Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 66

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126


Amendment request: BASC: Iantresman 2 (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Iantresman (talk) at 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Result of Appeal to BASC: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Request: Topic ban lifted

Statement by iantresman

Further to my previous 22 March 2012 Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman), it was suggested that I "produce some audited content and review at a later date". Having done so, I would be grateful if my request could be reconsidered. Since then:

  1. With the help of several other editors, including arbitrator Casliber, the article Bradwall has now reached Good Article status. I believe that I have made substantial contributions to the article since Nov 2011.[1], including creating about half a dozen original photos and illustrations
  2. Since my previous amendment request, (a) my total edits has more than doubled from 6,000 to over 16,000 [2] (b) the number of new article I have created has more than doubled from about 32 to 85 (c) the number of original new images contributed has increased from about 72 to over 110 [3]

____

  • @Casliber: Thanks again for your help. I think the wording of the requirements was slightly ambiguous. I still maintain that ALL edits are audited by all editors, and you can't contribute over 10,000 edits without them being noticed, so I've had new articles subjected to speedy deletion (all rescued). In addition to helping get Bradwall to GA status, I have also been working towards GA on Lobster (magazine) (awaiting review), Elementary algebra (quick failed, but for which I was awarded a barnstar), and the Cerne Abbas Giant (not yet submitted). My contributions to all of these demonstrates that I can take part in the process without any problems whatsoever, as I did in the past helping to get, for example, Plasma (physics) to GA status, a topic from which I am currently banned. --Iantresman (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: Yes, I plan to return to editing those topics from which I was banned. Obviously I plan to be more circumspect with my editing, with more discussion before making edits. I don't envisage the same maelstrom occuring, the main editor I clashed with, is no longer editing, and my last 10,000 edits were without significant problem. I also plan on inviting subject project editors to collaborate on some issues. --Iantresman (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: Motion regarding Iantresman (1RR): Obviously I'd prefer not to have 1RR, but it is certainly better than 0RR, and under the circumstances, I would understand it and accept it. I'd appreciate some clarifications (not that I am planning to game the system, but to ensure I don't inadvertently cause more problems) (a) Do the 3RR exemptions apply to 1RR? (b) 1RR means, for example that if I make and edit, and another editor reverts, I could potentially revert to my first edit, perhaps because I offer a better citation? (c) Even if I persuade all other editors that I might have been correct, and have their permission, I still can't make a 2nd revert, and someone else would have to carry this out for me? --Iantresman (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @AGK: Thanks for the clarification. One more, (just trying to pre-empt any accidents). Are 1RR and 3RR identified automatically by a bot, or by individuals? If the former, I can go and check it for details. I am still a little worried that a group effort on one paragraph could result in the inadvertent triggering of a 1RR violation, but obviously it just means extra care. --Iantresman (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for detailing your concerns. Of course I intend to edit in good faith, and promise to adhere to policy in all areas. But we all know that it doesn't matter what I say, there is only one way to find out whether I can edit successfully in a particular subject area (just being realistic).
Just so that there is no suggestion of me saying anything to save myself, let's see whether I can shoot myself in the foot. I am a bit perplexed about the comments on not succeeding to edit catastrophism within policy in the past (unless I've misunderstood). I can find only two edits of mine in the whole article (both dated 13 July 2007), and assume you are referring to my first edit to remove two category tags, which received this strong warning stating that it "violates the terms of your probation against "aggressive biased editing". As I mentioned in my edit summary and user Bladestorm discovered in my CSN[4] (1) one of the categories I removed did not exist[5] (that's a good edit, isn't it?) (2) the other category, I removed because I felt it was misleading: (a) there was nothing in the article explaining why the subject had the category tag, (b) I wasn't aware of any sources that described it as such, (c) the person who added it offered no rational[6] (d) subsequent editors also removed the tag[7] twice[8].
So with the utmost respect, have I misunderstood the catastrophism policy concerns? Or if my highlighted edit was considered the problem, having looked at the original diffs and explanation, was the warning justified? I was community banned the next day. --Iantresman (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: Thanks again for your clarification. I do not dispute that I have had problems with my editing, and I don't want to come across as argumentative. But on the subjects of catastrophism and Velikovsky, I genuinely seek specific examples so I can understand the concerns, and then learn from my mistakes. My edits to the article on Velikovsky, all seem OK to me, with no overstating of the facts. In my RfArb/Pseudoscience, Velikovsky is mentioned twice, but never as a criticism of my editing. The Evidence page includes mentions of catastrophism and Velikovsky from one editor; I absolutely refute the notion that I "support Velikovskian pseudoscience" and none of the diffs supplied either support the accusations, and none are article edits. Only one article edit diff is supplied supporting the statement that I "started out at Wikipedia by editting Immanuel Velikovsky [127]", which shows that I added a date and some links, and the subsequent complaints regarding articles like Big Bang, show no inappropriate article edits by me.
Hopefully I have been able to alleviate your concerns in the areas of catastrophism and velikovsky. There will obviously be edits I have made in these subject areas that have probably been changed by other editors, but I am genuinely having a problem finding edits in these subject areas that are not only inappropriate, but aggressively and unreasonably pushed by me. --Iantresman (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @IRWolfie: Are you suggesting that myself and other editors should not waste their time on lesser editing task? I shall think twice before looking at, for example, the monthly Category needed page, where I thought that in addition to regularly editing, I should attempt some of the more mundane and monotonous tasks. I hope that no-one knocks you down because 20% of your edits were the "wrong type", but instead they say that in addition to your x-thousand regular edits, you also did 20% of the more tedious edits. By the way, the page history shows that you made 7 consecutive edits to make up your one post. I am happy to defend your editing style, and promise that I won't out you. There's no place like Gnome ;-) --Iantresman (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @IRWolfie: I have no idea how to add a category tag to a dozen articles with just one edit. But I am proud to stand tall as a WikiGnome. Please note that "WikiGnomes nevertheless still need to be told from time to time that their work is valued"[9] --Iantresman (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @IRWolfie: When there are all manner of distractions throughout the day, the phone ringing, emails to answers, people to interact with, multiple windows open, multiple Browser tabs open, the chance of accidentally closing your Browser, crashing, losing your place, researching multiple sources, etc, I know what when an edit is saved, it is committed, and know I can safely move on. I am very sorry that you consider what works for me to be spurious, and needs to be trivialized.--Iantresman (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: You're a hard taskmaster ;-) I don't think that anyone here wants to see me return with yet another amendendment request, I am sure we would all rather be editing, so here is what I suggest. Even though it looks like I might get consensus to have my topic ban lifted anyway, how about amending the motion:
The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [21] is hereby lifted, subject to Cerne Abbas Giant reaching Good Article status.
Even if other editors vote in my favour without requiring this condition, I will still edit as if though the condition was required. --Iantresman (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, & Courcelles: You have all highlighted concerns specifically in the topic areas of catastrophism and Velikovsky, but I am having difficulty finding the problematic article edits in order to learn from them, and not make the same mistakes again.
    I have looked over my edits in the articles catastrophism and Velikovsky, and other subjects. I have looked for article edit diffs in my RFAR/Pseudoscience Finding of Fact and even the Evidence page. I have looked over my Community Ban, and I have nothing in my block log on these subjects. I have already asked Newyorkbrad for examples, above.
    Gentlemen, my editing privileges were take away from me for 5 years, and have been reduced for the last year. It does not seem unfair and unreasonable then, that if there are concerns in the topic areas of catastrophism and Velikovsky, that I am pointed to the example problematic article editing diffs in order to review them. The impression I get is that these should be numerous, aggressive, repetitive, and unreasonable (and documented in previous dispute resolutions). Help me, please. --Iantresman (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Clerk: Thanks to everyone involved, even those that opposed but provided useful comments. Before closing, I hope the Clerk would be kind enough to give Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, & Courcelles time to reply to my previous post, so that I may review specific examples of their concerns, and learn from my mistakes, and not just "dive back into the maelstrom". --Iantresman (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My76Strat

