Olaf Stephanos (talk | contribs) |
Olaf Stephanos (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
However, in my view, a six month topic ban ''without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour'' does not seem fair at all. Also, I disagree with [[User:Shell Kinney]]'s allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been extremely favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Paragraph_discrediting_ACM] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Comments] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#How_to_use_non-neutral_sources] I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Olaf_Stephanos edit history]. |
However, in my view, a six month topic ban ''without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour'' does not seem fair at all. Also, I disagree with [[User:Shell Kinney]]'s allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been extremely favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Paragraph_discrediting_ACM] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Comments] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#How_to_use_non-neutral_sources] I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Olaf_Stephanos edit history]. |
||
I feel that [[User:John Carter]]'s opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comments_by_other_editors_3 here], I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest in editing these articles. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Editor_crusading_on_the_part_of_a_religion] I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "''being opposed to content which I beli[e]ve wikipedia content guidelines demand''"; I am merely concerned about reliable sources and due weight, and I have ''never'' opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude. |
I feel that [[User:John Carter]]'s opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comments_by_other_editors_3 here], I do not believe that I have a severe conflict of interest in editing these articles; I am not a member of any related organisation, and can get no financial benefit whatsoever by editing these articles. I am merely interested in truthful coverage of an extremely challenging subject, and have always endorsed the use of peer-reviewed academic sources. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Editor_crusading_on_the_part_of_a_religion] I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "''being opposed to content which I beli[e]ve wikipedia content guidelines demand''"; I am merely concerned about reliable sources and due weight, and I have ''never'' opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude. |
||
My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with content disputes. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine them in detail, along with my own statement. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos] |
My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with content disputes. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine them in detail, along with my own statement. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos] |
Revision as of 19:22, 10 August 2009
Requests for amendment
Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Six month topic ban to User:Olaf Stephanos from Falun Gong and related articles.
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Colipon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Vassyana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (mediator)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment 1
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos
- Removal of topic ban.
Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I am convinced that the evidence presented in this arbitration enforcement case does not warrant such a sanction.
I agree that my tongue has been too sharp in some discussions, and stand corrected in this regard. I now understand that Wikipedia is not the forum for witty satire; my sincere apologies to all concerned parties, especially User:Colipon.
However, in my view, a six month topic ban without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour does not seem fair at all. Also, I disagree with User:Shell Kinney's allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been extremely favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. [5] [6] [7] I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent edit history.
I feel that User:John Carter's opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says here, I do not believe that I have a severe conflict of interest in editing these articles; I am not a member of any related organisation, and can get no financial benefit whatsoever by editing these articles. I am merely interested in truthful coverage of an extremely challenging subject, and have always endorsed the use of peer-reviewed academic sources. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: [8] I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "being opposed to content which I beli[e]ve wikipedia content guidelines demand"; I am merely concerned about reliable sources and due weight, and I have never opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude.
My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with content disputes. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine them in detail, along with my own statement. [9]
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (2)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Enforcement #4
- Motion 2 (replacement of Remedy #4)
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Mythdon (diff of notification of this thread on Mythdon's talk page)
- Ryulong (diff of notification of this thread on Ryulong's talk page)
Amendment 1
- Enforcement #4
- Desired modification: that Enforcement #4 be vacated and replaced with the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, which is currently found under Motion 2 (which is replacing remedy 4).
Statement by Ncmvocalist
This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Amendment 2
- Motion 2 (remedy)
- Desired modification: that the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, found in the above remedy, be removed.
Statement by Ncmvocalist
This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by Mythdon
I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please, please. ArbCom, pass a motion. Please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the Committee's acceptance of this amendment. Please now, one of you, please, please, and I do mean please, propose a motion. Thank you! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Which motion, Mythdon? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- A motion to make the modifications desired above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no need to pass a motion for modifications. Please, read carefully what Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators say below. Once this amendment is closed, a clerk will make the necessary modifications at the case page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't amendment requests close following a motion if accepted? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that would be true if we were applying strict standards to our applications. It is not the case. Again, please read the arbitrators' views below. They believe this is not a substantive change; it is rather technical. Process must stay fluid and you must avoid instruction creep. You can also have a look at Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy if you got some free time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then I guess I'll treat the "arbitrator views and discussion" section as though it is the motion and that the arbitrators are in fact voting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you'll have to treat what will be written (black on white) at the case page itself as the official resolution. The rest is irrelevant.
