Jump to content

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 Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 10 November 2012 (→‎Amendment request: Race and intelligence: archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Shakespeare authorship question none (orig. case) 3 November 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova|Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova]] none none 28 October 2012
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

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
127

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
127

Amendment request: Shakespeare authorship question

Initiated by NinaGreen (talk) at 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Shakespeare authorship question arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 2
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request
  • Remedy 2 "NinaGreen is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."
  • Request: Remove topic ban.

Statement by NinaGreen

I'm requesting that the indefinite topic ban be lifted. After my account was unblocked two months ago, I began editing articles on historical figures from the Middle Ages and the Tudor period. In the past two months I’ve edited over 120 articles, expanding them with new material, and adding reliable sources, in-line citations and links, particularly on pages where there were notices requesting help with expansion of articles, sources and in-line citations. There is now a matrix of interlinked articles on these historical figures which should provide a valuable reference for Wikipedia readers. I have considerable background knowledge in this area (by way of example, I’ve submitted numerous suggested corrections to the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in recent years, and all but a few have been incorporated into the current online edition).

A list of 119 articles I’ve edited, which includes all but the most recent ones I’ve been working on, can be found here [15]. A chart showing my total edits, and their nature, can be found here [16].

During these two months a few potential conflict situations have arisen with other editors, and I've successfully defused them. See, for example, [17] and [18]. I've also made use of the Wikipedia Help Desk. In short, there need be no concern on anyone's part that lifting the indefinite topic ban will occasion conflict. It won't. If conflict situations arise, I'll either defuse them, or simply walk away from editing a particular page.

Another reason for my confidence that conflict will not arise is that two editors who were on the other side in the arbitration have complimented my recent work on my Talk page. See [19] and [20].

If the indefinite ban is lifted, I would like to continue editing the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere [21], which is primarily a biography of a historical figure (there is only a brief section at the end with links to the authorship issue, and Oxford’s authorship is flatly rejected in that brief section). See [22]. There has been discussion in the past year on the Edward de Vere Talk page concerning the need to shorten the article. See, for example, Archive 4 under the heading Rewriting, [23]. I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to shorten the article more than has already been done. However if there is consensus that the article needs to be further shortened, I would be the best person to do that since I rewrote the entire article for Wikipedia two years ago, and it was recently acknowledged on the Talk page that I know more about Edward de Vere than virtually anyone (see here under the heading Fair Use, [24]). I could shorten the article without letting factual errors creep in in the process.

I’ve also noticed instances where I could usefully edit the article on the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship [25]. For example, there is factual inaccuracy in the paragraph on Oxford’s Geneva Bible in the use of the words ‘marginalia, ‘annotator’ and ‘annotations’ (see [26]). With the exception of a few hand-written annotations, many consisting of only a single word or fragment, there are no marginalia or annotations among the 1028 marked passages in Oxford’s Geneva Bible. There are merely many underlinings in the text, a significantly different thing (see [27]). Also, in the same article on the Oxfordian theory, the paragraph on Looney’s development of the authorship theory (see [28]) makes no mention of the central tenet of Looney’s theory, which is the 18 aspects of the author’s character and background which Looney identified in the plays before beginning his search for the author. See here, p. 92 [29], and here, p. 103 [30]. Since Looney was the originator of the Oxfordian theory, his exposition of it should be presented accurately in the article. I could help with that.

A further reason for requesting the lifting of the indefinite ban is that it is so broad that I’m sometimes uncertain whether I can edit or not without infringing it. For example, I extensively revised the article on Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, a major historical figure and a significant character in Shakespeare’s plays. In this section of the article. [31], a proponent of the Neville theory of Shakespeare authorship had added a statement that Sir Henry Neville wrote the works of Shakespeare. This has nothing to do with the biography of the 1st Earl of Westmorland, but I was reluctant to delete the statement in case the deletion might be interpreted as an infringement of the topic ban.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. And my apologies if there are any problems with the diffs. I’ve always had difficulty pinpointing specific statements with diffs, particularly when a discussion has been archived.

