→Involved parties: Cool Hand Luke notified |
Relata refero (talk | contribs) →Statement by Fred Bauder: statement |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
====Statement by Fred Bauder==== |
====Statement by Fred Bauder==== |
||
As [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMantanmoreland&diff=65435088&oldid=65287087 this edit] shows, Matanmoreland was warned about using sock puppets about a year and half ago, and quit using the accounts {{Userlinks|Lastexit}} and {{Userlinks|Tomstoner}}. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
As [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMantanmoreland&diff=65435088&oldid=65287087 this edit] shows, Matanmoreland was warned about using sock puppets about a year and half ago, and quit using the accounts {{Userlinks|Lastexit}} and {{Userlinks|Tomstoner}}. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
=====Statement by completely and utterly uninvolved Relata Refero===== |
|||
I have looked over one of the disputed articles, [[Naked short selling]], for the first time a short while ago. My comments are detailed at the bottom of [[Talk:Naked short selling]]. There is little doubt in my mind that useful information has been kept out of the article and that a skew has been introduced towards journalistic references; a perusal of the talk page - without even any extensive digging through the archives - suggests that one or more of the accounts being investigated were involved in this. Given that, I submit that any claim that the quality and neutrality of the project has not suffered as a consequence of any (as yet unestablished) collusion, false consensus or CoI should be viewed as incorrect. [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Clerk notes ==== |
==== Clerk notes ==== |
Revision as of 20:56, 14 February 2008
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
Current requests
Mantanmoreland
Initiated by SirFozzie (talk) at 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
- SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Samiharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Samiharris notified
Mantanmoreland notified
Durova notified
Cool Hand Luke notified
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_more_admin_eyes_on_an_issue_.28RE:RfCU_result.29
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jimbo_says_Mantanmoreland_is_in_fact_Gary_Weiss.
(these are now consolidated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland
(now renamed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC)
Statement by SirFozzie (initiating party)
Recently, there was a checkuser done on the accounts User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris. This test came back inconclusive because one of the accounts (Known now to be Samiharris) only used open proxies. The case moved to WP:AN, per the suggestions of the CheckUser who did the initial check.
That discussion led to coincidental links between the two accounts, but further investigation was needed to determine if the two accounts were linked or not.
During the course of the investigation, it became known that User:Mantanmoreland had used at least two alternate accounts in ways that contravene wikipedia policies.. User:Lastexit and User:Tomstoner. In this investigation, a large amount of information became known that links the accounts of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris together. Common interests, targets, phraseology, and edit times were all found.
What was not found was anytime where the accounts of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were editing simultaneously. The two accounts edits dovetailed together, that the two never were editing at the same time. This is over the year that the Samiharris account has been active on Wikipedia.
With the evidence from My initial investigation, and The additional, deeper information provided by many users who dug into this case, a Request for Comment was opened. This RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland, has an overwhelming consensus that yes, the two accounts are indeed linked together. This is a problem primarily because the two accounts have double-!voted in Request for Administrator Access case, as well as Article For Deletion debates, and have been used to establish consensus in merging several financial term articles into an article they had "collaboratively" wrote.
However, any move to enforce sanctions would be widely controversial. This is due to Real Life concerns (The person "supposedly" behind these probable sockpuppet accounts has been in a long-standing "Real world" feud with banned user User:WordBomb, and the fact that the two accounts have edited the article on this Real-Life identity.
There had been a request to the Foundation for guidance on this, Jimbo Wales commented on this investigation, giving it his blessing, but there was little guidance about this issue regarding real life identity. There is also a political side to this, but as much as I try to avoid Wiki-Politics, that is not my bailwick.
ArbCom's guidance is needed to determine the following:
A) To endorse the finding that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland could be considered sock puppets of each other.
B) Whether a Block/Ban is warranted of a person who has disrupted Wikipedia for over a year and has been caught using sockpuppets multiple times in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy.
C) If POSSIBLE, to determine if the two accounts can be considered linked to that real-life identity.
My thoughts are that there is a link between the two accounts, and considering the amount of disruption, as well as the fact that this is the second time the account Mantanmoreland has been linked to sockpuppetry, a long term ban is required.
(Additional Thought)
I can understand why folks have voiced their concerns and request that Morven recuse himself from this case. Even considering recent events,if Morven says that he can decide things independently and fairly, from the evidence, we have no reason not to take him at this word at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Durova
Please accept this case. It deserves a full and fair evaluation, both for the sake of the named parties and in the interests of reconciling a divided community. DurovaCharge! 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adding myself to the list of named parties. In case there is a procedural doubt as to whether a dispute exists, the dispute is this: I want to know whether I stuck my neck out for someone who wasn't honest with me. On 20 October 2007 I performed a userblock related to an article where Mantanmoreland and Sami Harris frequently edited. It was my belief at the time that I was acting in the interests of the biographies of living persons policy, and I was acting upon the good faith assumption that Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland were separate people who had no conflict of interest there. Now I see reason to be concerned about whether those assumptions were correct. DurovaCharge! 22:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Cool Hand Luke
Please accept, in light of the evidence summarized at the RfC here. I suggest that you reserve remedies for the community, however. It's not clear to me that banning a sometimes-productive and NPOV editor like Mantanmoreland is a good thing. This issue has community-wide implications. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Added myself to named parties. Mantanmoreland's RfC reply makes clear he perceives a dispute with me. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Two side issues are addressed in the statements below. Here are my opinions on both:
- No, don't unblock WordBomb. Contra the idle claims of GWH, this is not his dispute; this is an issue raised in good faith by the community, and I fail to see how unblocking an unrepentant sockpuppeteer would aid in a sock puppet inquire. WordBomb is free to make suggestions to editors, but we are the ones with a grievance.