The merits of this request favor amending the sanction towards an ultimate restoration of unrestricted editing privileges. I suggest allowing iantresman to resume editing pages restricted by the topic ban while being held to a 1RR for a defined period, perhaps four to six months. Although I'd prefer this interim step, I wouldn't oppose a decision that removed all restrictions.

Statement by IRWolfie-

@Newyorkbrad, I would disagree that many of the edits are unproblematic when you say "Iantresman has edited without problems in other area". the editing strategy Iantresman has adopted looks like one where very little is done in each edit to achieve the maximum edit count: it is designed to maximise the appearance of making lots of edits while doing trivial things like adding single names to lists, or mass adding categories. Many of his edits look like adding categories, or updating numbers. This edit to a fringe topic: [10] is actually 102 of his edits. This [11] addition is just of a list of contributors, 48 edits. Adding some categories, [12] 10 edits. Thousands of his edits are massing adding categories, see some in [13][14][15][16] Nearly all of his edits in the last year have been without interacting with editors and have been wikignoming. Here [17] is actually 72 of the edits. In December 2011 he made nearly 3000 edits, here are [18][19] 775 of those edits. 775 edits just making wikilinks. It took the editor 517 edits in 5 days to go from [20] to make this article: [21] (almost every single film etc was added one at a time). The editor has not demonstrated that he can edit beyond wikignoming, let alone interact with other editors in controversial topics.IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman, No. I'm suggesting that when you wikignome, don't make a task that requires only 5 edits turn into 500. If you are only interested in wikignoming, why do you need the topic ban to be overturned? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman. Read what I said, you have a spuriously high edit count for trivial things like adding wikilinks one at a time to an article rather than doing it on mass: [22][23] is 775 edits just adding wikilinks to the same article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I guess we should have specified "some audited content" a bit more, but to be more proscriptive seemed to me at the time to be overkill. That said, my idea was that it'd be a more substantial body of work. I think working on Bradwall was a big step in the right direction and I see some work on Cerne Abbas Giant. The former article I think would be tricky to get to FA unless some more content were forthcoming, but the latter is definitely feasible. The initial idea was a substantial body, so see here and scroll up for Jayjg's initial body of work which resulted in the committee lifting restrictions. So maybe not as much as that, but I think some more material would be great. I am happy to give some feedback for a GA push on the giant, a really wonderful landmark in southwestern England. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Repeating my comments from last time: "It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. He was unblocked after an appeal six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked."
    Iantresman is running a risk by asking to go back into an area that resulted in a site ban, and which if he causes problems again will likely result in another site ban, from which a second return would be much harder; but if he feels he can enter that area without causing problems, and has calmly accepted four GA fails on the same article, taking the fail comments on board to go back and improve the article to a pass standard, then it seems fair and appropriate to give him that opportunity. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Waiting for more opinions from the community, but I'm inclined to grant this, probably with a probationary 1RR as My76Strat suggests just to ensure there are no difficulties - something along the lines of "The topic ban placed against Iantresman as a condition of unblocking in September 2011 is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. After each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction." Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
My76Strat's suggestion seems good here. For all we know, Iantresman is of an age where the five years between the original ban and now would have a considerable impact. Let's give him a chance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Inclined to support per Hersfold and Elen. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I ask Iantresman to be a little bit more specific about how he plans to edit articles about "fringe science and physics-related subjects" if this request is granted? Is this an "I don't plan to dive back into the maelstrom, but I don't want to have to risk an inadvertent violation" type of appeal, or are you going to dive right back into spending much of your time in the content areas you were banned from? If the latter, how will you edit those articles differently from the manner that previously caused problems? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Iantresman, thank you for responding to Newyorkbrad's question. Like my colleagues, I am minded to accept this request. I am keen on the piecemeal approach to restoring the appellant's ability to contribute to fringe science and physics articles. Hersfold, I like your suggested amendment; would you like to propose that as a motion? AGK [•] 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Since the community doesn't appear to hold any objections, sure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Willing to lift per Silk. Seems we're in agreement. Motion time? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Iantresman

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

1) The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [24] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.

Support
  1. Proposed; added a few bits for clarity. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    @Iantresman: There is no currently approved bot that identifies revert restriction violations of any sort; those often require human judgment which a computer program is incapable of making, so I can't imagine one would ever be approved for that purpose. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. AGK [•] 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    Iantresman: (a) Yes. (b) You may make no more than one revert per page per 24 hours, within this topic area. I don't think that restriction needs any explanation. Partial or full reverts are included. (c) Somebody else could make the revert, but you would be unable to do so. Remember that if the restriction does not require enforcement, it will expire in 6 months. Remember also that the restriction applies only to pages within this topic area, and not to your edits within other topics. AGK [•] 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. On balance, I consider this proposal to be worth trying. If Iantresman's can demonstrate that he is able to edit this topic area in a manner that isn't problematic, then he deserves to be able to edit without any restrictions. Conversely, if his editing of this topic area raises serious concerns, we could reinstate the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support as amended. Worth a try. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I have enough concerns about Iantresman's past editing in these topic-areas that I can't support this motion at this time. Iantresman's editing both before and after the Pseudoscience case (2006) culminating in a community ban (2007) was marked by what was widely considered as POV-pushing in favor of the views of a very small minority of scientists. Any editor is, of course, free to personally hold minority views, and to add information about those minority views to Wikipedia, but only within the framework of relevant policies and guidelines concerning undue weight, reliable sources, and so forth. We reaffirmed the most relevant principles in the Climate change cse (2009): Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.... In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated. I appreciate that several years have passed since 2006-2007, that Iantresman has edited without problems in other areas, and that at this point he intends in good faith to edit in areas such as catastrophism and plasma cosmology within policy; but he has not succeeded in editing these areas within policy in the past, and I am not at all convinced he will be able to do so in the future. Hence I would prefer, perhaps, a time-limited relaxation of the topic-ban or a relaxation as to a relatively less controversial group of articles. Since it appears that this motion is going to pass without my support, I will add that I sincerely hope my assessment is wrong, and that Iantresman is able to edit without any further problems. I will also add that a promise by Iantresman to adhere to the principles I have quoted, followed by his adhering to that promise, would go a long way to address my concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    To Iantresman: My concern involves the whole topic-area of so-called catastrophism, such as for example the theories and writings of Velikovsky, and not simply the catastrophism article itself. As I said earlier, and as you have acknowledged, it is your future editing that will reflect whether my concern was well-taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per Brad SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Not yet (very sorry about this) - I was dismayed this request for amendment came so quickly after a single GA. I am pleased with the work on Cerne Abbas Giant however. I was hoping a motion wouldn't arise so quickly but should it pass will be happy to continue working etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. Sorry, just can't go along with this one, NYB and Cas have this situation called right in my mind. Courcelles 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
Arbitrator Comments