I’ll notify the editors and administrators listed as involved parties on the initial request for arbitration with the exception of administrator LessHeard (whose Talk page states he is retired, and discourages messages), and editor Charles Darnay (whose Talk page says he is indefinitely blocked). Please advise if there are others who should be notified. NinaGreen (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by warshy

  • Support. I definitely support it. I did not think Nina Green should have ever been banned at all from editing at Wikipedia to begin with. I did not understand then how Wikipedia really works, and don't think I really understand it today. The overall politics and bureaucracy of the whole entreprise (compounded by the technical demands of the platform) still baffle me. The whole procedure here is new to me, and it seems also very serious and complicated. What I do not have any doubts about are Nina Green's intellectual habilities and her historical knowledge of the period and the subject matter. If Nina Green is back and she believes she can now work within the political and bureaucratic (and techno-bureacratic) constraints of the entrerprise, I, for one, can only express my praise and admiration for her courage and determination. I offered her my editorial and intellectual support long ago, and I am glad she is back on Wikipedia and I can now just reaffirm it once again. I look forward to learning again from her deep knowledge of the subject. warshytalk 18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MoreThings

I support Nina's request. It's clear that she is extremely knowledgeable in this topic area. She is the type of editor WP should be going out of its way to encourage. 31.185.213.13 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (MoreThings)[reply]

Statement by Zweigenbaum

Since Nina Green has requested the removal of a permanent topic ban, and since she has shown merit in her work in other areas, and a year has transpired since the topic ban, there is no just or wholesome reason to maintain it against her. Zweigenbaum (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moonraker

  • Support There's no need to say again what I said in the original debate, which is on the record. When the ban on NinaGreen happened, well over a year ago now, I felt (and still do) that it was a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that getting to the point of imposing it had stretched the definition of "disruptive behaviour" quite a long way. The ban was surely at least partly the result of several users seeing Oxfordians collectively instead of individually, some even suggesting that there was a grand conspiracy at work. (Some much less rational Oxfordians actually had misbehaved on the English Wikipedia not long before, and it seemed to me that Nina was suffering from the way they had been perceived.) For those who supported the ban, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. I am hoping that everyone is a little older and wiser and that NinaGreen will be welcome to make a new start in the Shakespearian pages. Moonraker (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Newyorkbrad's suggestion, I do not see what exactly it amounts to, nor, to be quite frank, what the rationale for it would be. All of the editors involved in the original case were notified of this request to lift the topic ban, and most of them have spoken up here, unanimously supporting the request. In view of that, it is disappointing that the arbitrator comments are generally far more negative, along the lines of "we got it right and we feel it's too soon". Given those reactions, which to my mind are rather ungenerous, Newyorkbrad seems to be exploring a possible compromise solution, perhaps aimed at saving face on all sides. However, looking now at Tom Reedy's attempt to draft the detail of such a compromise, which includes continuing to ban Nina from parts of certain pages, but not from all of them, it strikes me as awkward and unlikely to be supported by anyone, except with a view to bridging the gap between the editors and the arbitrators. The real question here is whether maintaining the indefinite topic ban would serve any useful purpose, and in my view the correct answer is that it can safely be lifted. After all, it can always be reimposed later if the arbitrators feel a case for that has been made.
  • Newyorkbrad surprises me on at least one point which may be relevant. Nishidani, who has long been working in the SAQ pages, and who took an active part in them while Nina was also working there, says of her views on the authorship question "I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong." So clearly he has not observed any excesses of Oxfordian zeal. I myself took a lesser part at the same time and saw her as probably an Oxfordian, and if so then one of a subtle mind with an objective approach to the authorship question. However, Newyorkbrad, who so far as I know is not active in the SAQ pages, says "NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis... her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays." I find myself wondering where this claim comes from and what evidence could be adduced for the "strong advocacy" part of it, which neither Nishidani nor I observed. I hope we can avoid any over-statement of the case (such as it was) against Nina when the topic ban was imposed.
  • In conclusion, I feel it is best to have a clean decision on whether to lift the topic ban or not, and that it can now be lifted. Moonraker (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