- Moven should recuse for two reasons: 1. It appears that much of the case will involve the mailing list, and the actions of those on it. 2. Morven has already expressed an extreme opinion on the case as demonstrated by wishing to close the RfC on a technicality, and Morven has repeatedly stated he sees no connection between the accounts. If it was better for Mantanmoreland to cease editing Overstock articles to avoid the perception of bias (as Slim Virgin explained), certainly it would be better for Morven avoid the appearance of COI in this case. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Rocksanddirt
While I had hoped that the Rfc and related commentary would go on a bit longer prior to this, it was always headed here. The conflict at the root of the issues is one of the defining items of the current en.wikipedia community. Even quite new editors such as myself have been exposed to the dhrahma of it out of proportion to the article disruption. As with Cool Hand Luke, I ask that the committee be slow on remedies, long on findings of fact. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - I do not feel the Morven's statements require that he recuse from the case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - I do not feel that the participation of wordbomb would add to this proceeding, his behavior after his initial proper block requires that any proceding he's involved with be only about him. After the serious allegations against mantanmoreland are evaluated by the committee (as looks likely now) than a case involving others and others actions might have value. Until then, it is putting the cart before the horse. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Dorftrottel
FWIW, I'd support a thorough investigation with particular emphasis on item C) of SirFozzie's initiating statement and CHL's suggestion to reserve remedies for the community, if applicable. User:Dorftrottel 21:10, February 13, 2008
- Also, I echo the calls for Morven as well as FloNight to recuse themselves from the case. User:Dorftrottel 01:33, February 14, 2008
- As to Jimbo's "not a smoking gun" comment regarding his earlier statement: Nevertheless, Jimbo Wales must have had good reasons which led him to making such a rather strong statement in the first place. I for one would appreciate further, detailed explanation by Jimbo what exactly those reasons were, and also who else can reasonably be assumed to have had those same reasons available to them at or around the time Jimbo made that statement. User:Dorftrottel 11:56, February 14, 2008
Statement by Whitstable
I would support a thorough investigation and I feel that unless we get as close to a definitive answer as possible on the Real Life issue, we are not going to resolve this dispute. I believe it is time to go deal with the cause - the person behind the accounts, if there is one - rather than the symptoms of any number of socks. Whitstable 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Lawrence Cohen
Please accept the case. Massive disruption, spanning years, involving a user who was confirmed to be abusing various socks by the Arbitration Committee in the past, who has evidence against him here showing that he has gamed Wikipedia still with more socks since then, including on RFAR, and RFA, and who even Jimbo Wales per evidence on the RFC believes is the very subject of the BLP various editors have accused him of being. Taken in whole, Mantanmoreland appears based on currently available evidence to be Gary Weiss, and has gamed Wikipedia to absurd degrees. Scope of arbitration should involve investigation of those who enabled this to happen, up to and including Jimbo Wales if that is the case. Lawrence § t/e 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to Viridae: Support. Morven can't be an arbiter here. Lawrence § t/e 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Struck per Morven's response. Sorry, that makes sense. Lawrence § t/e 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by LessHeard vanU
I request that the ArbCom accept this request, this venue being now the only place with sufficient impartiality and gravitas to allow the evidence, interpretations and responses to be thoroughly and dispassionately considered, the conclusions drawn, and judgement rendered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further, in the light of the suggestion of expediency by NewYorkBrad, Flonight and others, countered by the comments of thebainer, I suggest that review of the evidence already published may be considered expediently, but that consideration of how to address any findings be given the utmost care and all the time that is necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- With apologies for jumping in here, my comment was that this case should be "expedited," which is to say, given a high priority and resolved as quickly as possible consistent with the need for an informed study of the evidence and workshop proposals. I would never propose that a case be dealt with "expediently" nor that any ruling be made without appropriate study and consideration. All parties to cases are entitled to a fair, expeditious, and well-informed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Viridae
Morven should be recused from this, he has already expressed strong opinions on the RfC. ViridaeTalk 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by semi-involved GRBerry
I blocked Lastexit and Tomstoner because I believe there is no room to doubt that they are sock puppets of Mantanmoreland that were used abusively in 2006. I refrained from acting today with regard to Mantanmoreland or Samiharris because I wanted to give him (or maybe them) an opportunity to explain the behavior. Frankly, the duck test seems quite conclusive here, but I remain open to the possibility that there is another explanation for the evidence that I can't imagine. I note that at this time no editor has endorsed Mantanmoreland's view of the situation.
However, I don't see this as ripe for the Arbitration Committee. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland#Community ban Alison and I have argued fora delay in deciding, Jayron32 has asked if altenative form of community editing restriction might be better, and no administrator has argued for not imposing any restriction. I think it very likely at this point that the community can successfully deal with Mantanmoreland without committee involvement.
Nor do I see any advantage to having ArbComm hold a case about the involvement of the various admins that have defended Mantanmoreland in the past. Unless someone presents evidence that they in fact knew Mantanmoreland was engaging in unrestrained and abusive sockpuppetry, then WP:AGF says we should assume they really thought Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were different accounts.
Nor do I think that there is a point in having the ArbComm make a finding about whether or not Mantanmoreland is the particular BLP that many of us believe he is. Frankly, any finding that he isn't that is not based solely on public evidence won't be credited by many. And I can't imagine the ArbComm issuing a finding that he is that BLP absent a public admission. So, in conclusion, I recommend that the committee decline to accept the case at this time. GRBerry 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Acalamari
I was hoping this wouldn't come to ArbCom just yet, and that the community could handle this issue on its own, but I suppose it's now necessary at this point, and I do encourage ArbCom to accept the case. I hope (and am sure) that the Arbitration Committee will do a thorough investigation here, in the chance that Samiharris is not a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland at all. Acalamari 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Krimpet
I too really hope ArbCom can investigate this case thoroughly and fairly. The most distressing part is that either has Mantanmoreland has misled and abused the trust of a lot of prominent Wikipedians, or a lot of people knew about yet tolerated his abuse of multiple accounts, if not some degree of both. krimpet✽ 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, I would really hope that in the interests of transparency, participants in the notorious "WpCyberstalking" list, of which Mantanmoreland participates and it seems his abuse was an open secret in, would recuse themselves as arbitrators in this case. krimpet✽ 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Sean William
Per the precedent on sock/meatpuppets set at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Who's who, I don't see why a case is needed. A community ban would do just fine, but a case designed to come to a definitive up or down decision regarding a sockpuppet is bound to be inaccurate on at least some level and would probably end up with a principle similar to the one I linked to. Sean William @ 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Cla68
I believe the scope of this case should also include the actions of admins who protected Mantanmoreland and his socks from scrutiny, protected the articles that Mantanmoreland favors from attempts to remove his POV, and who retaliated against editors whose actions they apparently didn't approve of during this episode. I'd also like to add that I find it shocking that FloNight did not recuse herself from this case. Please look at this diff [1]. FloNight is one of the admins that I'm going to ask be scrutinized and considered for formal sanctions for her role in this affair. I pointed out some of the ethical concerns involved in the situation to FloNight afterwards [2]. Unfortunately, FloNight elected not to respond. Perhaps she could respond now? Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- One other comment...I think evidence now shows that the indef block of WordBomb may have been improper and done under a bad-faith motivation. I request that WordBomb be unblocked for now pending a review of it under this ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- WordBomb, in this thread [3], promises only to edit as a participant in this case if unblocked. On another note, WordBomb in that same thread provides evidence that Morven may have a prior opinion on the matters under examination here. If so, Morven needs to recuse himself or at least provide a full explanation. To Morven and FloNight, did you notice that Thatcher and Kirill have recused themselves from this case? That's called integrity. Morven, if you didn't actually have that exchange with Samiharris quoted on that WR thread, then say so and I'll apologize. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Dtobias
There may be quite a few blocks and bans that ought to be reviewed, given that some of them were given for running into the third rail of inquiry into the allegations of sockpuppetry and COI that are possibly turning out to be true after all. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Neil
It is absolutely necessary for the ArbCom to take this case on, and come to a speedy and definite decision. I have little confidence in the community's capability to deal with this case, as there's a small hardcore of administrators who refuse to accept the obvious facts and will defend Mantanmoreland no matter what happens. I second Viridae's opinion that Morven should recuse from this case; he has an clear bias (as expressed in the relevant RFC) in favour of Mantmoreland, and to maintain proprietry, a step back at this point (rather than an insistence on participation) would be prudent. If an ArbCom member feels the need to justify their participation, that's a pretty good sign they should not participate. Neıl ☎ 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also endorse the suggestions elsewhere that User:WordBomb be unblocked, solely to contribute to this ArbCom case, with the understanding that a single edit outside this case will result in the indefinite block being reimposed. If Mantanmoreland can put forward his side of the argument, his "opponent" (for want of a better term) should have the same opportunity. Neıl ☎ 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Sarcasticidealist
This is a very important case, and I'm pleased with the emerging ArbComm consensus to accept it. Given the importance of this case, there are a few things that I believe need to be done:
- the scope of this should be expanded to consider, in addition to allegations of sock puppetry and conflict-of-interest in the affected articles, improper actions by admins at earlier junctures of this episode.
- User:Morven should recuse himself. While I believe that he is truly confident of his ability to look at this with an open mind, any resolution favourable to User:Mantanmoreland will lose a great deal of its credibility if User:Morven participated in formulating it.