- Now, all these excessive questions should have been answered by your mentor. Same for your disruptive requests to a couple of administrators today for testing a block when asking them to block you for nothing —just for the sake of curiosity. That adds nothing to 'building the encyclopedia'. Be aware that an admin may block you for real next time for your highly disruptive attitude. You are walking on thin ice already. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- The mentor thing was over when you and your fellow arbitrators passed a motion to replace the mentorship with the conduct probation, strictly for reasons that I refused to work with a mentor. Now, speaking of "excessive questions", I'm thinking about making another request for clarification, but given that it seems you feel that I've done too much of that process, I wont make another request for a reasonable period of time. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then I guess I'll treat the "arbitrator views and discussion" section as though it is the motion and that the arbitrators are in fact voting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that would be true if we were applying strict standards to our applications. It is not the case. Again, please read the arbitrators' views below. They believe this is not a substantive change; it is rather technical. Process must stay fluid and you must avoid instruction creep. You can also have a look at Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy if you got some free time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't amendment requests close following a motion if accepted? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no need to pass a motion for modifications. Please, read carefully what Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators say below. Once this amendment is closed, a clerk will make the necessary modifications at the case page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- A motion to make the modifications desired above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Which motion, Mythdon? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the Committee's acceptance of this amendment. Please now, one of you, please, please, and I do mean please, propose a motion. Thank you! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ryulong
Kay...—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Indeed. This is no longer needed and it makes sense to remove it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a procedural, rather than substantive, correction and I see no reason it should not be done. — Coren (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, recused. As a general procedural matter, I agree that these types of thing can be handled informally. (In Congressional parlance, "I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to reflect the actions of the committee.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, per all the above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Procedural matter, which I believe is well within the scope of the arbitration clerks to carry out. Agree to this. Risker (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Recusing per Mythdon's request on my talk page. Risker (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)- Agree with John and Coren. Since the request is here, it can be dealt with here, but this is the sort of thing that it is often worth running by a clerk first. If in their judgment, such a change can be made, there would then be no need to come here, unless someone contested the change. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with John, Coren et al.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- None, but I include my own userlinks, in case they are of interest.
- Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amendment 1
- Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
- The word sockpuppet should be replaced by alt account. Sockpuppets are bad things; alt accounts (as this principle admits) can be good things.
- More importantly, the last sentence should be struck or recast.
Statement by Septentrionalis
The last sentence, italicized above, sets policy. It has been adopted at WP:SOCK, apparently on the basis that ArbCom said so. It is, I think, bad policy, but efforts to amend it while ArbCom's wording continues will be met with this irrelevant argument.
- It does not describe what Privatemusings did wrong; see a summary of the problem, by JzG, here. Privatemusings had an account which revealed his real world identity; he set up several alt accounts:
- User:Purple, to do editing
- User:Privatemusings, to discuss policy
- and half a dozen others.
- He then proceeded to discuss policy intemperately, under the assumption that at worst, Privatemusings would be blocked, and Purple would continue unscathed. He also developped most of the abusive techniques that WP:SOCK condemns.
- JzG suggested the following as an acceptable solution: At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity..., but the second account (Purple) was still an alt.
- The problem here was the abusive editing, and the assumption that alt accounts would not be recognized, so Purple would escape scot-free; not the discussion of policy. If Bishzilla were to discuss policy, nobody would complain, as long as Bishonen stayed out. We are all pseudonyms; it doesn't matter which pseudonym discusses policy, but what arguments they use.
- It is not what ArbCom actually enforces. Future Perfect was roundly chastized at the late Macedonia case; but his satirical account User:Former Abbreviated Username of Future Perfect at Sunrise, although its sole function was to discuss policy, was not mentioned or condemned.
- It has led to absurd results, and will lead to more. This effort to get ArbCom to don their asbestos armor and shoot Bishzilla provokes this request. Will it be the last?
Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I think Brad's point about deception is fairly well taken; the incorporation into WP:SOCK does not say that, and would be a reasonable policy if it did.