  • Support: In my opinion, all criticisms of editors should be backed up with verifiable reliable sources (article editing diffs) in order to facilitate due process and to ensure transparency. The first finding of fact is that she was using a "single-purpose account" (SPA). This is not evidence of wrong-doing. While bad editors may use an SPA, using an SPA does not imply a bad editor; Correlation does not imply causation. She may even be an expert in her field and doesn't want to stray off-subject. We're told that she has "engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior"... but there are no diffs. We're told that she has "been repeatedly counseled"... but no diffs. And then we are given "sample evidence", but no indication how it relates to the findings of fact. There may be diffs here, but they are not supplied in a coherent and relevant fashion.
    Looking at some of the sample evidence, at last we find a page of article diffs from Bishonen. Unfortunately the first set of 22, gives no indication of wrong-doing, only that they are her first 22 edits on an article. However, the second set of 9 article diffs is presented to illustrate "the disruptive side of Nina's editing", a hat tip to Bishonen, this is hard evidence (verifiable reliable sources). Unfortunately I'm not entirely convinced. Swapping references for a cn tag, and replacing the entire lead without discussion or consensus, are potentially bad, but they might be OK. There is no evidence that these are not just one-off naive attempts at being bold. I would like to have seen evidence that there was an attempt to discuss the issue (it may have happened, but there is no evidence/diffs of it). I'd like to have seen evidence that despite discussion, that the edits were reverted regardless.
    Wikipedia makes it easy for editors to provide article edit diffs representing verifiable reliable sources that support their criticisms, and, demonstrate that the high standards that are described in policy have not been met. Diffs should be compulsory, and included in such a way, that an edit trail can be followed. We'd expect nothing less in an article. I see evidence of edits that I would query myself and may disagree with, and over-zealous contributions. I don't see sufficient evidence of "a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior", which is not to deny that it did not happen. I think that an RFAR should have a high standard of documented evidence. I don't see that it has made a water-tight case. I spent about 30 mins going through the material, which should be ample time to follow a good edit trail.
    If the editor persists in problem editing, Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to deal with it, and a sliding scale of blocks to quickly return to 6 and 12 months blocks. --Iantresman (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Reedy: You are quite correct, that I did not review all the evidence (I said that I spent about 30 mins on it), and I was not familiar at all with the case. But I feel that it should not matter. As an editor with no opinion either way, I felt I should be able to read the "Findings of fact", and see a well-documented case supported by hard evidence. ie. the finding of fact is "the editor was uncivil" together with a diff supporting the finding of fact. Where a simple diff is insufficient (eg. the editor's pattern of behavior), I expect to find a series of diffs, or a link to a post containing a series of diffs. If the case was an article, it was get lots of "citation needed" tags. If someone is accused of a certain behavior, it should be trivial to offer article editing diffs in support, and transparency requires that we provide verifiable reliable sources in a coherent and relevant fashion. Without it, we have hearsay. --Iantresman (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Reedy

Support: The idea floated here by some that Nina did not deserve her topic ban is beyond ludicrous. Warshy admits he doesn't know how Wikipedia works; and iantresman appears to not have reviewed all the evidence (and in truth I don't understand why he even commented on this case since he's not familiar with it at all). Reviewing a few few gigabytes of her article talkpage entries from that time would set him straight. And of course we have the usual Oxfordians who edit little, if any, but who can be counted on to pop up to support what they hope is another would-be champion for the cause. Their opinions can be appreciated for what they're worth, i.e. nil.