Community comments regarding Motion 1

Will unrestricted editing automatically ensue after six months with no violations, or will it be necessary to file an additional amendment? 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If the appellant does not violate his 1RR restriction, the restriction will expire after 6 months and he will be as free as you and me to edit that topic area. AGK [•] 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Conversely, if an indefinite block is instated at any point during the restriction, for a violation of the restriction, the topic ban will be reinstated without need for further amendment. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Darkness Shines (talk) at 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 1
  2. Finding 2
  3. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Mar4d (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
Information about amendment request
  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by Darkness Shines

During this initial case mention was made of how editors should not restore edits by sockpuppets. I recently discovered that a motion was passed by the committee regarding this behaviour on articles pertaining to R&I[25] I request an addition to the arbitration enforcement be laid down for the India-Pakistan which is the same. "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" As recently edits made by the banned user:Nangparbat are continually being restored.[26][27] And there have been others previously. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • In response to the The Devils Advocate, I am not trying to chip away at anything. Sockpuppets have been a bane on the topic area for years. If nobody can restore their edits it is one less reason for them to sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I should also like a motion passed that editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages as is also being done[28] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? Under which policy would that be then? I have already reported that sock to Elockid who is now keeping an eye on it for when it returns. If I suspect a sock I will tag it as such. Or would you have blocked me for tagging these[29][30][31][32][33][34] I believe I have had a few wrong, and self reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
O shit tim, I did it again [35] Really. what a wanker I am, I accuse people of being socks, ask yourself , how often am I wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

This appears to be an issue for AE to decide based on the principle that an editor restoring edits by a banned editor takes responsibility for those edits, as well as the issue of edit-warring. If Darkness objects to these edits and Mar restoring them repeatedly then it should be examined in that respect and not be used as a way to slowly chip away at the exemptions allowed in WP:BAN through bureaucratic fiat.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are typically a bane in every topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d

The analogy present here is incorrect; any user who restores a sock's edit does so on their own behalf and it is usually when he/her feels that this edit was valid. What if a sock revert vandalism, will you revert that too? Furthermore, an amendment like this will not go down well because Darkness Shines has a history of targeting innocent IP editors 86.x, 109.x, 39.x IP ranges who were not related to a sock. There are hundreds of people using these ranges and if this gets passed, then DS will pretty much revert anyone whom he thinks to be a sock on hindsight without evidence, as he is doing with another long-established User:Jozoisis using his poor judgement. He is kind of topic banning all editors from editing using the sock label even when usually in those cases there is nothing to suggest that this particular editor may be a sock. Mar4d (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Richwales

Per WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban.... This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor.... When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."

The above general policy has, admittedly, been made more stringent by ArbCom in the Race and Intelligence topic, where they have enacted a blanket prohibition of all reinstatements of edits by banned editors. The Race and Intelligence motion was, as best I can tell, passed in response to a particularly troublesome situation which was originally dealt with in an arbitration case. Quoting from the originally enacted remedies in that case: "[T]his topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment." While I understand Darkness Shines's concerns over endemic sockpuppetry on India-Pakistan-related articles, I don't see any similar finding in the India-Pakistan arbitration case comparable to what happened at Race and Intelligence, so I believe that leapfrogging to a similarly draconian regime in this topic would be premature at the present time.

Regarding tagging of suspected sockpuppets, I am strongly inclined here to agree with Mar4d — if you (Darkness Shines) are going to accuse someone of being a sock, you need to also report the suspect at WP:SPI, and you need to present "clear simple evidence" supporting your suspicion — see the "Important notes" section at the start of the WP:SPI page. And since you presumably have such evidence readily at hand (you've got no business tagging someone as a suspected sock in the first place if you don't have evidence!), you should present your evidence at SPI first — or, at the very least, simultaneously with the user page tag. You cannot simply do a drive-by {{sock}} tagging, and then object to people removing the tag because you have said "an SPI is underway" but have not actually shown anyone any evidence yet. I looked at the SPI page for Highstakes00 (the puppet master who you allege is behind Jozoisis), and I don't see any report from you there to back up your suspicions — so as best I can tell, you have not yet provided any evidence, and Mar4d was right to quote policy and challenge your tag on Jozoisis's user page, and you should not have reverted him, but you should instead have put your evidence together and presented it at SPI.

Finally, I would remind Darkness Shines that edit-warring / revert-warring is not appropriate even in situations where you are convinced you are right and others are wrong. — Richwales 04:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Following up on the above, Darkness Shines posted a comment on my talk page saying: "The SPI is being done off wiki as this particular master is highly proficent at evading detection. That is all I am willing to say on the matter." Since (as I said) he posted this to my talk page, I am not violating any confidences by reposting it here.
Even in a case like this, something should still have been mentioned at WP:SPI — even if only to say something like "evidence has been e-mailed to ArbCom owing to its sensitive nature". If the situation is so sensitive that you don't even believe you can post something as vague as that at SPI, then (in my opinion) it would be better for you not to say anything at all publicly — not even to leave a tag on the suspected sock's user page — and instead leave the tagging to be done later, by the SPI clerks, once your evidence has been followed up on. Again, people have a right (per policy and common sense) to expect substantiation of any public allegation of sockpuppetry; and if you publicly accuse someone of being a sock while at the same time refusing to say anything about your reasons (not even saying that you have evidence and have communicated it off-wiki), then no one has any reason to accept your allegation, and you have no grounds to be surprised or upset if others cite policy and take down the tag which you are declining to back up with any evidence. — Richwales 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
@T.Canens — In DS's defence, I will note that the {{sockpuppet}} (or {{sock}}) template does include a default option which advises that "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet". Since this option still exists, I assume it is still permissible to use it — if that is no longer considered appropriate, then someone needs to revise the template and remove this option. I will stick to my earlier statement that if one is going to tag a user as a suspected sock, this action absolutely must be accompanied by appropriate evidence (or notice of an off-wiki submission of evidence) on the accused sockmaster's SPI page. Additionally, IMO, a "suspected" sock should not have his edits reverted on sight, on the grounds that they are the work of a banned user, until and unless said suspicion is confirmed through the SPI process. Anyone who accuses another editor of being a sock, starts reverting that person's edits on this basis without bothering to wait for SPI, and reverts/rebukes others who object to such misbehaviour, needs to stop right now — and if I were to observe someone doing such a thing, I would give them a final/only warning (if they hadn't already been warned) and then block them. — Richwales 06:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
@DS — Replying to this notice on your talk page, I did not say I would block you (or someone acting as you've been doing) "for using a %^€*!%@ template for the reason it is there". I said I would block someone for the combination of using the {{sock}} template to accuse someone of being a sock and not submitting evidence to SPI (or giving notice that said evidence had been submitted off-wiki) and reverting the accused's work without waiting for an SPI determination and publicly objecting to other people not accepting all this. That's not making up policy AFAIK, it's following policy. I'm sorry if I've offended you by explaining why I don't think what you've been describing is in keeping with the policies — and if the consensus turns out to be that I've seriously misinterpreted the relevant policies here, I'll readily offer an apology — but this is what I currently understand would be the only appropriate way to handle such a situation. Have faith in the SPI process; if your evidence is clear, the socks will be definitively labelled as such soon enough, and you or others can clean up their mess at that time. — Richwales 07:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I also brought up a related general question at WT:SPI (see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#When to tag a suspected sock on user's talk page?) — people contributing here might also want to comment there. I should probably have mentioned that other discussion here earlier; sorry about the delay. — Richwales 19:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