Again, the User:Geogre case, like all the others, concern abuses of alt accounts. To say that that justifies banning them would be like saying that the number of cases about bad admins justifies abolishing adminship. Tempting though that sometimes is....;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Will Beback
I think this is proposed amendment is a bad idea. PMAnderson doesn't present any significant example of the current prohibition has causing problems. The use of undisclosed alternate accounts is tolerated in certain circumstances, but those should be kept limited to those that demonstrably help the project. There is no reason why an editor in good standing should need to use an undisclosed alternate account to discuss or edit policies, or other internal project debates. If that were allowed, there are many problesm that could arise, even by editors who feel they are working in good faith. See the recent matter of user:Geogre for an example of that. User:Privatemusings is another. It is easy to imagine a situation in which an editor is trying to make an edit that may not be allowed by policy. If he made a change to the policy using his regular account then it would be an obvious case of gaming the system. If he uses a separate account it might not raise any concerns. Wikipedia operates on transparency and mutual trust. This would be a step in the wrong direction. Will Beback talk 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- RexxS is correct that the community sets policy, but it does so in various ways. One way is by through consensus on relevant discussion pages, another is by altering the written policies, and a third is by unchallenged interpretations of the ArbCom. This particular matter was discussed by the community before the ArbCom decision, and after the decision the written policy was amended. So all three components of the policy setting mechanism were involved in this. Will Beback talk 23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by RexxS
I comment solely on the narrow point that "the last sentence should be struck or recast". I believe that ArbCom should take care not to make pronouncements that may be characterised as "making policy". Policy on Wikipedia has always been created by the community reaching consensus on a particular practice. The expression of that policy may then be documented on policy pages; and subsequently may be used by ArbCom to guide their deliberations. It is completely anathematic to our principles when a small group—even one as august as ArbCom—makes a statement that is then incorporated into a policy page and subsequently imposed upon the community. Put simply, that is the wrong way round. If it were to be shown that ArbCom were reflecting an as-yet-unwritten practice (forbidding alternative accounts to debate policy), then I would retract this statement. As it is, I doubt that to be the case, and request ArbCom to reconsider the wording "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Will Beback
- I will have to beg to differ. There is a difference between policy being made and policy being documented. Making of policy occurs by the cumulative actions of our community of editors and enjoys consensus by that very fact. The only exception to that is when an RfC definitively decides on a policy that is contested. Documentation of policy may indeed occur by the three methods you outline, but please understand I am not arguing semantics. You only have to review WP:ARBDATE to see the results that can arise from assuming that changes to policy pages—even those enjoying consensus there—sets policy. The standard required for setting or changing policy is high; and without a strong community consensus, either taken from clear current practice or from a conclusive RfC, you leave it open to challenge at any time. It is exactly for those reasons that I humbly caution ArbCom against making policy statements, unless it is crystal clear that such policy already has uncontested community consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:Privatemusings
That bit was always a bit clumsy of a rather grumpy arbcom I reckon - the real problem in my view is folk kidding themselves that they're discussing principles, when really they seem to be looking for policy guns to shoot someone with - sometimes to avoid listening. This isn't really directed at anyone posting here at the mo, mind.
I do get to take this opportunity to point out the delicious irony of the chap rather vigorously condemning me at the time, running his own 'sock' throughout, complete with chat's about policy ;-)
Oh and my first account was kind of tangentially linked to my identity (particularly through other online sites and stuff) - but I'm cool with anyone mentioning it - it's not a 'badusername' ;-) - you can even call me Peter, I won't report you! Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I continue to assert this stuff, wouldn't agree with Sep's write up above (or maybe it's Sep's write up of JzG's statement?) - and though it's rather ancient history, and no big deal any more I'd point out that not a single diff has ever been forthcoming which showed deception in terms of multiple accounts (or much else for that matter :-)
If the silly 'you can't use an alternate account in policy discussion' bit is causing trouble, strike it, otherwise Brad seems spot on, as usual. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recused MBisanz talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Recused Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that. The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive. I see no reason to amend. — Coren (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision#Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Initial point, one reason for the inclusion of this wording was to make people accountable for their comments during policy and dispute resolution discussions. If an alternative account is linked by name, disclosure on one of the user pages, or by definitive comments made by the account, then that would satisfy this concern. So several of the examples would not pertain to the particular wording. -FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Decline Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse on all things related to Privatemusings. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Coren et al. Wizardman 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- My views on arbitration decisions and principles being imported into policy or guideline wording have been stated elsewhere before. Such wordings and principles should only be added following discussion at the policy or guideline talk pages, and only if it does in fact represent emerging consensus or current practice. There will be exceptions when there is immediate consensus at the talk page to make a prescriptive change, but such change should be mostly descriptive, though it should always be borne in mind that current practice is not always best practice. In this case, there needs to be a discussion at the policy talk page about what represents current and best practices in these situations. My personal view is that alternate accounts should only be used in limited circumstances, for clearly defined reasons. Most alternate accounts should be clearly identified, by their name, and/or by a template or note on their user page identifying the master account. Simply adopting the same mannerisms, or self-identifying while editing, is not enough - any editor must be able to go to the user page and find out who they are really talking to. If there is good reason for an alternate account to be undisclosed, then it is the responsibility of the operator to keep the two accounts separate, and not edit in the same areas as the main account. Even then, if the undisclosed secondary account encounters someone known to the primary account holder, that can be a problem. As far as terminology goes, the term 'sockpuppet' is used too liberally - in my view, it should be reserved for deceptive use of other accounts. A clearer distinction should be drawn between sequential accounts (retiring one account and starting a new one, but not returning to carry on a dispute started by the original account, obviously!), editing while logged out (either intentionally or otherwise), editing as an IP when blocked, and deceptively operating two or more accounts simultaneously in the same area (socking). There are different reasons behind all these, and conflating them and applying the term "socking" to all of them does more harm than good, in my opinion. Finally, for alternate accounts and arbitration cases, my view is that only primary accounts should be used on such pages. Even using obvious accounts such as "NAME-2" can be misleading, as that splits contributions between two accounts, making it harder to apply scrutiny to all edits. As far as evidence submission goes, though (as opposed to workshop proposals and case discussion pages), I think it should be permitted to be able to submit evidence anonymously. But no-one has really agreed with me on that last point yet. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for lifting of EK3 restrictions
Statement by Everyking
In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the comments saying that the restriction is only in effect because I have appealed it numerous times are very puzzling. Some of you seem to be saying that you want to keep me under restriction purely out of spite, because you are annoyed by my appeals. That's like telling a prisoner that the authorities had planned to release him, but since he had the nerve to ask for his release, they've decided to keep him behind bars. I don't understand how such an attitude has any relationship to justice or the resolution of the issue—clearly it's unreasonable to hold someone's own appeals against them, as if they were doing something wrong in seeking redress when they felt they had been wrongfully punished. Everyking (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Replying to Brad: if your objection is based on "the substance of the matter", I'd like to know what that substance is. I don't understand your unwillingness to disclose your reasoning. Shouldn't a person be allowed to know why they are being punished? Everyking (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe; perhaps the most grating aspect of this restriction is that it is effectively a lifetime penalty, a scarlet letter that I must wear forever and ever, and it is especially grating that I am singled out for such an extreme treatment when expiration dates are almost always given to others. Everyking (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Dominic
I recall very well from my service on ArbCom in 2006 how Everyking's repeated appeals can be exasperating. To some extent though, it's ArbCom's own doing. I think that we have for some reason subjected Everyking to a treatment that other arbitration parties have not had to deal with: the lack of expirations. The idea of some kind of annual appeal allowance misses the point. The reason Everyking even would need to do that is because his restrictions go on indefinitely. My opinion is that rather than considering immediate repealing of restrictions every time Everyking asks, ArbCom should have long ago passed a motion to simply set an expiration date, be it a month or a year from now, on all restrictions currently in place for Everyking. It can still renew the restrictions if the problematic behavior occurs again, of course. It's the same basic treatment nearly everyone else gets. Dominic·t 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Cool Hand Luke
Carcharoth: I think Wizardman is right. The original incident might have earned an editor a long restriction, but that has already run for several years. I think the point of the motion it set a definite endpoint. In this case, time served plus one year should be more than adequate.
You make it seem as if motion 3 has only been proposed to get rid of Everyking. I happen to know that he doesn't appreciate it, and neither do I. Cool Hand Luke 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Carcharoth: I agree. The best place for Everyking to negotiate this is on Wikipedia. This is his request, and if he really thinks that it would make him worse off, he should discuss why that is. I am recused, and intend to remain recused on matters involving WR regulars. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) notified per request of Arbitrator Risker. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. I am not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- By way of clarification of at least my vote, my position that we properly lifted all other restrictions but that there is reason to retain this one, is based on the substance of the matter and not merely on consideration of the timing or repetition of the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero. If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will).