Having said that, it appears that she has taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works and its intended purpose. I'm not sure if she's the one to revise the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, but noy because I think she'd return to POV editing; the page needs a biographical unity instead of being a list of chronological events. I've reviewed Nina's editing, and she's done some good work. I think she has become closer to the type of editor I had hoped she would when I invited her to rewrite the Oxford page more than a year ago (or has it been two now?). The purpose of blocks and topic bans is to stop the encyclopedia from being sabotaged in fulfilling its purpose, but I think another purpose of them is to let editors know what won't be tolerated and to get them to comply with WP principles and become productive editors. I think Nina has done that. If, as some suspect, it's all a big ruse to slyly introduce fringe beliefs as mere minority views down the road sometime, with as many eyes as there are on her editing I think that will become evident sooner or later and another ban could be instituted. But I think all the work she has done and the evidence of her dealing with other editors in editing disputes clearly indicates she deserves a chance. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Newyorkbrad's comment, "I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this."
Perhaps the ban could be lifted on editing the main Shakespeare pages and the historical pages of the SAQ alternative authors such as Bacon and Oxford, but not including any topic concerning the SAQ or any directly-related SAQ pages. An example would be the Edward de Vere page: the ban would be lifted for everything on the page except for the SAQ section, and it would also remain in effect for any SAQ articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I support removal of NinaGreen's topic ban as it is likely there will not be a return to former disruption, and Nina is able to improve many articles that are connected with the period and people often mentioned in association with the Shakespeare authorship question. Sampling Nina's recently edited articles shows that very good work has been done since her return, and there is no indication of problematic behavior. Her commitment to defuse conflict or to walk away from editing a particular page, together with the discretionary sanctions that apply to all editing associated with the topic, shows that this request should be taken as an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia.

Some of the commentary presented in earlier statements is most unfortunate as this is not the place to restage old battles. The misguided supports are not a reason to prolong Nina's topic ban, though they do confirm that SAQ topics will require ongoing maintenance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Support without hesitation. I don't think the apostles of the higher alter-Shakespearean truth are doing her cause any good. To call into question the original decision is profoundly wrong-headed (and bad politics, but then again, there's a history of that in the movement). The arbs made the correct call in the circumstances. Those who supported a ban weren't being ideological or motivated by animosity: Nina wasn't listening. I can also understand why she wasn't listening. She knows that era far better than people like myself, works with primary sources (like Tom Reedy), and has a passion for hunting things down to their sources, and generalists like myself may well have struck her as ignoramuses. We just go by academic Shakespearean sources, which, regarding the two or three controversial articles, generally ignore the alternative hypotheses about a counter-identity, and thus fail to cover what sceptics argue (I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong).

The case for waiving should rest, therefore, on what editors in the area who either opposed Nina, and supported her ban, or were engaged in supervising the conflict, now think in review. My reasons for suggesting we welcome Nina back are (a) she has a depth of knowledge of the period that, as her recent editing shows, can greatly benefit period articles (b) she's shown a clear willingness to abide by wiki procedures and, if the occasion arises, step away from conflict (c) unlike a large number of editors, troublesome or not, she can work articles from top to bottom and we are in need of people willing to dedicate their expertise to comprehensive editing (d) the two Oxfordian articles are a wiki disaster and will never be written adequately unless someone with Nina's long familiarity with those recondite if fringe theories offers her assistance and collaboration to regular mainstream twits like Tom Reedy , Paul Barlow and myself. With her drive, and grasp of the 'stuff' these articles could achieve encyclopedic respectability. All that needs to be ironed out is what constitutes RS for a fringe topic. I think Nina's last effort, before her ban, where she comprehensively rewrote the de Vere bio from Nelson, a source she disagrees with, but which is the only one, as we insisted, that fits the highest RS criteria, shows that she understood, if rather late, the principle other wikipedians insisted on. Unlike most of the fringe, Nina really does have a work ethic, and a commitment to precise control of sources, and I think she should be treated on her individual merits.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zbrnajsem