If there's to be an restriction here, it needs to be on DS, who had been restricted from filing SPI requests related to Nangparbat because it was getting disruptive.

So what did they do? Why, reverting edits by new accounts as Nangparbat socks, of course. Tagging them, too. The catch is, they've done all this without any actual case or checkuser done, as far as I can tell. In fact, the account he reverted as a sock remains unblocked to this day. This is, to put it simply, not how things are, or should be, done.

It is simple common sense that sockpuppet tags should never be placed on a user page, unless the sockpuppetry is established and the account is blocked. Twinkle used to have an option to tag accounts at the time of filing an SPI report; that option was removed and for a very good reason: tags when socking has not been established provides virtually no benefit, yet alienates innocent editors and clutters the tracking categories. I fully intend to block DS the next time he tags an account as a sockpuppet that is not currently blocked. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DeltaQuad

I was the administrator who put the original restriction on DS because of there being issues of baseless SPIs being filed. One of the conditions was that DS may not file against Nangparbat. This is now worse off than it started, we are going from baseless SPIs to not even presenting evidence, but making a closed decision on who's a sock of who. While I admit (although I haven't looked for the behavior to verify it, i'm trusting the administrator's judgement) that DS has done some correct reverts like User:109.145.251.152 which was blocked, reverts and tags like those to User:Desiray09 are not appropriate as there is no trail of evidence to link this to the master, and it's one edit. If there is a block or something because DS emailed another admin or something, that's fine. It shows a second step in the process which is critical, especially when users can present bias from editing in the subject area. This is why a ruling that "editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages", as requested by DS, would be problematic. It also creates a horrible restriction if people are wrong and need to remove the tags, which i've had to do in my wiki-lifetime a few times.

On to the actual request for clarification, the request for a restriction that "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" actually undermines the policy at WP:BAN in which the community policy says that editors take responsibility for any edits restored. While I agree it's not optimal to restore banned editors contributions, if it's a good improvement, then why should we chuck it out the door? Were already blocking them, or protecting articles, making it harder for them to edit, it's not like we are giving too much attention to the issue. I haven't specifically looked over the R/I ArbCom motion yet, but as Rich stated above,

The Race and Intelligence motion was, as best I can tell, passed in response to a particularly troublesome situation which was originally dealt with in an arbitration case. Quoting from the originally enacted remedies in that case: "[T]his topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment."
— User:Richwales

. There has been no presented evidence to indicate that this area is hostile, and further more, I don't see the extensive disruption. So there is no precedent to go on, and it undermines community policy in a way that would hurt it, not help it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Smsarmad

Now that this issue has been brought here I request attention of people (who allowed administrators to issue discretionary sanctions in this topic area) to look how this (current) issue began. About a month back a probable sock of Nangparbat removed this massive POV links from the see also section, which was reverted by User:Darkness Shines. Just take a look at pre-sock edited version (I am referring to note at the top of the page and links in the see also section) and tell me how effective Discretionary sanctions are to stop disruption and POV editing in this topic area. Edit war still continues on this issue at multiple articles by some editors avoiding the talkpage discussion. --SMS Talk 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Elockid

Tagging suspected socks even before they blocked or confirmed is not an uncommon practice. However, I do not advise in tagging socks until there is sufficient evidence to warrant a tag. By sufficient evidence I mean something usually in the case of more than one edit though there are exceptions. In the particular case where DS asked me to take a look a suspected while subsequently tagging it, I feel that perhaps tagging the account was a bit early. It might be possible that the suspected account is indeed a sock but I feel the evidence isn't really there at the moment. Was the tagging inappropriate? Some would say yes, some would say no. IMO, there really isn't an established standard on when to tag socks. I believe that DS is helpful in the aspect that he's reporting suspected socks to me, however as I said previously, greater caution should be taken.

@DS This isn't NP. That's MohammedBinAbdullah (talk · contribs) if memory serves me right. Elockid (Talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

Commenting on the narrow clarification and amendment request by DarknessShines. It is true that these areas are plagued by socks of banned editors and that DS is good at detecting their presence and therefore we should cut him some slack for the occasional error, but that doesn't mean he gets a free ride to template at will. However, since these banned editors are merely here to cause disruption (as Elen writes, this is unlike in the R&I case where the banned editors are committed agenda driven pov pushers), I think that we need only assert a couple of principles that are already self-evident rather than escalating it with revisions or extensions of the original sanctions.

  1. It is true that any edit by a banned user is subject to reversion, however useful it may appear to be. But, a corollary to this is that if a banned user's edit is restored by an editor in good standing, with an explanation as to why the content is useful, then that edit may no longer be considered to have been made by a banned user and inclusion or exclusion of the material should be determined solely on its merits. However, as a matter of prudence, I'd suggest getting consensus on the talk page before attempting to restore the material.
  2. If someone restores a banned editor's content addition then, rather than getting into an edit war over the material, ask for help from an admin. These topic areas are under discretionary sanctions and any uninvolved admin can take whatever action (blocks, protection, topic bans) that is necessary to restore order.--regentspark (comment) 15:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I've asked the clerks to delist this request as declined after 24-48 hours, absent any change in the balance of arbitrator opinion in the next section (or objection to archival from my colleagues). AGK [•] 01:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Without a clear pattern of abuse and disruption, and evidence of the community trying and failing to deal with that disruption, ArbCom would not get involved. ArbCom are not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of authority - we are a group of fellow Wikipedians who have volunteered to temporarily act in a committee which by agreement of the community makes final and binding decisions in cases of dispute which the community have been unable to resolve. The nature of our role is that we do not step in too early. This request appears to be too early. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Race & Intelligence case, a set of banned editors were continuing to cause a great deal of problems with wholly disruptive edits being restored by editors in breach of their own topic bans. The evidence doesn't suggest that we are at this stage yet in this area. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the request here demonstrates that the former prohibition should be appropriately narrowly drawn: since edits relating to a topic made by a banned editor and later removed would be considered edits on that topic, editors topic banned from that particular topic would be in breach of that topic ban by restoring them. Blanket prohibitions on non-sanctioned editors restoring banned user edits would foreclose the ability of editors in good standing to proxy the useful contributions of banned editors, an option the committee has extended to banned editors in the past. Full disclosure: I did not support that motion, for this reason and other concerns. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would decline this amendment request, per my three colleagues above. AGK [•] 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with my colleagues - I think we should decline this amendment request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the commenters and with my colleagues that we should not act on this request. With regard to the more general issue, the observations by Richwales and the other administrators who have commented are generally sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 04:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Finding 2.5)
  2. Remedy 1.1)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