If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community. In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010. Roger Davies talk 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- No Why so soon after the last one? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I said last time:
We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)"...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing"." - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since Phil Sandifer has been notified (and has edited at least once since notification), and a reasonable amount of time has passed since notification, I am now going to propose three motions to try and sort things out here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke, if Everyking has objections to these motions, I am more than willing to discuss them with him here. On a technical matter, could you confirm whether you are recused or not, as that will affect the majority for the motions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since Phil Sandifer has been notified (and has edited at least once since notification), and a reasonable amount of time has passed since notification, I am now going to propose three motions to try and sort things out here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am leaning toward Dominic's opinion. That said, since this issue originates from years ago I wouldn't care about the frequency of appeals. However, I need to know from you Everyking the reason why you feel the remaining restriction would be ended; is it because you are planning to contact Phil Sandifer some day in the near future or because it is merely a matter of justice (i.e. an editor in good standing)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Motions
Motion 1
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the remedy, titled "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner", is lifted, effective immediately:
- There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
- Support:
-
- On long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this sanction no longer serves a purpose, and is nothing more than an irritant for Everyking while doing nothing to protect the community or the encyclopedia. The original ban on commenting on Phil Sandifer, taken in context, was reasonable; its continuation is less so, given the context of Everyking having changed many of his editing practices since that time. In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer, and he noted that an off-wiki attempt at reconciliation had been unsuccessful. I do not expect Phil Sandifer to "forgive" Everyking for his past actions. At the same time, I expect Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer, and Everyking can expect that he will lose much of his regained reputation if he fails to do so. Risker (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've already got the answer to my question above... Per Risker: In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer and [Risker] expects Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
-
- Proposed to complete the range of options. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like a period of quiet as noted by option 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain:
-
- Recuse
-
- FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)
Motion 2
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, and that Everyking shall be limited to an appeal once per year, with the next appeal due no earlier than a year after this motion is enacted; with subsequent appeals separated by an interval of one year:
- There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
- Support:
-
- Proposed. Second choice compared to motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Equal with (3) Roger Davies talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Recuse
-
- FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)
Motion 3
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire two years after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of two years will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:
- There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
- Support:
-
- Proposed (with thanks to Dominic for the initial suggestion). First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Equal with (2) Roger Davies talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Second, prefer #4. Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Second, prefer #4. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
-
- Would prefer to lift this entirely; if it is not revoked entirely, then I do not support extending it any longer than one year. Risker (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain:
-
- Recuse
-
- FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)
Motion 4
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:
- There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
- Support:
-
- I was going to support the two-year deal until something hit me. Even when we ban users from Wikipedia for being terrible, we only do it for a year. It's awfully rare of us to go beyond a year, so in principle I create and support this one. Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Second choice to #1. Risker (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose:
-
- There needs to be an extended period when this matter is not raised at all, before it can expire. One year is not enough in my view. The normal limit of a year for a ban should not apply to less onerous sanctions, such as "non-interaction" restrictions. Two years to wait for a restriction like this to expire is more than reasonable, given the events that prompted the restriction to be put in place. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain:
-
- Recuse
-
- FloNight (as stated above)
- Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)
Arbitrator views and discussion of motions
- Posting here with some further thoughts on this:
- (1) If the motions above had not been posted, it is likely that the entire request would have been archived within a week as stale, and the status quo would have prevailed. Thus whatever objections anyone may have to the motions, at least these motions are moving things forward rather than leaving this issue unresolved to come back in a few months.
- (2) It is worth reading through the history to this, which is what I did before posting the motions. Brad, above, stated that the most recent motion is found here and should be "be archived more prominently". However, the motion was archived at the time: see here. The subsequent discussion was archived here. As I said, I found the previous motion and the accompanying requests on the case talk page. The archival links to those two requests are here and here. Everyking, please read through both those earlier requests you made, and look at the collapsed details box where I trace some of the history of your appeals. Also, note the statements made by Phil Sandifer at each of those two most recent requests.
- (3) It is the points raised at the previous requests by Brad and Phil Sandifer that led me to make an extended period of quiet about this whole matter a condition for the restriction being lifted. Everyking's repeated appeals of the restriction are, in my view, raising the matter again and again, and this shows an inability to let go of the past and move on. That is directly relevant to a restriction of this nature. If Everyking can demonstrate that he has previously been able to go a whole year without raising this matter on-wiki, then I will likely support motion 4.
- (4) In general, the matter of repeated appeals has become a problem for ArbCom. This may be because there are lots of previous decisions that were poor or could be improved, or it may simply be because of the large history of decisions that has been built up over the years, or it could be because some restrictions lack expiration dates. One way to tackle this might be to have pre-appeal considerations, where an appellant indicates how long it has been since the previous appeal (or since the case in question), indicates what new material there is for consideration, and then ArbCom takes a preliminary vote on whether to hear the appeal. If the appeal is rejected out-of-hand as "too soon" or "nothing new here", then the appellant should be given a date by when they can re-appeal, and guidance as to what is needed (the problem here being that many people are not willing to listen to ArbCom or work with them - those that do, tend to get their restrictions lifted). Either that, or expiration dates should be built into all restrictions. That would avoid both the situation of repeated appeals being filed too soon, and appellants being unjustly penalised for excessive appealing, and it would also avoid the situations where indefinite restrictions have to be appealed, rather than the sanctioned editor having the option to wait it out while doing productive work elsewhere.