- User:WordBomb should be unblocked to allow participation in this case. I do not echo User:Cla68's suggestion that he be unblocked entirely pending a review of his block - I think his overall conduct on Wikipedia speaks for itself - but I don't think that anybody can deny that he will have important contributions to make to this case. If he participates on Wikipedia in places other than on this case, he can be re-blocked. If is disruptive in his participation in this case, he can be re-blocked. But for the sake of this case's credibility, he should be allowed the opportunity to participate in it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree strongly with User:Thebainer when he says "an expedited approach may not be feasible". Given how long this has been brewing, I'd support ArbComm taking a great deal of time to examine this thoroughly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Georgewilliamherbert
It would be a better case in many ways if the original spark for this investigation hadn't come from Bagley on Wikipedia Review. One of the more corrosive suggestions coming out of it is the one Cla68 states above, that there's something wrong with WordBomb's block, or that Bagley has been some form of "right all along".
Sockpuppetry vs Abuse - It is important to separately and clearly delineate between evidence of sockpuppetry and evidence of abusive editing.
I am certainly not the only admin who's ever thought that it's possible that Mantan or Sami are the same and are a certain reporter. I have wondered so on and off. On occasions that it came up, I would go look at the edit patterns, and conclude that if they were the same person, or if one or both was that particular person, there was at most a moderate COI disclosure issue, but that the edits were fundamentally good and policy compilant. Events around Mantan and Sami have been disruptive, sure, but their actual editing has generally been solid and balanced. The detailed investigation has shown up a few cases of double !votes and some other issues, but it appears to have been a tiny sliver of their total editing and without general deleterious effects.
While this may be shown to be otherwise by further examination, the evidence as it stands is that at worst this was a moderate abuse of WP:SOCK.
Bagley's fundamental premise is therefore wrong - Even if Mantan and Sami are the suspected reporter, that hasn't harmed the encyclopedia or the Overstock.com related articles.
Bagley's historical behavior remains despicable - Even if Mantan and Sami are the reporter in question, and even if they had been abusive (taking the whole conspiracy theory at face value as true), WordBomb still unambiguously should have been permabanned. Assertions to the contrary raise questions of editor good faith in this.
Questions of proxy editing for banned editors should be addressed - While a number of admins and editors are concerned about this and clearly investigating a suspicion that is reasonable in good faith, others are parroting Wordbomb content and input from other sites, and acting in support of him. Even if the accounts have been lying through his teeth to many of us, Bagley's input still is not welcome here, by policy and Arbcom decision, and several people participating in this have been effectively acting onsite in concert with Bagley offsite. The scope of this issue is narrow (most of those above clearly aren't in any way) but important.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Lar
I realise I may be swimming upstream saying this, but I'd rather this case NOT be taken just yet. (or perhaps, taken but put in abeyance?) I'd rather see the RfC (which is a bit different than the usual RfC in focus) run to conclusion first. THEN, yes, take it, and investigate the larger issues. Note, I can share my CU findings (inconclusive as they are) with any other CU on request. Alison did much more of the work though. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please forward a summary of your findings confidentially to the Arbitration Committee. Alison should kindly do the same. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Achromatic
I believe several things need to be done here both for justice to be done, whatever that outcome may be, and for the perception of justice being done. Per SarcasticIdealist, I would also suggest that Morven recuse.
(this para edited for clarity from original revision) Re the comments of others, I am not in support of allowing WordBomb to participate - whilst his treatment may have been unfair in the sense of (assuming the findings are upheld) the proxy war, his other actions have struck down his ability to be able to freely participate here - see below for my reasoning - this issue, to my eyes is "Are these users sockpuppets?" not so much "why?" though that may come out in the course of things.
Georgewilliamherbert posits that "others are parroting Wordbomb content and input from other sites, and acting in support of him", and that "several people participating in this have been effectively acting onsite in concert with Bagley offsite". I would query GWH to "name names". If the very crux of this issue is disclosure of who is who, what motivations people have, and so forth, then you should make statements to that effect, specifically. The two posits are very little more than a smear on of a perceived "side" of an argument, including accusations of sock- and meat-puppetry, and GWH should either provide evidence to support his accusations or strike his comments to this effect as personal attacks. It is disturbing, too, that he is so quick to say "Well, I can see that they've done these things, but it doesn't seem to have done much harm".
To me, the issues of support are as much as important as any others - the double !voting in RFAs and AFDs, and conversations to build the perception of non existent consensus. The issues of whether other editors or admins have been blackballed/hounded as a result of their support or opposition for the protagonists and antagonists in this (complex, messy) affair should, by virtue, only be considered if findings in this specific arbitration are upheld. Hypothesizing on downstream effects at this stage would only serve to increase complexity and messiness by an order of magnitude, and not be immediately useful to answering the questions at hand. Achromatic (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by User:Alison
Per Newyorkbrad's request, I will forward a copy of my checkuser findings within the next two days to the Arbitration Committee. Privacy policy forbids me from publishing them, needless to say - Alison ❤ 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by User:WAS 4.250
The important thing, is to deal with, as best as can be done, the fact that, because of our ever increasing real world influence and importance, COI is increasingly turning Wikipedia into a battleground. This two year struggle between forces pro and con a variety of positions related to Wall Street, has entangled our internal decision making with lies, truths, positive and negative reinforcers, and promises and threats of real world consequences.
I suggest that we can lessen the degree to which we are a battlefield through two changes:
- Enforce the fact that "A similar view is not by itself evidence of violation of any wikipedia policy or guideline."
- Enforce the fact that "Admins have no extra power to decide content."
The first would prevent the banning of people who disagree merely because they disagree which was a pattern in this horrible affair. The second would prevent looking at the content of a COI case by an admin and their concluding that because they agree with the content that the COI is ignorable.
In this case admins looked at one side decided they agreed with his content and therefore they suppressed information relevant to COI. The community must decide COI, not a cabal. Because otherwise, the cabal is deciding content. So let there be no content deciding cabal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Jimbo Wales
My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. They are apparently trying to spin this was me "knowing" and "lying" about it. The truth is that I do not know, I have my suspicions like anyone might, but there is no proof and I have tried (hard) to get proof.
- Posting per e-mail. Jimbo doesn't onsite access atm. Will revise/modify per instructions if needed. DurovaCharge! 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
This case could have been initiated before or after admins made highly controversial use of sysop tools. Luckily it has come here before that happened. After reviewing the evidence, I was prepared to block Matanmoreland for sock puppetry, but instead proposed a community ban because I thought other sysops might disagree with a block. There is no chance of placing any community sanction, and a great risk of wheel warring. Arbcom needs to confirm or refute the finding of sock puppetry, then fashion an appropriate remedy, if any. Who knew what and when is beyond the scope, unless there is actual evidence of a coverup, which I have not seen yet. The axiom upon which this case turns is that all editors must be held to the same standards of conduct, regardless of their popularity. Jehochman Talk 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved User:Random832
I do not think WordBomb should be unblocked. However, User:Piperdown should be unblocked and added as a party - this is a very recently addressed case of someone being accused of being a meatpuppet for little else than raising these same issues. Dan Tobias said above "There may be quite a few blocks and bans that ought to be reviewed, given that some of them were given for running into the third rail of inquiry into the allegations of sockpuppetry and COI" - it seems quite clear to me that Piperdown's ban tops that list.
This makes it quite clear that Morven has pre-judged this case, and that his prior opinion of one person who is only tangentially involved is going to colour his perceptions of all the issues involved.