Information about amendment request
  1. Finding 2.5) Mathsci has been involved in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct towards those he perceived as editing in proxy and in concert with Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin
  2. Finding 2.6) Mathsci has been harassed by sockpuppets of banned editors, including sockpuppets of Mikemikev and Echigo mole
  3. Remedy 1.1) Mathsci is admonished for engaging in battleground conduct towards those he perceived as editing in proxy and in concert with Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin

Statement by Mathsci

In the review, harassment was mentioned explicitly in the first question, "Has Mathsci been harassed by socks?", which was answered comprehensively, but there was no finding. That has led to a number of anomalies. A change was proposed to remedy 1.1 in a previous request for amendment, specifying exactly the context of the battleground behaviour. That change was not adopted at the time. Subsequently the finding and remedy have been misused to imply that the harassment or wikhounding is somehow my own fault and that I deserve it. The changes in phrasing show a recognition of the wikihounding and harassment that was part of the focus of the original review. By more careful phrasing it avoids the problems caused by the misuse of the findings and remedy in dealing with harassment and wikihounding by banned editors, including most recently the first identified sockpuppet, Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of the site-banned editors Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. Until the outcome of the review is amended in this way—in particular removing the implication that my reporting of sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole is undue—I cannot edit wikipedia (its failure to value or protect academic contributors is disappointing). This request for amendment was precipitated by a portion of the arbitration committee attempting to impose sanctions on me without evidence of misconduct. It was an attempt to control harassment caused by banned editors by sanctioning their victims. It was enacted while I was known to be very ill and, by being passed on a whim without evidence, has unwittingly created a precedent which could cause future problems, in particular for administrators helping out on WP:AE.[36]

Since the motion is not passing now, things have returned to stable equilibrium. Noone is disputing that WP:AE works in requests concerning WP:ARBR&I; and the majority of arbcom has reasserted its trust in the discretion of administrators there. None of those administrators have misinterpreted the outcome of the review in the way described above. As Newyorkbrad and Casliber have commented, in these circumstances any amplification of the outcome of the review is unnecessary. I therefore withdraw the request.

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.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The motion to which Mathsci refers in his request for amendment, which I opposed, is not passing. I understand that Mathsci disagrees with some of the findings and remedies we adopted in the review case, and I opposed some of them myself, but after the unnecessarily long time we have taken to deal with the current case request, I think the best course of action is to get this topic-area off the arbitration pages (other than enforcement if it becomes necessary which I hope it won't) for awhile. Thus I am not inclined to favor formal action on this request at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Request noted as withdrawn. I'm not sure whether this should be archived or just deleted; I'll leave that for the Clerks to decide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, the presence of this on arbitration-related pages is a magnet for drama. Recent developments mean the motion is not passing and hence we have a pathway to clearing the decks. I fear and strongly suspect examining things further at this time would prolong unpleasant interactions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed with NYB and Cas, this case and topic area needs a rest, and I see no value in re-examining the Review items questioned here at this point in time. Courcelles 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It was a mistake for Mathsci to submit this request. Unless any arbitrator disagrees, I echo my colleagues' calls for this request to be delisted by a clerk. AGK [•] 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)

Just a general note here that contra to what some Arbitrators stated, the issue does come up regularly. Another ANI thread: [37]. 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)

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)

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)


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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Shakespeare authorship question (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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 [52]. A chart showing my total edits, and their nature, can be found here [53].

During these two months a few potential conflict situations have arisen with other editors, and I've successfully defused them. See, for example, [54] and [55]. 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 [56] and [57].

If the indefinite ban is lifted, I would like to continue editing the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere [58], 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 [59]. 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, [60]. 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, [61]). 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 [62]. 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 [63]). 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 [64]). Also, in the same article on the Oxfordian theory, the paragraph on Looney’s development of the authorship theory (see [65]) 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 [66], and here, p. 103 [67]. 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. [68], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)
@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Motion regarding Iantresman (November 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by My76Strat (talk) at 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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


Statement by My76Strat

On November 4, 2012, Arbcom enacted the following motion:

1) The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [75] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.

IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Iantresman on November 9, 2012, requesting enforcement of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, an outdated page that Iantresman is not sanctioned under. Furthermore, IRWolfie cites this talk page discussion[76] as impetus for seeking WP:AE. Nothing in that discussion rises to a violation of the enacted motion. Instead IRWolfie alleges that Iantresman should be topic banned under existing provisions of the discretionary sanctions in place for the topic being discussed. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) both indicate support for the topic ban. I mentioned that nothing Iantresman had done was a violation and that WP:AC/DS points 2. and 4. were clear that a warning was required first. EdJohnston (talk · contribs) then stated that since "Iantresman was a named party of the WP:ARBPS case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them." I am seeking a clarification to this prevailing premise. It does not follow that Iantresman should be subjected to an immediate ban without warning simply because he formerly was. Especially when no action was a direct violation of the sanction in place. I thank the committee for giving their attention to this matter. My76Strat (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon". It seems intuitive that including the requirement (to warn) is a reasonable measure to alleviate this anticipation of uncertainty. Such a view is further indicative when considering the subsequent requirements that, "warnings should be clear and unambiguous", and they should "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Instead of clarity, thoughtful editors are expected to accept misconduct happened without being shown where the transgression manifest. I would seriously like to know what specific action of Iantresman equivocates the crossing of an acceptable line. Was it when he asked the question, or when he offered his opinion? And if there is no right to be informed of this, failing to follow point 5, "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process" become rather moot and seem a waste of effort to proffer. One day I suppose I'll learn my place, and quit asking questions myself. Until then, just ignore my prose, and be thankful the servers can accommodate the wasted bytes necessary to publish my babel. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman

  • I am equally stunned, that an editor can be banned:
  1. Under a discretionary sanction that has nothing to do with topic concerned. The connection seems to be: (a) Although the reference book states otherwise, we feel that the book is actually about plasma cosmology (even though we haven't read the book, and can't provide a single quote to back this up). Now, the article on plasma cosmology once had a particular category tag added, and although it was removed because it was incorrect, it was a sub-category of the category "pseudoscience" which was also incorrectly added in the past.[77]
  2. Without attempting any other form of dispute resolution.
  3. Who has not edited the article concerned since 2006.
  4. For discussing an academic reference book republished in 2012.
  5. For making an effort to ascertain it suitability.
  6. For answering concerns about a source politely, reasonably and with extensive evidence.
  7. Who acted with civility throughout, while other editors openly claim that I am a liar on several occasions.
  8. While other editors state that it is unreasonable for them to provide any independent source at all, to support their concerns.
  9. While the same reference book has been used as a source for over 6 years without question, in other articles.
  10. The same author is cited in at least one article that has gone through two successful Good Article reviews.