- In other words, I am aware that Everyking has been able to restrict himself to only filing appeals for the past 4 years. I am also aware that he does lots of good work on Wikipedia, and is (as I have said before) in good standing. What I would like to see is Everyking demonstrating that he can restrain himself from filing appeals for at least a whole year, and just let the restriction quietly expire, thus demonstrating that he is truly able to move on from this. As I've said before, I would be more inclined to support motion 4 if Everyking raised his objections to the motions here, with us. I'm sure he has many questions, and I (for one) would be more than happy to answer them here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Amendment 1
- That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.
Statement by Greg L
What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.
It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions.
If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon.
I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue.
I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Wikipedia, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POV‑pushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters.
I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Wikipedia is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by RexxS
I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Motion
- Brad has suggested a very reasonable amendment that should meet many of the concerns raised here, but I find it disappointing when arbitrators vote without indicating any reason. There seems be little in the "Arbitrator discussion" section that helps the reader to understand. I do appreciate that arbitrators are busy, but I would hope that the spirit of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency should encourage them to be a little more forthcoming. Indeed, an understanding of the rationale behind a decision goes a long way towards avoiding repetitive requests. Again, I am grateful to Brad for indicating a timescale before further requests for amendment may be made, but I would still be interested to learn what period ought to be observed before the indefinite topic bans might be reconsidered? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Dabomb87
Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Tony1
Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Kotniski
Support what's been written above. Why are no arbs responding to this? And why has the motion below (relating to the same case, and apparently uncontroversial) still not been passed? --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Carcharoth
Making a statement here partially to explain my recusal, and partly to comment (as an editor and admin, not an arbitrator) on the proposed amendments. Part of the reason for my recusal was because I have participated at Manual of Style talk pages in the past (though not extensively so), and am intending to do so again in the future (or as the need arises). The other part of the reason for my recusal was interactions with some of the parties to the case, so I want to keep my comments here as general as possible. But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had? I should have stated this on the case pages while it was open, but decided not to do so, as the evidence being presented and the outcome was (at first glance) adequate. However, now that it is being proposed that some of the restrictions be relaxed, I would like to ask (again, as a fellow editor and admin, not an arbitrator) that those parties who return to activity in some of these areas to please not let things get to the stage again where the environment becomes off-putting to editors (both experienced and new) who arrive at the talk pages of the Manual of Style. I might not have time to participate there, but I would hope that anyone who did would find that the atmosphere was a lot more welcoming and less acrimonious. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Further points
In addition to the above, I'd also like to ask if the arbitration committee could clarify a few points about this amendment.
- (1) Could there be a list of all the remedies and parties this proposed amendment applies to, and could they all be notified? For reference, there were 32 remedies. I think the only ones the proposal does not apply to are: the one that has already been amended (for User:John), the Arthur Rubin admonishment, the Locke Cole ban, the Kotniski reminder, the The Rambling Man admonishment, the Ohconfucius limitation to one account, the Ohconfucius automation limitation, the Lightmouse restriction to one account, the Lightmouse automation prohibition, the Lightmouse ban, the Date delinking bots remedy, and the "mass date delinking is restricted for six months" remedy. That is 12 remedies, leaving the other twenty (20) remedies that this amendment would affect, and which concern sixteen (16) users. I really do think it would be clearer what is happening here if the new and old remedies were written out side-by-side for each party (one of the remedies expires in about a month, for example).
- (2) The proposal states that "all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision" were considered. There are five such appeals (excluding this one) listed on the talk page of the case. I believe that all except one have been addressed by this proposal. Brad, can I ask if you re-considered the ban appeal made on behalf of Locke Cole and decided not to include that in this proposal?
- (3) On re-reading the decision, I noticed "Stability review 3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - are there any plans to reset the date for this assessment for stability in light of the proposed relaxation of restrictions? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Update
- As there has been some confusion, I thought explicitly providing the new wording for each remedy that changes are being proposed for would help. I did a draft here. That is an unofficial page, not approved by any active arbitrators. I do hope, though, that it helps clear up some of the confusion. As far as I can see, Tony1's restrictions are not increasing. I do think it would be polite for a clerk to contact all 16 of the users who are affected by this proposed amendment, though two of them are currently banned. Would there be any objection if I asked a clerk to contact all the users affected by this amendment, or did so myself? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Notifications
- Actually, I've looked into the issue of notifications of the users affected by this proposed amendment, and it is more complicated than it seems (for various reasons). I've sent an e-mail to the arbitration committee with details, as it is not my place to sort out how these notifications should be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Continuing failure to notify
- By my count, only 5 of the 16 editors the proposed amendment would affect have commented here - the presumption being that the other 11 have not been notified (or have left Wikipedia or are serving a ban). Despite my requests above for notification to be given to these other editors involved, and an e-mail sent Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM (BST) to the arbitration committee, titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", nothing further has been done on this. Given that the proposed amendment will restrict further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, and given that one of the editors involved left me a note here, to which I replied here, can I ask that the Arbitration Committee or its clerks please notify the other editors involved as a matter of urgency? It is not right to propose and vote on an amendment without notifying those who it will affect. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)
Carcharoth said:
- But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had?
