that alleged full name by the editor I blocked was the principal basis for my restriction when a noticeboard discussion was threatened about that block.  Sandstein  11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Of course the warnings can be undone -- it's a wiki. We just go to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Other_remedies and Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Log_of_warnings_about_discretionary_sanctions and remove DA's and Peter's name with an edit summary linking to the AN discussion. NE Ent 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 204.101.237.139

@NE Ent: the warnings cannot be undone in any meaningful sense because the users cannot be made unaware of discretionary sanctions. The word 'warning' is the confusing part. It was never meant to imply wrongdoing. It was meant to notify of stricter rules. At some point down the line, someone altered the warning to imply wrongdoing. While well meaning, that only confused things. Removing their names in the way you describe would not make a practical difference since proof that the user is aware of DS can and has been used in place of the 'warning'. As Sandstein notes, we are still awaiting Arbcoms official review concerning that knot. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter cohen

I had been about to exercise my right to vanish having demonstrated to myself the ability to keep away from Wikipedia for a month. This was as a way to disassociate my real name from a subject (Scientology) with which I have had nothing to do and with which I intend to have nothing to do. Sandstein's arrogant refusal to examine his actions and most of Arbcom's failure to answer the questions I put not once but twice in the previous thread about this matter on this page having persuaded me that I want nothing to do with a project that is run by people such as you who are willing to give Sandstein free reign to bully anyone who points out that he has made a poor decision.

The matter of Prioryman's name and previous id came up last year in this long ANI thread. The closing summary mentioned that "There seems to be or nearly be a consensus that YRC did not violate WP:OUTING.". In short the community's judgment was that calling Prioryman by his real name, as User:Youreallycan did before the ANI thread and which User:Drg55 did before his ban, was not outing. It follows that Sandstein's decision to use WP:OUTING as a grounds for banning Drg55 went against the majority, consensus or near consensus of the community.

Both TDA and I referred Sandstein to the AN/I thread. (Although Sandstein's use of revdel meant that I was not clear of what exactly TDA had done.) Sandstein's response was to slap us both with Arbcom enforcement warnings on a subject with which I have had nothing to do. He also slapped an enforcement action on TDA. How Sandstein can be surprised that I went straight to ANI as my next step after his repeated abuse of admin power as a means of protecting his ego from being questioned by non-admins, just shows what a fool he is.

Returning to the AN/I thread that I reference above, you can find the following piece of dialogue

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that I referred to "User:ChrisO in my posting on Sandstein's page is of no import.

So, Arbcom, are you prepared to do something to retain an editor who has contributed a moderate amount of featured and good content or would you rather let Sandstein continue as your bully boy taking admin actions against anyone who points out that he has gone too far. If the latter, then please delete my user and user talk pages and rename my account to vanished user something or other.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sandstein still wants his pound of flesh so that he has some way of pretending that he was in the right. The thing is that if you act like an arrogant piece of shit whose immediate reaction to non-admins telling you that you've got something wrong is to slap them with warnings and sanctions without bothering to read the links that they refer you to (and Sandstein has previously admitted that he could not be bothered to read the threads in questions) then you should not be surprised when people say that you are an arrogant piece of shit. And the fact that I am not the first person to criticize Sandstein with strong language just shows that he is a repeat offender who regularly acts like a piece of shit. Having decided that Wikipedia does not reward me enough to make it worth putting up with Sandstein then I see no reason to mince my words. He has had plenty of time to apologise to The Devils Advocate and to me for not assuming good faith in our actions and that convinces me that there was malice in his. And as I'm intending to exercise my right to vanish I don't care whether Arbcom tut-tut me or not. So can someone vanish me, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

I don't see any reason why The Devil's Advocate's request should not be granted. The only question is whether Sandstein's warning to TDA was a warning or a notification. If it's just a notification, it cannot be undone since TDA is obviously aware of it. OTOH, if it's a warning, of course it can be undone. As NE Ent aptly points out, this is a Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I just wanted to say that although Sandstein acted in error in how he initially handled this, to his credit he is now asking for feedback on what he should have done. Since ArbCom presides over WP's administration, you need to give him that feedback that he is asking for. Also, contrast the maturity of Sandstein's request with Timotheus Cannens' (TC) response when his administrator actions on the enforcement board regarding Mathsci's multiple conflicts with other editors, including yours truly, where he threatened to undo all of his previous enforcement actions if you undid one of his decisions. So, TC, should Sandstein do like you did and threaten to undo all of his previous admin actions if you guys decide he was incorrect? Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Just a query. It's still not clear from any of this whether or under what circumstances I may point out to another editor Prioryman's previous username. Do you think that should be made clear, or is it best to leave it ambiguous so Sandstein may sanction people, or not, at his discretion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

Lift sanction, delete warnings from ARBSCI page as a courtesy. Courtesy blanking is commonly done, and in this case it is fairly clear that the warnings were inappropriate: by the standards Sandstein applied, several arbitrators – who in their comments said the same as TDA and Peter cohen the last time this matter was before the committee – would have to be "warned" and logged on ARBSCI as well. Andreas JN466 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hans Adler

I happened to see this during a long wiki break. I wasn't aware of Prioryman's previous account but found it immediately with my first Google search: An edit by the Prioryman account itself put an old barnstar with the old user name on the account's awards page. It is still there.