I see why Wikipedia loses editors, and new editors do not want to join a framework where (a) calling someone a liar is acceptable (b) discussion is criticised (c) unfounded opinions are unchallenged (d) and the most contrived associations are upheld.--Iantresman (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • @IRWolfie I can't believe that you have just said that. You've implied that all the thousands of professional scientist working in minority and obscure subjects (ie fringe subjects) should be grouped under "pseudoscience", and treated as such. As Adlai Stevenson once said, "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions". Science is a collaborative exercise, not one person putting down criticism. --Iantresman (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @IRWolfie Your diff suggesting that Aarghdvaark is "claiming the Physics of the Plasma universe has nothing to do with the Plasma universe", is contradicted by the contents of the diff supplied.[78] You could find out why Aarghdvaark changed his description of the book, by having the courtesy of asking him, before jumping to conclusion. I suspect that after reviewing the discussion, he realised that it needed correcting. --Iantresman (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @PhilKnight To this day, I have not edited the dusty plasma article since 2006, [79] so I could not have edited or pushed any view into it. I did discuss adding a cition to an academic reference book in the talk pages, and I welcome your comments on how I could have been more constructive, after providing book reviews and peer-reviewed articles in support of my responses to every concern, including enquiring at WT:IRS. The citation itself referred to an appendix on the subject of "dynamics of dusty plasma", a competely mainstream subject, to support a section in the article on the same mainstream subject. --Iantresman (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @T. Canens (TC) Since the category "fringe" includes "pseudoscience", you are giving exactly the same offence, by so labelling a subject. Since the labelling is often subjective (there is no scientific definition, and often no WP:V and WP:RS), we now have articles which are labelled as pseudoscience based on the opinion of a handful of editors, without even having to explain themselves in an article. That doesn't make the article a very good reliable source. --Iantresman (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles I think you need to give this a much wider discussion with the community. It doesn't look good that a handful of editors have decided this among themselves. (1) Due process (2) Transparency. --Iantresman (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf When I was unblocked on 18 September 2011,[80] I had no reason to believe that a month later, the Discretionary sanctions would be changed a monthly later on 27 October 2011.[81] --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @T. Canens (TC) I would be grateful if you could clarify the following, which seems to be missing necessary information. The "fringe physics" tag in "Plasma Cosmology" seems to fail Wikipedia:Category#Articles on five counts (1) Categorization of articles must be verifiable (2) It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories (3) Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. (4) Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial (5) A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles Absolutely correct, editors have no business defining these terms, nor to which articles they apply. Editors and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. WP:V via WP:RS is the core policy, and applies irrespective of the subject. So why pick on pseudoscience and fringe subject? Conduct applies equally to all areas of Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Enric Naval The terms are uncommon, not indicators of Plasma Cosmology. I would suggest that your read the book introduction (which states that it is not about cosmology), the two book reviews, and 20 peer-reviewed articles I linked to, where I could not find any hint that the book was about cosmology. You have provided no reliable sources of any kind, even though they are readily available. --Iantresman (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Enric Naval There is no dispute that Peratt has written about plasma cosmology (reliable source [82]). His own book is not one of them, as stated in its introduction, and as you, and anyone else, can check in the two book reviews I cited. --Iantresman (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @IRWolfie Thank you for taking time out from discussions on changes to Remedy 13, to tell me that this is really about Strat's request to clarify the issue any issue with the notification. --Iantresman (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

I agree with the opinions of the arbs here and the admins at arb enforcement, and I'm not sure why this was filed. Iantresman has been blocked twice before under the ARB PS sanctions and was a named party in the original case and was notified of discretionary sanctions [83].

  • Perhaps one related clarification would be to specify that discretionary sanctions fall under fringe science specifically as well as pseudoscience? The issues surrounding both on wiki are generally the same, and the two are so closely related that it causes unnecessary issues when something falls on the boundaries. I think it's pretty much already the case that discretionary sanctions falls under all fringe views; conspiracy theories, pseudoscience/Fringe science, the paranormal, denialism etc. I don't know if this has already been done, but is there a way to unify all the separate rulings Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases into one clear set of rules? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman I don't see the issue. This is merely for administrative and arbitration purposes regarding user conduct. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • While this amendment has been open (and rather than bureaucratically going to enforcement or elsewhere);

Another Plasma universe/cosmology editor, Aarghdvaark, has turned up at Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration. He/She has argued that the book has nothing to do with the Plasma Universe fringe theory [84]. This is despite having created the original article about Peratt himself, mentioning in his/her own words that the book is about plasma cosmology [85]: "He is influential in Plasma cosmology, having written a book on the subject, Ref: Peratt, A., Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer, 1992, ISBN 0-387-97575-6". He tried to hide this prior to commenting on the discussion [86]. Can this editor be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions as well? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC) I will inform the editor of this comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman, Strat's request here was to clarify the issue any issue with the notification, and whether there was any issue with discretionary sanctions scope. We aren't here to re-discuss what has already been closed at Arbitration enforcement, This isn't an appeal of the arbitration enforcement decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to your discussion about the arbitration enforcement case, not the motion, which has a separate discussion and the 7 necessary votes. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

I just realized that I made a couple mistakes in the part of my reasoning in the AE thread that dealt with whether plasma cosmology is within WP:ARBPS: I overlooked the possibility that the 2006 arbcom may have meant for the category membership to be determined by reference to the present state of the article rather than the article at the time of the decision, and I also overlooked the fact that Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation was not made a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience until January 2007. Happily, however, those mistakes did not affect my conclusion.

From the phrasing of WP:ARBPS#Tommysun banned, it is clear that the arbcom that decided the case originally on 3 December 2006 intended the term to cover the subject of all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories, and I see no indication that the arbcom that passed the discretionary sanctions in 2008 intended to limit the definition. It is unclear whether the 2006 arbcom is referring to the article at the time of the original arbcom decision or at the time of the AE request, but this question is immaterial to this case. At the time of the decision the article was in Category:Protoscience, which was, at that time, a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Currently, the article is in Category:Fringe physics, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudophysics, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Therefore, regardless of whether membership in the pseudoscience category or its subcategories is to be measured at the time of the original decision or at the time of the AE request, plasma cosmology plainly falls within that group.