—Random832 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Fred Bauder
As this edit shows, Matanmoreland was warned about using sock puppets about a year and half ago, and quit using the accounts Lastexit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tomstoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by completely and utterly uninvolved Relata Refero
I have looked over one of the disputed articles, Naked short selling, for the first time a short while ago. My comments are detailed at the bottom of Talk:Naked short selling. There is little doubt in my mind that useful information has been kept out of the article and that a skew has been introduced towards journalistic references; a perusal of the talk page - without even any extensive digging through the archives - suggests that one or more of the accounts being investigated were involved in this. Given that, I submit that any claim that the quality and neutrality of the project has not suffered as a consequence of any (as yet unestablished) collusion, false consensus or CoI should be viewed as incorrect. Relata refero (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- Recused. Thatcher 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)
- Accept and address in an expedited manner. I have the firm expectation that all participants will maintain civility and decorum throughout the arbitration process and elsewhere. Reasonable efforts should be made to maintain transparency through appropriate discussion on-wiki, but as in any case, sensitive evidence involving matters such as the real-life identities of editors or allegations of off-site harassment may be addressed via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. "Drama" for its own sake is to be rigorously avoided. I would ordinarily withhold my vote until the responding party presented his statement, but in this instance I believe that his statement on the RfC amply sets forth his position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept per Newyorkbrad's comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The case was framed and accepted by Newyorkbrad and myself to look at the status of two accounts. I see no reason that I can not do that impartially. I have no special relationship with either Bagley or Weiss, and decisions to ban one or both are based on our policies. Aspects of the Bagley-Weiss dispute has been discussed internally by the Committee for over a year. Fresh eyes of the new Committee members are welcome but I do not think that after they familiarize themselves with the situation, that the past Committee's actions will be challenged or changed. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept, likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I expressed my opinion on the RFC (on largely procedural grounds), but will evaluate this case on the merits without prejudice. Arbitrators are allowed to have opinions on cases before them, and this has not historically been reason to recuse. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept; there is really no alternative. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and in the real world, one has to acknowledge some situations are more charged than others. The community has (it seems) done a fair job of handling this case well on this occasion by collating and carefully discussing evidence, then deciding what to do with it, and seeking help rather than open dispute. Ordinarily I'd agree with user:GRBerry 100%, but in this case the community has taken it to evidence, gained strong consensus -- and having done so, turned to arbcom saying that they feel they may have trouble if any admin tried to enforce a decision, due to past problems and "history". That's a fair call. Not ideal, but it happens, and I'm prepared to accept the communal view is this is the rare case where it may be so. Kudos to all, on each side, for that responsible decision, and gladly accepted to help resolve this. Undecided at present whether to accept only for purposes of sanity checking the conclusion, or also to decide remedies, or to look at other issues, or other scope. Note also, like Morven and others, I have looked into this case in the last 24 hours - see disclosure. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Recuse. Kirill 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept, though given the complexity of the evidence, and the significance of the evidentiary issues at play here, an expedited approach may not be feasible. --bainer (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
JzG
Initiated by John254 at 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
- JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
*Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[4] (placed on user talk subpage at editor's request), [5]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
JzG's threat has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NPA. This matter is sufficiently pressing, and the misconduct by JzG so severe, that I contend direct review of this matter by the Committee is warranted.
Statement by John254
JzG recently made an implicit threat of violence against Allstarecho. This matter was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NPA, in which an administrator, DGG, offered the following assessment of the comment:
Guy's language,regardless of what preceded it, was totally inexcusable -- it could be seen as a physical threat. Any other editor would have already been blocked for it. I am quite prepared to block for the length of time appropriate to physical threats if there is any support for it.[6]
However, as JzG currently has sysop privileges, I believe that the placement of an indefinite or long-term block on his account might be ineffective and/or result in a significant disruption, and that the matter should instead be considered by this committee. Although the subject of JzG's threat, Allstarecho, stated that
I did see it as a veiled threat but between him and George ganging up on me, I decided to move on from it. When I pointed out the PA, I got threatened with block by George but Guy got a "Please tone it down a bit" by George. No need to keep this going with any blocks of Guy...[7]
this request is not dispositive, as the purpose of sanctioning JzG would not be to punish him for the current threat, but rather to prevent him from making additional threats in the future -- and there's every reason to believe that the next editor who JzG threatens may simply leave Wikipedia in fear, instead of responding with the courage and composure shown by Allstarecho. Other recent conduct of concern by JzG includes his direction of crude and vulgar language against his fellow administrators [8] [9], wheel-warring over the blocking of Fairchoice, and his indiscriminate blocking of every editor who had edited Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and had a low edit count. (JzG personally nominated this article for deletion two days earlier) The most important issue here, however, is JzG's use of a physical threat, which would be completely unacceptable conduct for any editor, much less one entrusted with sysop privileges. John254 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Response to statement by Ryan Postlethwaite -- if JzG hadn't made a physical threat of this nature, then perhaps Ryan would be right, and this request would be premature (though, of course, other editors have attempted, without success, to resolve the previous issues with JzG). However, threats of this nature are usually subject to immediate sanction, not asking nicely for the offending user to stop. Because JzG is an administrator, the form of the response is necessary different -- he can't simply be blocked -- but identical in substantive effect. John254 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- To further respond to Ryan Postlethwaite's comment, Giano II was also a user who made many extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia -- yet he was recently placed on civility parole, on the basis of a request for arbitration that I filed, because the incivility and disruption he engaged in was considered to be unacceptable for anyone. If I weren't willing to seek sanctions against JzG for making a physical threat, while Giano II was sanctioned for mere incivility, well, would that be fair of me? John254 02:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
This is premature to say the least. Many users and admins believe JzGs actions have been beneficial to the encyclopedia even when some disagree with him. He does a lot of work that is bound to give him a few enemies such as BLP sorting and SPA blocking. Some people disagree with his actions, but many can see that almost all of his admin actions will help the encyclopedia move forward. There's no RfC here, no prior attempts at dispute resolution, except a few AN/I threads which have been extremely divided. I'm a little troubled at this request actually because I see little or no interaction between John and Guy. John - if you have issues with an admin, discuss them on their talk page and if you don't get a response, start an RfC. This isn't the way forward in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Orderinchaos
I think this is premature. JzG is an asset to the encyclopaedia and takes on cases and matters that many of us do not. In my opinion there is nothing for ArbCom to do here, as no policies have been breached and there's no evidence of any prior attempts to resolve any dispute which exists. Orderinchaos 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Jahiegel