Sandstein has an unfortunate tendency to alienate valuable editors. He makes mistakes like every other admin does, but blows them up ridiculously by not correcting them unless directed to do so by a higher authority. (As the evidence is a number of previous appearances of Sandstein before Arbcom, I feel I don't have to go to the trouble of researching and linking them.) If he gets away scot free each and every time, no doubt this will continue.

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I frankly wouldn't mind if I never had to read another word about Prioryman's former username. However, the reminder that it's time for the Committee to post the proposed clarifications as to how discretionary sanctions should work is well-taken. Several of my colleagues have made this a priority task, though our attention has been diverted to finishing the active cases recently; I hope we can post something for comment soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would vacate the sanction and lift the warnings. The latter is a purely symbolic gesture, but this whole fiasco isn't worth losing editors over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the extent Sandstein accepts that he issued a sanction he should not have, it would be in order (and would save everyone a lot of trouble) if he would simply lift that sanction on his own initiative. In case he has any doubt whether he is authorized to take that action at this stage, the answer is yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially grant appeal. As I've said the last time we discussed this issue, I believe that, in this case, the sanction Sandstein imposed on TDA is unreasonable and, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion. For that, I think it should be lifted. On the other hand, warnings, once issued, cannot be unissued in any meaningful sense and, so, in that respect, the appeal should be declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sandstein:, as a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you believe an appeal against a decision you make should not be heard by the community, then the best approach, in my opinion, would be to refer the issue at hand to people who can legitimately make a decision and then say "the action de qua was taken as a result of evidence which we may not disclose" (basically, functionaries and ArbCom).

      Also, I see that you still think your decision was not wrong; frankly, I find it unreassuring that, all else aside, you still fail to see why your actions could give the appearance of impropriety: an editor comes to your talk page explaining why he thinks you were wrong, providing evidence, and you sanction him. Now, that surely wasn't your intention, but you should have considered how your actions could be perceived by an involved observer, particularly considering how serious an AE sanction is and how difficult it is to overturn it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree entirely with Salvio,  Roger Davies talk 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information, the long-awaited draft update to Discretionary sanctions procedures has now been posted for scrutiny and discussion here. If adopted, the new procedure would downgrade all existing warnings to alerts (or notices) and thus remove the perceived stigma and finding of fault sometimes attaching to them. The discussion page is here. In the light of this, there is probably no reason to rescind the warnings. Roger Davies talk 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed this situation in detail, hoping to find some piece of information that had been missed, but I must also agree the sanction imposed on TDA is unjustified. (With the same thinking as Salvio, I would however do nothing about the warnings.) I will shortly propose a motion to this end.

    In response to Sandstein's questions, (1) Administrators are permitted to direct appeals to be submitted privately to the committee if they think it is necessary. In this case, although we overruled your direction, I do agree it was justified that you directed TDA to appeal privately to the committee. Needless to say, the unnecessary imposition of conditions on appeals by an administrator would be grounds for remedial action and could not be tolerated, but that is certainly not the case here. (2) The community's consensus appears to hold that Prioryman's old username is not private information. I do not see any reason to object to that consensus, but at the same time I cannot think of a situation where it would actually be necessary to refer to his former username; all else aside, it is simply discourteous. (3) I do not think I see any actionable misconduct by Peter cohen in this clarification request. If there has been any elsewhere, and it can reasonably be attributed to frustration with what my colleagues and I have agreed is an unwarranted sanction, then I would recommend excusing it. If it cannot reasonably be excused, then I still cannot see evidence of it in this thread, so a better evidence submission would be required. And in any event his misconduct would not be a subject that falls under the scope of this request. (4) Recommendations as to reforming the appeals process are welcome, as Roger Davies said, at the Discretionary Sanctions Review. I think this answers all your questions, Sandstein. AGK [•] 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion – The Devil's Advocate

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For reference, the current sanctions (logged at Scientology on 9 July 2013) against The Devil's Advocate (TDA) are:

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) is banned from all discussions or other material concerning or related to the identity of a particular editor, per this notification.

Motion: The Devil's Advocate (Scientology AE appeal)

Proposed:

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

Support:

  1. Proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion does not affect the imposition of future sanctions, and does not confer a conflict of interest on Sandstein with regards to Scientology or TDA. AGK [•] 10:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 04:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments by arbitrators:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=573282423"