Support, without any restrictions whatsoever. Nina Green is welcome as another person who can profoundly contribute to the complex SAQ on WP. Additionally, what is about User:BenJonson? He is not mentioned in the above sections. I think he was also involved in the case, and he was also banned from the SAQ editing. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting further community statements. We may want to see a longer track record, but this proposal seems to be worthy of serious consideration. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest at all in lifting this topic ban, it is far, far too soon, NinaGreen's disruption was so severe, and her socking bad enough, I'd need to see at least a year of problem-free editing, and perhaps more. Courcelles 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Independent of this request, I can't see Tom Reedy's idea working particularly well, it would just drown AE in arguments about what edits were and wern't covered by topic bans, which we normally preempt with the "broadly construed" language that makes any semantic arguments baseless. If we were inclined to change this, moving Nina from "full topic ban" to the MER system from the Falun Gong 2 case would be an interesting idea and likely produce less arguments at AE. Courcelles 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Nina Green has done some good work, no doubt about that, I am horribly suspicious that everyone appearing here so far is trying to argue from a premise that the original ban and topic ban were unwarranted. That just isn't going to wash, and raises deep concerns about the reason for this request. I'd want to hear from some of the people she has actually edited with since the ban ended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of community support for this, however I feel that more time is needed than two months to assess someone's behaviour. In NinaGreen's case, the language of the Findings of fact is very strong: "NinaGreen (talk · contribs) ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself." Generally, six months is considered a minimum amount of time to assess someone's behaviour. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I authored the original decision in this case, and I am confident that the decision we reached in that case was well-supported: NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis. The remedies that were adopted—a period of separation from the project, followed by a topic-ban upon her return—were entirely warranted. Since her return, NinaGreen has abided by the topic-ban and has focused on editing historical articles, although her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is obvious that NinaGreen has a thorough base of well-documented historical knowledge and it appears that she is capable of improving Wikipedia articles about English history and biography with reliably sourced writing based on that knowledge. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to lift the topic-ban altogether, which could allow NinaGreen to edit about who wrote the plays, which I don't think she is looking to do right now anyway. Thus, I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Newyorkbrad's suggestion: I oppose any change (incremental or not) to NinaGreen's sanction unless at least six months have passed. AGK [•] 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six months of trouble-free editing would be a starter. Evidence of collaborative behaviour such as GA or FA article production would be helpful too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 16:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Tijfo098

Is the current committee's view that the posting of emails on Wikipedia is forbidden and that "Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators"? Subsequent policy development (attempts) are documented at WP:POSTEMAIL; the community essentially rejected ArbCom's principles, or at least there was no consensus in the community to adopt them as policy. In a recent case, emails were posted to ANI, in full view of many administrators, and only the addresses were redacted. No admin took any action to remove the email bodies. If part of the 2007 ArbCom decision is moot in practice, then it should be formally rescinded, particularly principle #6 "Removal of private correspondence" and perhaps #2 "Private correspondence" as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general note here that contra to what some Arbitrators stated, the issue does come up regularly. Another ANI thread: [32]. The latest incident mirrors the Durova case quite well: some badmouthing said of on a "sooper sekrit" list was published on Wikipedia. Calls for wp:oversight follow. The snippet in question was: X, "you are a harasser. What you are doing is illegal. You are telling lies. You know it, and we all know it. Crawl back under the rock you live under and die." Tijfo098 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Statement by Gnangarra

  • Rather than being push against the decision of ARBVOM in the Durova case the lack of response was that the majority of editors involve were unaware to the case and decisions made by at the time. The key principles of that decision should be held up as standard for any editor when dealing with issues that are both on and off wiki, the lack of response from ANI is a refection on the volume of decisions that have been made over the past 5 years the inability of newer people to identify these decisions existed. Arbcom should create a single page(possibly maintained by clerks) where such key principles are readily available with diff links to actual cases. This gives a history available to all editors without scouring every case, admins can be encouraged have the page on their watchlist so that when theres an update they'll aware of it. Suggest also that key principles and updates be published in signpost. Gnangarra 10:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by jtrainor