The fundamental premise of John's submission—that the community is not well-suited to handle an instance of incivility or threatening (or, even, a pattern of incivility or threatening; the issue of the blocks is one that is only vaguely raised here, and although Guy certainly seems to have acted badly with respect to the ORT, a proceeding about those and other blocks is premature, since the issue remains under active discussion at AN) because the perpetrator thereof is an admin—is, of course, without foundation; it is emphatically the duty and province of the community to act relative to issues like this, and it would be altogether premature for the Committee to involve itself in a situation about which but a few editors have had occasion to offer input (in fact, no one, save John, has expressed that, because of the concerned editor's status as an admin, our usual processes cannot be followed, and I, perhaps naively, am not at all sure that a block would necessarily result in grand drama). It is true, to be sure, that there exist concerns about our blocking an established admin that do not usually present themselves—we must, for instance, consider whether the conduct that is blockworthy is sufficiently egregious as to cause the community to lose trust (even as sysop tools were not misused) and thus to seek desysopping (were the community to consider that question broadly, a return to ArbCom to focus on the narrower issue of a desysopping, and not of whether a block is appropriate, might be in order), and we must, I suppose, consider an editor's contributions as an admin in adjudging whether the net effect on a preventative block might be positive—but the community is quite capable of managing those concerns and ought not to have substituted for its judgment that of the ArbCom. I would, pace Ryan and Order, and even as I recognize that Guy does enjoy the support and trust of many (especially long-standing) editors, suggest that there likely exists by now a consensus that the net effect on the project of Guy's being an admin is plainly negative (that conclusion, I concede, may be tainted by my own holding of that view), but that too is an issue the community ought on its own to consider prior to the initiation of an ArbCom case. Rejection is, surely, properly urged. Joe 03:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Lawrence Cohen
Reject, premature, and could the Committee or Community please make John254 stop escalating all these disputes he's either not involved in, or barely involved in, to filing arbitration? Also, if this was a legitimate threat of violence and not a colorful turn of phrase (please, thats all it was), any admin could simply block Guy for being out of bounds. What is the AC supposed to do here? If people have a problem with Guy's loose tongue (I don't care for it, myself) than open a legitimate RFC with lots of evidence. If he doesn't shape up, and it gets disruptive for the community, come back here. This is the last stop in the DR train, not the first one as John254 often makes it. Lawrence § t/e 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Mackensen
I agree with those who say that this is premature. I don't read a threat of physical violence in JzG's comment; I do see the rhetorical exuberance we would on the whole be better off without. An RfC might be a better idea; this certainly hasn't passed beyond the community's ability to handle. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Avruch
Guy has been catching a lot of flak lately, some of it deserved but most of it overblown. This one, however... It seems like some people are just looking for things to criticize Guy about. I think interpreting his comment linked above to Allstarecho as a physical threat is way beyond reasonable - only if you were searching for a technical basis to begin some sort of proceeding could his comment be interpreted as a physical threat. For what its worth - Guy is obviously in the UK, and Allstarecho is in the middle of the United States. We'd have to assume Guy is quite stupid to infer a physical threat here. There is no basis for an arbitration on this issue, no previous forms of dispute resolution have been attempted recently for any issue involving Guy, and this request for arbitration should be declined. Avruch T 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Kinda Involved Rocksanddirt
After review of some of the previous couple of days threads on JzG, participation at Oxford Round Tables Afd (which is a mess), I understand where John is coming from bringing this request. However, I also feel it is premature or misguided. Allstar is a big boy and knows when to take a threat seriously, he's a bit of one of those a little bit disruptive types who is mostly right (like JzG, and Giano) though without the long productive history to back him up yet. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Dtobias
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander... Since JzG is a strong proponent of the harsh, punitive, "block first, ask questions later... and better not ask questions later either, since that would be stirring up drama and you don't want to be a troll, do you?" school of thought, it would seem to be poetic justice for him to be hoisted by his own petard and blocked himself, and forced to grovel via requests for unblocking like he makes so many others go through. But surely a better proximate cause can be found for this than a "threat" that was clearly not intended literally (though it's certainly uncivil). *Dan T.* (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
His calling another user "obnoxious" below seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. (How many clichés can I use in one set of comments?) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved jd2718
I thought this would certainly be about Oxford Round Table. I have been following the AN/I threads and am absolutely astounded that an admin was that sloppy, that fast, that indiscriminate handing out blocks. There was no OTRS number. Why was he handling it himself? (on activity on an AfD that he had opened). No warnings. And no apologies to the users he should not have blocked. No point to an RfC. You want regular users commenting on an admin who blocks like that? Enough said. Jd2718 (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Allstarecho
I will address some of the statements made above:
- John254: While I appreciate the efforts to bring a rogue admin into line, I did say at ANI: No need to keep this going with any blocks of Guy but I would say that for someone to be in such a high esteemed position as Guy (he made sure to point that out here), he should consider how he talks to people. I had assumed that my ANI statement would have been enough to prompt some discussion between myself, JzG/Guy and others to bring about some sort of peaceful understanding. While I will not go into extended details, I will say that as a result of that exchange with JzG/Guy, not only did I take the incivility from him and the threat of being blocked by Georgewilliamherbert in the same thread while at the same time Georgewilliamherbert only told JzG/Guy to "tone it down a bit", I also took one hell of a beating on IRC. It was almost enough to make me want to close up shop here and give up this hobby. But hey, I'm a big boy and can take care of myself. I look at the 3 F's: Feeding, Fucking and Financing, of which no one on this site is doing and so anyone's personal opinions, including whether they think I am obnoxious or not, mean no more to me than a grain of dirt lieing amongst millions of grains of dirt in my front yard. If you know how to take me, then you do. If you don't, I'm sorry but don't threaten me or talk to me like a child, as was done in this whole fiasco. Aren't we all supposed to be adults here?
- Ryan Postlethwaite: You said, He does a lot of work that is bound to give him a few enemies such as BLP sorting and SPA blocking. I'm no one's enemy, at least not on my own doing. I don't care how bad any argument gets, this is just a hobby and well, I already pointed out the 3 F's above - so I don't have enemies, even if there are some that don't like me. So what? Ya know?
- Orderinchaos: You said, In my opinion there is nothing for ArbCom to do here, as no policies have been breached.. I'd say policies have been breached, starting with civility, and POINT.
- Jahiegel: Agreed.
- Avruch: You said, I think interpreting his comment linked above to Allstarecho as a physical threat is way beyond reasonable - only if you were searching for a technical basis to begin some sort of proceeding could his comment be interpreted as a physical threat. For what its worth - Guy is obviously in the UK, and Allstarecho is in the middle of the United States. As I said at ANI, I did initially see it as a veiled threat. I didn't know where JzG/Guy lived until reading your statement here. Further, it would appear that others that also posted at ANI saw it as some sort of threat as well. I'm not a mind reader and can't say that others are agreeing in this aspect because they have some sort of vendetta against JzG/Guy, but others do agree it was a threat. That threat, coupled with the IRC beating I took.. well, sometimes it's not always water in the desert.