As to the merits, I found the diffs provided by IRWolfie- and Enric Naval in the AE thread to be quite persuasive. I think the misconduct sufficiently obvious that I will not elaborate on my reasoning further unless requested by the committee.

That said, I wouldn't object to expanding discretionary sanctions to cover fringe science as well as pseudoscience, as the boundary of "pseudoscience" is rather ill-defined, and this invites wikilawyering over whether something is "pseudoscience" or merely "fringe". T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@NYB: I would prefer not having to figure out whether something is pseudoscience or merely "fringe" (especially not having to do it by divining the intent of the 2006 arbcom...). The area comes up sufficiently infrequently at AE that it's not a big deal, but being able to quickly proceed to the merits would be nice.

Also, many people understandably take offense that their beliefs have been labeled as "pseudoscience", a term that has more derogatory connotations than "fringe science", and I think that also increases people's tendency to dispute whether the "pseudoscience" label applies to their favored theory. I think it's best if we can avoid causing unnecessary offense in resolving a purely jurisdictional matter, as whether a particular viewpoint is pseudoscientific or merely fringe generally does not affect the merits analysis. T. Canens (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming, Iantresman, that you were somehow caught unaware by the October 2011 motion which is essentially a purely cosmetic amendment?

The point I'm making is that the topic unambiguously covers this subject, even on a very cramped reading of the scope of the topic (notice how I didn't comment on the "broadly construed" in the discretionary sanctions? Or the "but not limited to" in the 2006 decision?). Arguing about whether something should be in the category or a subcategory is neither here nor there. If it's in the category or a subcategory, it's covered by the discretionary sanctions. And I think you are being entirely disingenuous: you must know that plasma cosmology is within the scope of the case, not the least because, as several people pointed out, editing related to plasma cosmology is a large part of what led to the original arbitration case - which you, Iantresman, filed.

Thryduulf, you make some good points, all of which are inapplicable in this case. Iantresman was banned from this area until something like a week ago when he managed to get arbcom to lift it on a 7-4 vote. This isn't your hypothetical editor who edited in the area four years ago, got a notice and then never touched the area again until recently, nor someone who has been surprised by an unexpectedly broad reading of the reach of discretionary sanctions. I gave the topic the most technical and cramped reading I can without doing violence to the meaning of the original decision, and the subject he was editing still fits comfortably within it. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

This is possibly tangential to this case, but I think it important that the interaction between warnings and "broadly interpreted" is entirely fair. By this I mean that where a topic is subject to sanction (either generally or for a specific editor) but a reasonable person acting in good faith may not be aware of this, even if they are aware of the general case, then they should not be subject to more than a warning. For example, if a user is aware that discretionary sanctions are authorised for topic X, but they are not aware that article Y falls within this topic, then they should be warned of this before any action is taken against them for breaching the sanctions, especially if there was debate about whether the article was within the topic area or not. If the debate was consequential to (or even just post-dated) the actions of the user concerned should not be sanctioned for their edits ex post facto without clear evidence of bad faith.

Equally, consideration must be given to the age of warnings. Editors are human, and as such have imperfect memories. If a user was made aware of the existence of e.g. discretionary sanctions several years ago, and they have not been involved with the topic area since then, then it should not be held that they are automatically aware of the continued existence of sanctions. Other evidence may of course show they are aware, but the existence of an ancient warning on an archived (user) talk page does not indicate awareness on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Aarghdvaark

Regarding the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Perrat, I did not read the book but originally wrote in the article on Perrat that it was a book on plasma cosmology. That seemed a reasonable pigeon hole for it then. Recently I followed the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration and my conclusion from that discussion was that the book was not about plasma cosmology but was a text book on plasma. As John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" So I changed the article to say the book was a text book on plasmas (N.B. Perrat is not a fringe scientist on plasma, in fact he is a distinguished scientist).

The reason I changed my mind was based wholly on the discussion at Dusty plasma. Iantresman had put forward a proposal, or hypothesis actually, that the book was a text book on plasma and not a book on plasma cosmology. Following the scientific method, this hypothesis should be trivial to disprove - it is a published book after all, and furthermore has recently been republished by Springer, a major scientific publishing house. All it needed was some quotes from the book. However, these were not forthcoming. The discussion soon veered off into a discussion on cold fusion. I'm surprised that Wikipedia editors thought these arguments by analogy or Google were good enough, but they cannot be considered reliable sources to establish what a book is about. So Iantresman's hypothesis has been tested and has not been disproved. Ergo, the book is a text book on plasma and is not about plasma cosmology, and that stands until it is disproved.

Iantresman provided some sources to back up his hypothesis, but no sources were provided by editors arguing the counter-hypothesis that the book was about plasma cosmology. Since no direct quotes were provided by the editors arguing against Iantresman, he asked for a source saying the book was on plasma cosmology - and got accused of wikilawyering! This is Kafka-esque: editors with clear POVs, and who refuse to back up their arguments with reliable sources have managed to get an editor banned who has been consistently civil and provided sources. Rather than being banned I think Iantrsman should be commended for how he has conducted himself at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration.

Extracts from the Dusty plasma talk page showing POV bias against the book's author Peratt:

  • No, it's not a reliable source to be linking as it's clearly fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article per WP:ONEWAY. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should insist i n using problematic books [Peratt's] when there are non-problematic books available. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman took this issue to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Academic textbook assessment as a reliable source where he argued that the book is fringe, but how could he show it was fringe. This seems to have confused some people, some appearing to think that this indicates Iantresman believes the book is about plasma cosmology and therefore he lied, including ironically The Devil's Advocate! I rather think he was trying to do the work of the editors at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration and showed good faith, if poor judgement.

I would also like to clarify the position of plasma cosmology in plasma physics. It is non-mainstream science now, but previously had support by some plasma physicists. There is nothing unscientific about it (being out-of-date does not mean something automatically becomes pseudo-science). The people who know about plasma are plasma physicists, so it is not surprising that there is considerable cross-over between people who support or supported plasma cosmology and current and previous work on plasma. Trying to expunge the record of the contributions of these people is I believe something which is against the ideals of Wikipedia.

I think the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" should be allowed as a source for Dusty plasma, as the argument against it has not succeeded on rational grounds but rather by getting Iantresman banned. And on the evidence of the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration I think it was perverse banning Iantresman for his contributions to the discussion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@Enric Naval - have a look at Hannes Alfvén. It says there: "A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)". This is presumably why Peratt included those topics in his book, and he seems to have been vindicated because the book is being republished. As regards your question on the relationship between astrophysical plasma and plasma cosmology, a lot of current day astrophysical plasma theory (e.g. our understanding of the aurora) comes from the people who did plasma cosmology, so actually astrophysical plasma is a subset of plasma cosmology - but of course that particular historical fork has been air-brushed from history as being much too embarrassing! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Enric Naval - p.s. the section Astrophysical plasma#History only talks about Birkeland and Alfven, so point proved I suppose. There was also Sydney Chapman (mathematician), but his theories were found to be incorrect in the end. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

@Aarghdvaark. Iantresman himself gives the most damning evidence: "*Go and find yourself a book on "Astrophysical plasmas"; I doubt very much you will find mention of "double layers", "Critical ionization velocity", "Birkeland currents", and "Plasma circuits", let alone any discussion of their application to astronomy."[87]. Out of 4 topics mentioned, 3 appear in the index content of the book. So, according to Iantresman's own definition, this is not a book on astrophysical plasma.

