SightWatcher (talk | contribs) |
/* Statement by Cla68 |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=521752870] and Elen of the Roads. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElen_of_the_Roads&diff=522358227&oldid=522343330] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also. |
The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=521752870] and Elen of the Roads. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElen_of_the_Roads&diff=522358227&oldid=522343330] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also. |
||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by Cla68 === |
||
I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimotheus_Canens&diff=522269486&oldid=522032684 this one] (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Wikipedia's disfunctional administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor in their years-long personal feud with each other, while allowing admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. |
|||
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} |
|||
=== Arbitrator comments === |
=== Arbitrator comments === |
Revision as of 01:52, 5 December 2012
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Race and intelligence
Initiated by SightWatcher (talk) at 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 6.1: SightWatcher topic-banned
- 7.1: TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned
- Cla68's one-way interaction ban
- The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Information about amendment request
I request that all four sanctions are vacated.
Statement by SightWatcher
I don't intend to edit R&I articles anymore if my topic ban is lifted. I'm requesting that it be lifted because I want to go back to being totally uninvolved in R&I, the way I had been for a year before I was sanctioned. When I was sanctioned in May 2012, my last edit that had anything to do with R&I was in May 2011. But my topic ban has often made me a focus of R&I related discussions even when I avoid them, which makes me too uncomfortable at Wikipedia to keep editing articles about books and movies the way I used to.
In the recent request by Cla68, AGK made a very insightful comment [4] about the current R&I remedies: "I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration)." AGK's point can be seen from the history of requests there have been about the same issues after the review: May 17 June 10 July 8 July 25 October 22 November 10 I understand there was drama in the R&I topic before the review, but there wasn't so much of it that a new arbitration request was happening almost every month.
The goal of sanctions at Wikipedia is to prevent conflict, but the decision Roger Davies wrote in the review is having the opposite effect. I had already quit the R&I topic a year before I was sanctioned, so the only effect of my sanction was attracting more attention to me. The Devil's Advocate explained here how another of the bans I'm appealing also has created more drama, and he and Cla68 can speak for themselves about their own sanctions.
I still don't completely understand the basis for my topic ban, or why it needed to include an interaction ban with every other person who's edited R&I articles. My finding of fact says I was sanctioned because my involvement there was inspired by an off-wiki discussion, and both SilkTork [5] and Roger Davies [6] said the findings do not allege I was deliberately recruited. This needs to be pointed out because my finding of fact has often been misremembered as saying I was deliberately recruited, even though Arbcom was clear during the review they did not support this claim. SilkTork also mentioned here that it's not problematic for a person to become involved here because of an off-wiki discussion. Since my finding of fact does not allege I did anything against policy, I don't understand why I needed to be topic banned when I was no longer involved in the topic.
The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [7] and Elen of the Roads. [8] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also.
Statement by Cla68
I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as this one (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Wikipedia's disfunctional administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor in their years-long personal feud with each other, while allowing admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrator comments
- Awaiting statements. Note that the relevant case link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY
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:
- My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- The Interior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[9]
Statement by your My76Strat
Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior[10] 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.[11] 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).
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)