- In closing: I have stricken my name from this Arbcom case. I didn't file it, I didn't request it to be filed, and even stated there was no need in blocks, in my comment on ANI. As far as I was, and am now, concerned, this matter is closed and I will not take any further part in this case. 3 F's. If you aren't doing them for me, it's really not that serious folks. Let's move on and keep this ship afloat.. be it editing, writing, lowering the hammer on vandals, or looking at the limited collection of porn that Wikipedia offers. ;) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by SirFozzie
John has a habit of bringing cases here with no attempts at dispute resolution, no prior steps to work things out. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution, not the last first. John may be heading here because ArbCom has the ability to do what he wants, (get JzG de-adminned).. but that shouldn't be an excuse to avoid moving up the chain normally. SirFozzie (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
I see no threat of potential physical violence in JzG's comments.--MONGO 06:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
There was no threat of violence. Allstarecho was obnoxious, I called him on it. Allstarecho is frequently obnoxious, and was recently blocked for it by Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Must you continue the personal attacks here? I was blocked for incivility, not being obnoxious. You seriously need to learn how to talk to other human beings. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Allstarecho shows in his statement that he recognises there was no actual threat (which there wasn't, obviously). Since that is the supposed basis of this RFAR, no more need be said. I have struck an unhelpful comment I made, with due apologies for perpetuating a rather silly dispute. I don't have much more to say here, and will be busy IRL for the next couple of days. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Per Fayssal's comment below, this [10] may be of interest. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Carcharoth
John 254 mentions the blockings and ANI thread that resulted from the activity at Oxford Round Table and its AfD. As someone who was heavily involved in the ANI thread, my opinion is that the situation there has been resolved by the community. The issues have been discussed, Guy has apologised for two of the blocks, a checkuser has been run, socks have been blocked, the non-socks have been unblocked, and new editors have been welcomed. Others have addressed the other points John254 raised. Carcharoth (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved admin Stifle
Overreactions all around. A 24-hour block would be the absolute maximum penalty warranted for this. JzG knows better and won't do it again, previous dispute resolution hasn't been attempted at all (for reasons already made clear by SirFozzie), and the only reason that there would be any point at all in accepting this would be to declare John254 a vexatious litigant. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Viridae
Was that insutling and a personal attack, yes. Was it a threat of violence, no. Is DR warranted on the wider subject, probobly. Has it happened, no. Big jump of the gun, and I would prefer that the comments he made to me were seen in the correct light. He knows I don't like him and frequently disagree with him and given that his father had just died (I think) he appears to have taken my posting there as an attempt at trolling him (which it wasn't - there is nowhere else to contact him short of email, which I dislike using). Can we excuse that outburst given the highly abnormal stress under which he was editing? ViridaeTalk 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by DuncanHill
In my experience, anyone other than JzG (or possibly a few other admins) would have been jumped on from a great height for this kind of comment. JzG has a very long history of incivility and personal attacks, as anyone who regularly reads AN and ANI will know. He also has a long history of blanking and ignoring (sometimes with abusive edit summaries) attempts on his talk page to discuss his behaviour. These precede his recent bereavement. Fortunately, it is possible for most editors to simply avoid and ignore JzG most of the time. Maybe an RfC would be more appropriate at first, but it would be hard for it to avoid turning into an RfC on the way in which the community (or at least the small part of it which participates at AN/ANI) applies different standards to different editors - something which I actually believe is of more importance than the immediate cause of this ArbCom request. In short - I think JzG displays a history of unacceptable behaviour, and his comments in this case were undoubtedly unacceptable whether or not they are classed as a physical threat, but I have no confidence in the ability of the community to deal with him. DuncanHill (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- My reading of the instructions at "dispute resolution" is that it is primarily for content disputes. This request is about behaviour, not content - is there an appropriate forum to raise concerns about the ongoing behaviour of an admin towards other editors? DuncanHill (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me posting in your section. There's a specific section portion of Wikipedia's Request for Comment section that deals specifically with user/admin conduct. I suggest you go there if you need to continue this. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you - the "dispute resolution" some others have linked to doesn't make that at all clear. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me posting in your section. There's a specific section portion of Wikipedia's Request for Comment section that deals specifically with user/admin conduct. I suggest you go there if you need to continue this. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved admin Coredesat
I looked at the diffs in question; they are certainly incivil, but the reply to Allstarecho was not a threat of physical violence. I don't see any reason why the ArbCom should accept this case at this point, and strongly recommend that the committee reject it. JzG is fairly controversial, and those who disagree with him probably have their own reasons for wanting to bring him before the ArbCom. However, this case is ridiculously premature - other steps in dispute resolution were not tried, and WP:AN/I is not one of those steps. Warn him, but don't bring it to ArbCom until you have actually bothered attempting at least some steps of dispute resolution. Coming here now simply makes it look like you're desperate for reasons to get JzG sanctioned for his methods (per Avruch); everyone is overreacting. --Coredesat 12:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice
Just an FYI for all, Guy and I have settled this matter. See User talk:Allstarecho#Just a hobby. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)
- Reject. The quote is capable of being read many ways, but I usually find myself fairly good at reading between the lines. My reading of this is that it's a comment on how JgZ finds Allstar (on wiki anyhow). He states he finds him "obnoxious" and asks by implication, if the user were that way in real life, that he must get punched in the face often. I see no threat that says "I, JzG, am going to punch you and break your nose".
That said, what I do see is an incivil comment that seeks to make a point about an editor by exaggeration and irony. (See first section of WP:POINT; this is almost the entirety of what POINT is about.) The language is not okay, because whilst it can get through to some, it can also often stir up drama and provocation and hostile feelings in others. So no, its not an appropriate means of speech. It is uncivil, and pointy. That said, a statement that there was one incivility or pointy comment is not sufficient to accept a case. If the case was focussed upon some admin's evidenced habit (say), which the community had strongly sought to address and obtain the same conduct it seeks from others, and had used the processes and tools at its command, and the community had repeatedly found these expectations breached and agreement going nowhere, and felt there was no real way to go except arbitration, that'd be more the point. But that's not what we have here, now. And the rest of the post further evidences its actual intent, to help despite exasperation. There are better ways to word it though that are not pointy and not uncivil..... and the cited phrase isn't one of them. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reject. To accept a case only in anticipation that dispute resolution will fail would be undermining the dispute resolution system, or insulting the participants in the dispute, or both. There are real concerns here but arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first. --bainer (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree this case must be rejected. Per FT2 that is not to say that what went on was satisfactory. JzG must be more careful to keep his comments in line with the code of civility, and make more effort to consider whether his responses are being helpful. Constantly telling an editor that they are obnoxious, even if justified, is not a way to help stop them being incivil in future. The 'calling a spade a spade' approach is deprecated unless done with discretion and politeness. JzG's zealous pursuit of sockpuppets and banned users does not give an exemption from WP:CIVIL. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Decline. Paul August ☎ 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Decline per my colleagues above. I have carefully reviewed the disputed comment by JzG and its context and am satisfied that it was not intended, and cannot reasonably be viewed, as any sort of physical threat. As noted above, this does not mean that the comment was the type of remark that is desirable for administrators or other editors to make on Wikipedia, even when they feel there has been provocation or inappropriate conduct by the person being addressed. Looking at the broader picture, it needs to be said that the project owes JzG substantial thanks for his administrator work on some of our most difficult BLP issues, OTRS tickets, and other problems. JzG's concentration on these areas of administrator work sometimes produces understandable levels of stress and frustration that find expression in choices of words and tones of voice—but it is no reflection on JzG's dedication and hard work to say that his contributions could be even more valuable if he could begin sanding down some of these rougher edges. I have noted a statement on another site that users are gathering diffs for a more detailed arbitration case against JzG, and I hope that through JzG's voluntary discontinuance of any problematic behavior or, if necessary, other forms of dispute resolution, the perceived need for any such case can be avoided. I will add that Allstarecho's statement above also strikes me deficient in the level of decorum that I would prefer to see on the Requests for arbitration page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reject. I have followed the AN and AN/I discussions carefully and consider JzG's comment clearly uncivil but does not amount to a threat of violence. I also consider Allstarecho behavior during their dealing with JzG as well as the last part of their statement above totally unhelpful. JzG should be very careful with the language they use because most people would reject it as being totally inapproriate to use in Wikipedia discussions. Administrators should give a good example to the rest of the community and can do their job efficiently while remaining civil. There are also concerns about using administrative tools against users on an AfD which JzG had started but this is an off-case here. I'd only accept such a case if JzG and Allstarecho's behavior doesn't change. Whether parties engage in a dispute resolution process or avoid dealing with each other- at least provisionally. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Initiated by cfrito (talk) at 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
- cfrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Marvin Shilmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by cfrito
There exists an ongoing and increasingly acrimonious debate over certain content for the NWT article. At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition. The publisher has reported several times since its initial publication that these names are confidential at the behest of the translators themselves, even after their deaths. Two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses of some importance published similar but different lists after they left the JW organization and began a career of anti-writing. Many other anti-writers have perpetuated these lists. There is no documentation other than the representation of these two anti-writers, and what they wrote was from recollections and published in their own memoirs. The apparent relevance to the Article is that critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds. Thus the accuracy of the names as presented is key to being relevant to the Article. There is sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source material since it tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. Editor Marvin_Shilmer has commenced a battle of discrediting me and others editors which sets the stage for increasing acrimony. Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose him. When ultimately my original edits were acknowledged positively by the mediators, Shilmer took credit. I exposed the issue. It should be noted that the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin_Shilmer. I respectfully request that a review of the use these alleged translators' names use in the article be examined along with how they are presented, and also the actions of editor Marvin_Shilmer in dealing with the issues I raised.