Iantresman again treating "plasma universe" as a synonim of "plasma cosmology". Bonus points for mentioning the book and its author in the same comment. "Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[88] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[89], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in (...)"[90]

(By the way, Astrophysical plasma doesn't mention plasma cosmology anywhere, it only cites Alvén for his less-fringe work. The relationship to plasma cosmology should be explained.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Although I commented on the AE request cited here, the motion is on a broader subject and I don't see any reason to recuse from enacting it. NW (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Enacting below motion. NW (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see no motion or statement that the discretionary sanctions in that case were superseded or relaxed. Absent that, they would still be in force, and parties to that case would be well aware of the possible sanctions and as such should require no notification that these sanctions could be placed against them. And while I am not unduly surprised, I do have to note my disappointment that a week after having a topic ban relaxed, we're finding new issues already. SirFozzie (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What SirFozzie said, in full, especially the last sentence. This is being appropriately dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. No notification is required of a previously sanctioned editor. Risker (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thirded, a party to a case is expected to have read the decision, and should know the DS exist. There are no need for warnings when someone has already been sanctioned; the warning is there to serve as a "stop and think", and that was served by the case itself. And, well, even though I opposed the motion to lift the topic ban, I'm stunned to see Iantresman causing problems this quickly. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The "pseudoscience" or "fringe" issue seems to be a serial source of strife. I wouldn't mind a motion that clearly places both under the DS system, and ending the wikilawyering on this point. Courcelles 18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the admins at WP:AE have interpreted this correctly, however I agree a motion to clarify this wouldn't be a bad idea at all. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The entire point of lifting the topic ban was to allow Iantresman an opportunity to edit constructively in this area. However, almost immediately after the ban was lifted, he started pushing a fringe view in a mainstream article. Consequently, the topic has been reinstated, which is the correct outcome. Under which precise mechanism the topic ban is reinstated is quite frankly less important, however as SirFozzie notes, the topic ban was applied correctly. For the avoidance of doubt, if it had been applied incorrectly, then either the community could have topic banned him, or we could have by motion. Finally, I echo SirFozzie's disappointment - we gave Iantresman a second chance, and he squandered it. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't believe any action is needed on this request, though I'm not adverse to a motion to clarify if there is any genuine confusion or need for expansion of the sanctions authority in this area (I'd welcome further input from the administrators active at AE on this point). If Iantresman wishes to appeal the discretionary sanction that was imposed on him (reimposition of the topic ban), he may do so, though I am not suggesting such an appeal would be likely to be successful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Asking AE to decide whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe science is a waste of time; the concepts are so closely related that having the applicability of the sanctions turn on deciding which term applies to an article is a distraction at best, and pure wikilawyering at worst; this nullifies the issue, and puts the focus back on conduct, and not terminology. Courcelles 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Just in case there is any doubt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support. Also, I've added two sentences to the motion: I've copy-edited this motion so that it says any previously-authorised discretionary sanctions that are subsumed by these new ones may simply be stricken and marked as redundant (in the usual way). If we think separate motions to deprecate those sanctions are needed (Homeopathy and Cold fusion are mentioned below as two decisions that this motion would deprecate), then please revert my copy-edit—but as this is a matter of keeping our records in order more than anything else I think it might be sufficient for us or the community to use common sense in deciding how to implement this motion vis-a-vis existing decisions. AGK [•] 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  6. Kirill [talk] 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  8.  Roger Davies talk 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrators' comments
  • So this would have the effect of making all fringe science pseudoscience, and vice versa, for all Wikipedia purposes? I've just got a very bad feeling about unintended consequences of doing that, especially in light of past POV-warring in various areas. I worry that the motion, despite the best intent, might end up with some poor outcomes, although I can't put my finger on any at the moment... Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the intent is not so much to say that "pseudoscience" is the same as "fringe science," as to make it unnecessary to argue about whether a given topic represents one versus the other. But I would like to leave this open in case any members of the community have more input on how this motion might affect editing in these areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly, NYB, I know full well they're not the same concept; but the behavioural issues are quite similar as the topics occur on WP, and the time of the AE admins is wasted in dealing with arguments over which label an article deserves, rather than cutting right to what they are really being asked to do; evaluate conduct. Courcelles 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Community comments on proposed motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures states: "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made." I think modifying an "area of conflict" qualifies as "significant or substantive modifications" and believe the prescribed steps should be followed as outlined. My76Strat (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a procedure. Risker (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This isn't a change to Arbitration Committee procedures, so the policy My76Stat cites isn't really relevant; nonetheless, I'm definitely glad to wait a couple of days for any additional community input before voting on the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I thank both esteemed members for correcting my perspective. It would be great if either of you would have linked the relevant guidelines that do govern best practices for adding or modifying an area of conflict, but I am aware that you could not; because there are no such guidelines. I have reviewed the guidance available, and the closest prose I could find are shown in my original comment. I didn't pull it from thin air either, but followed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions, which seems to imply it is a "procedure", giving credence to "modification of procedures" as an appropriate clause. I guess that makes me a "wikilawyer" too, because I'm curious enough to seek guidance, humble enough to ask for help, and bold enough to state my opinion. It does not sit well with me, seeing Iantresman silenced by a discretionary topic ban for identical conduct, nor that he has been adorned with a compliment of labels that arguably rise to incivility. Some of the rhetoric has been echoed here, by esteemed members who are apparently comfortable wielding a rubber-stamp opposed to examining the merits of an action at their fore. Therefor, allow me to correct my original statement to reflect the policy that is relevant; Wikipedia:Ignore all rules where we are encouraged to not only ignore the rules, but to ignore them "beautifully". So much so, that there is no pressing need to even write them anymore. If someone does ask, call them a wikilawyer and show them the door. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
They are not modifying how the sanctions work, they are just applying them on more articles. That's not a modification of Arbcom's procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks, My76Strat (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this will really make it apply to more articles than originally intended; rather it just clarifies edge cases from doubt. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
An "edge case" is by definition is uncertain (ie. sitting on the fence). So while there may be good sources and attribution suggesting one side, and likewise for the other side, you're going to (a) decide for them (b) and then ban everyone who disagrees. That doesn't seem like (a) an accurate representation of the various views, (b) a good way to deal with them. --Iantresman (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This may contain other relevant cases: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases (though it hasn't been updated recently). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY (December 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Statement by your My76Strat

Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior[92] I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?

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

@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at WP:RIP, as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page.[93] This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Note from Risker

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

Comment from The Interior

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

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

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

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

Comment by Mors Martell

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_66&oldid=1151033236"