I really don't see why people have any expectation that emails they send to a list are going to remain private. If someone doesn't want emails they send to lists to potentially go public, then they should be more careful with who they associate with. You lose any control over an email the second you click send. This is reality, whether anyone likes it or not. Jtrainor (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Durova

Have customs changed? Or is it no longer customary for clerks or arbitrators to notify the principal party of a case when a request for clarification arises? Durova412 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If the community cannot reach a consensus on the publication of e-mails, then I am loathe for this committee to adjudicate policy its behalf unless an unresolvable dispute compels us to do so. Should you press me, I would answer that no user should publish an e-mail on-site (without the sender's consent). In particular, any e-mail that contains personal or sensitive information should never be published on-site. One function of the Arbitration Committee is to decide a matter on behalf of the community if the making of that decision must take into account sensitive or confidential information, such as an e-mail. This arrangement is working well, so I don't think this question is especially important at this time. AGK [•] 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This is one of only a few arbitration "principles" that have been adopted as psuedo-policy. Typically, our decisions are intended only to resolve the dispute at hand; generally, we hope that, in time, our decisions will become a historical irrelevancy. The Durova principle cited here seems to have become more important with time, not less, and I don't think that was a desirable development. If the editor who filed this request wants to change site policy about off-wiki communications, I would advise him to engage the full community in a discussion to that effect. As a personal view, I concur with my colleagues that the principle in question was a sound one, but I maintain that the Durova principle is irrelevant because it has no formal weight in policy and can easily be overridden by a proper community decision to adopt or reject a proposal to change those policies that affect off-wiki communications. In short, this request is the wrong way to go about policy-making of any kind. AGK [•] 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durova, it was never customary for arbitrators to notify the parties to a request that they were named, and in any event this request is substantively unrelated to you or your actions. This decision is one of only a few that has transcended the original dispute, and therefore when the community speaks of the "Durova ruling" we refer to the "off-wiki communications" principle—not you or the incidents that resulted in that case. AGK [•] 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with AGK's comments. The Arbitration Committee has several functions, including settling matters that are unusually divisive amongst the community in general, and admins in particular. In the situation mentioned in this request, the community, including admins, weren't especially divided on how to proceed. In this context, I don't think there is any urgent need to rescind the remedy from the 2007 case. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom does not make policy, so the Committee who passed that principle must have been basing it on existing Wikipedia policy. There is a link in the principle to Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". On looking at that page it seems to relate to work, including emails, which may be classed as creative, and which are used in Wikipedia main space. In instances of copyright violation Wikipedia (not just ArbCom) does encourage all editors (not just admins) to remove the violations. Without knowing the case I don't know what the use of the emails were, but I see that Giano was found to have caused concern by publishing on wiki some private correspondence, so I assume that is what is being referred to, and I assume the private email was from one Wikipedian to another, and likely not to have come under the Copyright policy, but more appropriately under the Harassment policy, which is where WP:EMAILPOST is located. The Harassment policy says that "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." We do then appear to have an inconsistency. If the 2007 Committee were dealing with a use of an email that was considered harassment, and were using Wikipedia:Copyrights to enforce it because the community do not have consensus regarding such use of emails, then that seems an awkward fit. On the whole I am not in favour of people forwarding emails without permission let alone posting on wiki - it is not something I do. However, in the world of Wikipedia, I feel that there are many who are very supportive of the openness of the project, the collaborativeness, and the sense that the project comes before any one individual; and if an email is from one Wikipedian to another, I can see that some would regard that as part of the project as a whole rather than belonging to the individuals concerned. Personally, I see the email system as a means of communicating in private - this may be done for a variety of legitimate reasons; and I would regard passing such emails on without permission as bad manners at the least, and would usually be a violation of privacy. I would support any community discussion which aimed to make violation of email privacy a sanctionable offence. But as it stands, despite the 2007 ArbCom principle, I don't think it is sanctionable under Wikipedia policy. Remove copyright violations on sight, yes. Remove unapproved Wikipedian communications - down to the editor on the spot to make a judgement, but I don't think removal can be blanket supported by ArbCom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle as articulated in the Durova case was sound, and I see no reason to modify it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to some of the other comments, I think this issue is more usefully viewed primarily as a matter of courtesy and expectations of privacy, rather than through the lens of technical issues under the copyright laws (some of which are situation-dependent and some of which are unsettled). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Gnangarra: Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles, a page that I believe is along the lines you suggest although it was created several years ago and is now seriously out of date. As an arbitrator who has drafted my share of decisions and voted on plenty of others, and in the process spent considerable time focusing on the wording and substance of principles in each case, I agree it would be desirable for the principles to be more widely publicized. However, we also need to bear in mind the maxim that the Arbitration Committee does not "make policy", although we do apply policy to particular factual situations some of which may have been unanticipated when the policy was drafted, so that principles in ArbCom decisions are not a substitute for relevant policy and guidelines pages. (As a practical matter, there have been instances where the Committee's decision have influenced policy or practice, but we shouldn't create the impression that this typically occurs, or is supposed to occur.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Durova: I suspect that this step was overlooked by the filing party and others because the question raised can be viewed as a freestanding one of policy, rather than one that primarily impacts the parties to the original case, which is now more than five years old. Nonetheless, a notification should have been given. If you have any comments, of course you are free to post them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with the principle as articulated in the case, and I see no reason to modify it. Emails have a reasonable expectation of copyright (never really been settled), and as such should not be posted without all parties approval. SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle outlined in the Durova case referenced takes an extemist, unsubstantiated view of email or other messaging privacy. Unlike printed letters, which exist as single documents that can be conveyed from sender to recipient without any copying whatsoever, every bit of electronic correspondence--email, text, IRC, IM, etc.--is copied multiple times as a necessary part of delivering the content in the first place. Furthermore, most of the above technologies have built-in facilities for replying to the sender including the original content, forwarding the original content to others, and archiving the content locally such as in personal folders. Many also have facilities for printing contents directly from email. Thus, while the original author may retain copyright interest in his or her original work, he or she necessarily grants a transferable license to each authorized recipient to reuse that content in his or her own discretion. Consider the Claire Swire email incident, and similar issues: if copyright restrictions actually applied to copying email, then such frivolities would create civil, if not criminal, liability.
However, the question that does exist, regardless of whether copying by authorized recipients is generally permitted, is whether an authorized recipient of an email is able to contribute such content under our licenses. I don't believe that there is anything which would create such a right--while there are "forward" buttons on virtually every email client, there is no "post this to Wikipedia" button on any email program of which I am aware. The question then becomes whether portions of emails can be extracted by authorized recipients as fair use. Since we allow quotes from all sorts of other copyrighted materials in Wikipedia, it's not obvious to me why portions of email would be singled out for specific prohibition.
Of course, all that is in the general case--the issue of harassment, a key aspect of the Durova case, should probably not turn on unsupported, novel interpretations of copyright law as they apply to email. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone back and read through the evidence, such as here, I see that the conversation we're having now really hasn't advanced much since five years ago, but that the original context was less about harassment per se, but more about whistleblowing. I find that the principle, written about five years ago--the time I became truly active on the project--is entirely too vague for my liking, and not really well tied into the facts of the underlying case. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that better navigability of past cases would be good - I have trouble myself ferreting out information. My view on emails is that they remain private on the whole, though I do wonder that if person A sends emails that can be considered harassment, or otherwise cause distress to the receiver (and can be reasonably considered by others to agree with this conclusion). then that might trump privacy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=522396591"