Edited to add: I will not spend a lot of time defending matters. I asked for arbitration, not so much for content, but on the unreliably of two underlying primary sources and of Shilmer's tendency to revert edits by others despite being silent when the matters were offered for discussion on the Talk pages. Perhaps this was misplaced. While I still oppose the inclusion of these names on the source reliability issue, I have agreed to a compromise because it seems like it the list be well cautioned. I believe that in an objective review of the matter now under consideration, the common thread will be obvious enough. For the record, Shilmer repeatedly refused to answer any questions about his bias (i.e., his standing as a JW or as an apostate JW) and I took his silence and the other articles written under this pseudonym as his apostasy. He could have, early on, cleared this up with his statement below. He chose to let it take the path it took. Perhaps Jeffro77 can give some testimony into the original repeated intentional antagonistic behavior by Shilmer toward me which set the stage for this steadily increasing acrimony. And Shilmer was a very willing partner in all this too. Shilmer has set a pattern of frustrating discussions and irritating any who question his edits. Shilmer has claimed infallibility. Look into the edit history regarding the matter with Vassili78 and the slurs Shilmer hurled at that editor. Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist. I have not received a single email from anyone suggesting that I have been treating Shilmer unfairly but I have received one thanking me for challenging him. I asked Seddon69 to counsel me privately several times along the way as I felt things were going too far. For my participation, I offer this public apology to all. -- cfrito (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Marvin Shilmer
I am glad this situation will finally reach some formal level. The madness needs to end. The article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a broad subject covering the version’s history, characteristics, criticisms and publishing. At issue is the articles inclusion of names of translators that various sources have put forth. The article has a long history of including this information. Editor Cfrito deleted these names from the article's main text were they have been published for a long time. As a compromise I relegated the information (“the names”) to footnotes in the reference section. I also removed one name entirely because it was unverified by sources. Editor Cfrito rejected this compromise edit and persisted in deleting the information (the names).
The information Cfrito objects to comes from multiple primary and secondary sources. A brief overview of these sources is available on a sandbox page I set up for continuing to work on this article throughout the current dispute. Information about the authors of these sources is available on the same talk page. You will also find on the same page a concise address of specific complaints made by Cfrito on this issue.
My presentation of this information (the names) is to offer it as the word of the men who published the information in the first place. Arbitrators can view how I have presented this information on my NWT sandbox article. Along with this information readers will also see where I present the views of the version’s publisher.
Specifically, Cfrito is wrong when he asserts that the relevance of the disputed information arises because “critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds”. Critics have various reasons for their criticisms on this issue, but chief among these is that when the publisher released the information it expressed that its translators were competent biblical scholars. Critics doubt this claim and have tried to verify it, with a result that the identities and credentials of the version's translators became a point of issue. Notwithstanding their reasons, secondary source on top of secondary source demonstrates that when it comes to this Bible version the issue of who translated it is one of several priority points of criticism.
Cfrito has also asserted on several occasions that information about the names of this version’s translators leaked to the public from only two sources. This claim is unproven by Cfrito, and evidence (particularly from author Tony Wills) disputes it. Arbitrators can read all about this in fairly concise form on my sandbox talk page for this article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add: In view of Seddon69’s comments, I am compelled to state that it seems inappropriate for editors here to interpret Wikipedia policy when the issues relate to basic and explicit features of those policies. It would be inappropriate were I, for example, to make my own preferential interpretation of a Wikipedia policy and then treat that as authoritative for sake of asserting a preferential edit as worthy. If I have done this, I wish someone would point it out because I seek to avoid such behavior. If anything, I make attempts to scrupulously verify that whatever I add or remove from an article is based strictly on sources and/or weight of sources.
Whatever are the policies here (including interpretations) stability comes from editors following those policies. If editors are working under different rules there is unavoidable conflict. It is my opinion in this case that complaints of Cfrito stand in such stark contrast to Wikipedia policy that settling the current dispute is as easy as asking Cfrito to respond to a few basic questions about 1) what should determine information that goes into articles, 2) how that information should be presented in the article and 3) whether to let sources determine weight, value and relevancy. My understanding of policy is that all these are fueled by reliable published sources, and particularly secondary third-party sources. These determine what issues are valuable to a subject, how those issues should be presented and what weight a presentation should carry.
I want to learn and grow in the Wikipedia community, too. Hence please feel free to ask me any question that is deemed essential to settling the current dispute. No one wants this dispute settled more than I. There is work waiting to be done. We grow from test and challenge. Please take no pains to spare any feelings of mine. Where I am wrong I want to know in a straightforward fashion with no need for interpretation.
I see Seddon69 believes incivility of me. This is regrettable, and I want to again apologize for any misimpressions to my credit that leads anyone to think I believe Seddon69 in some way of poor character or otherwise bad. My feeling is that Seddon69 did the best he could. No one can ask more than our best.
Edited to add: In view of Slp1’s comments, I encourage administrators and arbitrators to examine issues of conduct on the part of all editors involved in this dispute. Where I am in need of correction, I want to hear it. This is part of growth for all of us. Of those quotations made by SlP1, they are all of my comments. I recommend each of them find examination in the context of the entire exchange with the parties involved. You will find these exchanges here, here, here, here and here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add: If arbitrators are going to address editor conduct rather than how Wikipedia policy addresses the issue of dispute (not content but how to arrive at content), then everyone’s editing conduct deserves scrutiny, and not just mine. Editor Cfrito has complained I have battled to discredit him. He has accused me of incivility. Remarkably, editor Slp1 alludes to issues of editor conduct, and then offers references only to edits of mine. Below I am providing a short list of what I have been exposed to by editor Cfrito in the way of conduct:
Cfrito has called me rabidly anti-JW, childish, a total moron, misleading, bamboozler, a fake, a quack, a despot, an virulent anti-writer of JW's.
Cfrito has accused me of lying, playing word games, lying again, lack of personal integrity, pretending to be neutral, personal agenda, cheap theatrics, game-playing, axe grinding, using loaded language, grandstanding, playing word games, plug books of friends, twisting words, plugging my own books, presenting a side show, shameless personal bias, raking up muck
Cfrito has invited me to seek professional psychiatric help. He has suggested I am not well enough to be an Editor. He has said I have bipolar phrasing as a constant editorial companion.
Cfrito has dared to assign a religious disposition to me by calling me a former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion not just once but twice. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I have not complained once about any of the above, until now. Now, because it looks like arbitrators may make conduct their concern rather than the cause of the editing dispute (how to arrive at content and not content itself) I am pointing out the above behavior. I have not complained about the forgoing language from Cfrito because none of it has any adverse effect worthy of my concern. However, I have complained about Cfrito’s repeated accusations that I am a plagiarist. He has done this not just once, but a second and a third time. This latter accusation has potential to ruin a reputation; hence why I complained. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add: Cfrito alludes to remarks of mine of a particular edit by Vassilis78. Cfrito states, “Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist.”
I am in academia. In my world plagiarism is a very serious thing. Very serious! But there is something worse. When someone intentionally writes and publishes something they know to be false, yet asserts it as true, this is worse than plagiarism. This is what Vassilis78 did. I am not referring to banter on a talk page. I am talking about an edit Vassilis78 made to an article. Specifically, when there was an issue of a person’s educational credentials, Vassilis78 inserted into the article: “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.” Vassilis78 knew when he inserted his sentence that it was false, yet he placed it into the article anyway. Arbitrators can view the episode where this edit was discussed here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Seddon69
As the (attempted) mediator of this case i would like to make sure that the two parties understand that the Arbitration committee do not decide on content. If this case is to be accepted the content of your edits/wishes is not at judgment at this level it is your actions.
Regarding this, incivility has occurred by both parties, for example here by Marvin Shilmer, and here by Cfitro. There are more instances. The two were engaged in a prolonged edit war before the page was first locked.