MoS is always like that; that's why I supported, and support, civility restrictions; and why I am not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes. The worst offenders in this regard were not all involved in the date delinking debacle, but Tony (see my evidence in the original case), Ohconfucius (compare his behavior on the date delinking workshop page), and Greg L (see WT:MOSNUM archives) have been among the worst. To be fair, when I was asked to look at a question on WT:MOS, what I saw of Tony's behavior had markedly improved; he does not appear to have discussed his feces in the last few months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Upon consideration, this appears to be endemic at MOS; someone comes up with a protest that it does not (usefully) describe English, and this is normally met with ridicule and revert-warring. For example, it was protected for two months, after the conclusion of WP:ARBDATE, because of the persistent edit-warring over "logical" punctuation - most of the date warriors were therefore uninvolved in this one.
- One cause of this disregard is the number of people who edit it without, for example, recognizing the English subjunctive (see this edit and edit summary); but there is a clear cultural problem.
- I would therefore suggest an admin be requested to watch the MOS pages without involving himself (Carcharoth was missed during the delinking case), but empowered to impose mandatory mediation when such things occur (anybody who declines mediation could, for example, be banned from MOS and its talk pages for a month, while the rest work it out). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
- Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Um, to clarify for Greg L., I meant that I was awaiting further statements from other editors over the next couple of days after which I will review your appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- In case I don't visit the amendments page for a few days, and motions are posted, please could my colleagues or a clerk mark me as recused in any motions either here or at clarifications, relating to the date delinking case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see input from other users, especially those not involved in the dates edit wars, which went on for years. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Motion
Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:
- (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
- (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
- (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
- (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.
- There are 12 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
- Support:
-
- Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Annotations and clarifications:
- (a) There is no intent by this motion to increase the sanctions against Tony or any other user, and I don't believe the wording as proposed has that effect.
- (b) Carcharoth's chart appears to me to correctly summarize the intent of the motion, and I propose that we treat it as being a valid implementation of the motion as passed (if it passes) unless anyone identifies any specific discrepancies or issues within 72 hours from now.
- (c) I agree with Coren that the intent of the motion is that these editors may resume any non-date-related activities but are to do so while displaying good behavior. If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her. I sincerely hope that nothing like that would become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Those remedies were drafted broadly to make certain that the dispute, which was long lasting and acrimonious, did not spill in other areas of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to their being focused more tightly, but I should point out that there will be very little patience towards renewed hostilities. — Coren (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain:
-
- I'll let the other arbs handle this. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse
-
- But have entered a statement above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment
Clarification?
Does that mean I would no longer be "prohibited from editing policy pages related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page"? I was the only party so restricted. Tony (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this was meant to be picked up in "(or any similar wording)", once I decided to make the wording of the motion generic rather than incorporate a list of usernames. Of course, we'll see what the other arbitrators have to say about my proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- A quick point for overworked arbs: a highly significant technical matter (image sizes) is under consideration at MoS talk. It is not a particularly personal or controversial debate, delightfully. Greg L is covered by the blanket topic ban on styleguide talk pages; yet he has potentiallyl valuable input. He wants to post this, but cannot, and I can hardly post it for him, lest I be guilty of the back-door breaching of a remedy:
- "A default for thumbnails of 180 is too small. Also, pictures with less-than-typical aspect ratios (such as twice as wide as tall) end up being way too small. Portrait-orientation pictures tend to be too big. I often have many pictures and they tend to walk all over each other unless I stagger their placements left and right and/or force the size issue. Kilogram uses a mix of thumbnails and forced."
- It is frustrating that the project can't benefit from such input, which has absolutely nothing to do with date linking; Greg has already shown (and declared) that he's intent on playing the civility game. Thus, I urge arbs to consider narrowing the ambit of the remedy in question, as embodied in NYBrad's motion, which would focus the remedy on "protecting the project". Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to point out that the motion will result in an increase in the restriction on me. It is very odd that at this stage, without evidence of anything but utter compliance with the remedy that applies to me, that I should be subject to a harsher restriction in any area. Is there evidence of damage or potential damage to the project under Remedy 9.3 that ArbCom decided on for me? 9.3 did not restrict me from discussing any issue, although uniquely I was banned from editing policy and template pages related to article and editing style (as a kind of quid pro quo, I guess). That is, ArbCom decided that I should not be restricted WRT discussing date linking/unlinking. Now, it appears, I will be further restricted by not being able to discuss date linking/unlinking.
It's not that there is much discussion on that topic nowadays, but I have gone out of my way to comply with the remedy and with all policies and guidelines of WP, and a further restriction, without explanation, seems to be arbitrary and unproductive: in what way will the project be protected by banning me from such discussion from August 2009 onwards? I have raised this matter at NYB's talk page, but he is off-wiki until Friday. Tony (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".
- In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.
- I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. Tony (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it helps, my interpretations of what is being proposed are here (I agree with Kotniski that your restrictions are not increasing). That is totally unofficial, mind you, and you will need to check with Brad and the other arbs who are actually voting on this case, as to whether I'm interpreting the proposed changes correctly, or not. I did notice that you were the only party to have policy mentioned in your restriction, which I thought was a bit strange. My interpretation leaves the word policy in there, and your interpretation removes it. You might want to ask what Brad's intention was there, as there are other possible interpretations as well. I still think the best thing is for Brad to prepare his own page detailing all 20 proposed changes and to check that the wording tallies with what he intended. However, having just spent a long time preparing such a page myself, I can understand why he didn't. It is very tedious. But I do think explicitly writing out the new remedies is needed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Carcharoth; I guess "policy" and "template" are the quid pro quo. I await Brad's advice. Tony (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- See some comments under my vote on the motion, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe what Tony is questioning is the wording using the terms "policy" and "template" (he was the only editor so restricted). I suggest Tony file a separate clarification on this issue, either now (to avoid the pending 30 days restriction) or after those 30 days. Unless Brad or others want to clarify it now? Brad, while I'm writing down here, are you able to answer the other questions I had (numbered 2 and 3), and have you had a chance to consider the problems regarding notifications that I raised in that e-mail I sent to the arbitration committee? Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think my clarification that no broadening of restrictions is intended in any case, should be sufficient to address Tony's concern. If you don't think that it is sufficiently clear, please propose a specific modification of the motion. ¶ The motion does not address the situation of Locke Cole. I don't think there is a consensus among the arbitrators to lift his ban at this time, but if any other arbitrators think the matter should be discussed, I'd be happy to look into that request again. ¶ As for item 3, I haven't really focused on that either; perhaps Jayvdb, who wrote the decision, should start discussion on it by providing his input. And I'll look for your thread on the mailing list; as you know, I've been offline this week and am way behind on arb-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Brad. Not your fault, as you were away. The thread is titled "Lack of notification in date delinking case", from about a day ago. Please also note what I have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think my clarification that no broadening of restrictions is intended in any case, should be sufficient to address Tony's concern. If you don't think that it is sufficiently clear, please propose a specific modification of the motion. ¶ The motion does not address the situation of Locke Cole. I don't think there is a consensus among the arbitrators to lift his ban at this time, but if any other arbitrators think the matter should be discussed, I'd be happy to look into that request again. ¶ As for item 3, I haven't really focused on that either; perhaps Jayvdb, who wrote the decision, should start discussion on it by providing his input. And I'll look for your thread on the mailing list; as you know, I've been offline this week and am way behind on arb-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe what Tony is questioning is the wording using the terms "policy" and "template" (he was the only editor so restricted). I suggest Tony file a separate clarification on this issue, either now (to avoid the pending 30 days restriction) or after those 30 days. Unless Brad or others want to clarify it now? Brad, while I'm writing down here, are you able to answer the other questions I had (numbered 2 and 3), and have you had a chance to consider the problems regarding notifications that I raised in that e-mail I sent to the arbitration committee? Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- See some comments under my vote on the motion, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Carcharoth; I guess "policy" and "template" are the quid pro quo. I await Brad's advice. Tony (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it helps, my interpretations of what is being proposed are here (I agree with Kotniski that your restrictions are not increasing). That is totally unofficial, mind you, and you will need to check with Brad and the other arbs who are actually voting on this case, as to whether I'm interpreting the proposed changes correctly, or not. I did notice that you were the only party to have policy mentioned in your restriction, which I thought was a bit strange. My interpretation leaves the word policy in there, and your interpretation removes it. You might want to ask what Brad's intention was there, as there are other possible interpretations as well. I still think the best thing is for Brad to prepare his own page detailing all 20 proposed changes and to check that the wording tallies with what he intended. However, having just spent a long time preparing such a page myself, I can understand why he didn't. It is very tedious. But I do think explicitly writing out the new remedies is needed to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)