At this moment in time, discussions are occurring at the Administrators Notice board for Incidents, Editor Assistance, my own talk page, the Article talk page, User Sand box talk pages, the Mediation talk page, the article talk page, and an RfC. None in these have resulted in a resolution of this matter yet. The two users have different ways of interpreting wikipedia policy and when in regards to such a controversial topic like the New World Translation, a longer term solution perhaps needs to be looked at.
Statement by mostly uninvolved Slp1
While the arbitration request has been framed for the most part as a content dispute, as such is likely outside the purview of this committee, I do believe that there are clear issues of user conduct here, as alluded to by the valiant Seddon69 who has been attempting mediation. The topic first came to my attention at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard along with User:Marvin Shilmer's incivility and failure to assume good faith. Multiple uninvolved editors who attempted to provide advice and opinions were commented upon: the following are just some sample edits from that board. I have not looked further, though note that Seddon69 mentions other examples, on other pages.
- To Vassilis78 "I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?"
- To Donald Albury : Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.
- To EdJohnston : This omission is sure intentional; so why? If you find this a fulfilling endeavor then why not offer response to precise questions asked with a corresponding level of precision?
- To Slp1 :if this does not communicate the relevancy of the question I presented you with just above, then you are not equipped to offer an answer to it.
- To J Readings : Your response here leads me to believe that ... you have not taken time to make that opinion fit what I have actually written here. Which makes me wonder, why are you writing what you write?
An unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, as several editors have expressed in various fora.[11][12] [13], Whether the extent of the problem needs Arb Com intervention is another issue, however.
Addendum: Marvin Shilmer complains that, “remarkably”, I listed only Shilmer’s edits as being uncivil/failing to assume good faith. As stated above, I limited my evidence to posts to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Since Cfrito has never posted to the RSN board, the omission of his/her edits is not so remarkable after all. Unfortunately, Shilmer’s comment about the issue provides a further (fairly minor) example of his tendency to see bad faith in the edits of other editors, and, what is worse, to allow his assumptions to influence his editing. On the other hand, I appreciate his presentation of evidence of apparent conduct unbecoming by Cfrito, which will no doubt be helpful to the arbitrators in making their decisions.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2)
- Accept to look at editor conduct not make a content decision. This may be slightly premature but I feel we can help here. I encourage the RFC and other discussion to continue with more users giving input based on our content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Recuse. The proper translation of scripture and the activities of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are both areas where I have strong views. The matter is, therefore, best left to others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept. This may be a borderline case (I've certainly seen worse incivility than that cited here) but there does look to be a longrunning problem with user misbehaviour. Per Flonight, let the RFC continue, because this may help resolve content disputes while we tidy up the user situation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Accept. Concur with Sam Blacketer, it's "borderline" and "seen worse". This case has run on enough to show that normal approaches are not (yet) resolving it and reasonable attempts have been made to do so prior to seeking arbitration. Judging by the discussion, the content issue should be resolvable; it's probably not excessively difficult to construct a neutral statement respecting all significant views. Unfortunately there seem to be persistent issues impeding consensus, even though both parties may have "good points". Accept to look at the conduct of all parties, but without necessarily assuming bad faith on any part. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hold for a few days to see if any additional progress can be made via mediation or other dispute resolution methods. Although there have been few posts in the last couple of days, I gather some discussion elsewhere is still continuing, and it might be in the best interests of both editors to make a final effort to resolve the dispute amicably before entering into the arbitration process with results that could prove unsatisfactory to one or both of them. If and when the parties advise that other dispute resolution has failed, I would lean toward acceptance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wait and see as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarifications and other requests
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation
General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by HouseBlasterThe Manual of Style and Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP. The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary WritSplitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcanI would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes
Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads
Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Just Step Sideways
Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.
(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)
- In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.
- In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.
- I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.
I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.
I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.
I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but
there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread.
seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks likeNo need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.
aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how many times I need to explain that collective guilt is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying
Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere.
is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying
- I don't know how many times I need to explain that collective guilt is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but
Statement by Tryptofish
I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Joe Roe
I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?
In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether
profiles on external sites
, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[14][15] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC) - @Moneytrees and Barkeep49: The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in WP:EMAILPOST, albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has already been published on the internet. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.
- @CaptainEek: What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?
- And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ferret
I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, user:Thrydwulf is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: Oversight did not ignore you. Primefac replied to you (Arbs and OSers it was ticket #2024060810000607) explaining that they saw no outing issues and thus nothing for the OS team to do because the editor concerned has made an on-wiki connection between WO and WP. Based on what you've written here it seems that the reason for your request was misunderstood, but you should have replied noting that. As far as the oversight team was aware you were OK with the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by hako
I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing
I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat.
What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. — hako9 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Jclemens
CaptainEek Statements like there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread
are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.) Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision.
CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.
(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)
So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their wikipediocracy hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by JPxG
While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:
- There is some RfC onwiki about whatever subject.
- Somebody (whether an editor here or not) makes a thread on WPO called "Giant Morons Trying To Ruin Everything By Voting For Option 2".
- Nobody can bring up the existence of this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
- For some mysterious reason that nobody could possibly fathom, the RfC has 500% more participation than usual, and is uncharacteristically nasty.
- We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.
Here is another example:
- Someone on WPO makes a thread gratuitously insulting a Wikipedia user, in which all sorts of unbelievably nasty things are said about them, possibly under their real name.
- Nobody can mention or link to this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
- Someone says: "Uh, well, nobody has any evidence that WPO ever did anything wrong, you know it's just a myth".
- We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.
Another:
- Somebody signs up for a WPO account to respond to a thread about them, or to correct a misunderstanding, or something along these lines, and their posts are 100% anodyne and unobjectionable.
- Nobody can link to the posts, or mention what they actually said, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
- Someone says: "Uh, well, I could NEVER trust someone who hangs out on WPO, you know they dox people there".
- We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.
Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.
Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure if there's any way for me to mention this site and avoid the inevitable dual-front pissing and moaning where somebody on here accuses me of being pro-WPO and threatens to drag me to whatever, while simultaneously somebody on WPO accuses me of being anti-WPO while posting a thread under my real name in the public section of the forum and also claims that it's not doxing because if you spend a half-hour digging through my contributions you can see that my username was originally my real name -- well, whatever man, can I at least get a T-shirt? jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- While we are on the subject, the idea that single-sentence quotations of offsite communications need to be removed as copyright violations is just completely false as far as I can tell -- there is literally no other part of Wikipedia where we make the ridiculous claim that quoting with attribution one sentence from a published work is a copyvio. It's one thing if we want to have a rule against it, but it would be better to do so without unnecessarily lying about how copyright law works, and if we actually do this in policy anywhere it should really be fixed for the sake of avoiding embarrassment. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: If it's possible to clarify that we are allowed to discuss offsite happenings, I think this would be a big improvement. Currently, if I link to a Wikipediocracy thread, I do so by ignoring what people have told me the rules are; the examples I give are meant as a rejoinder to "there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread".
- @Just Step Sideways: I think this thing about "collective punishment" doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- I agree that it would be dumb to block somebody simply because they hang out on the daily with a strange stalker online, and you clearly do not exert control over the dox guy. At the same time, though, isn't it kind of straightforward why people would dislike when you show up to a thread on WPO where someone is being harassed, and then make posts in the thread to say negative things about them? jp×g🗯️ 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: So your preference is, when a discussion is canvassed from an external site, that we are forbidden to mention or acknowledge it? jp×g🗯️ 17:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Valjean
As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:
- "I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites,.."
Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.
Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to @Levivich:, @Vanamonde93:, and @JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite
Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jclemens - >>While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. — This pretty much gets to the heart of things. It's a criticism site, by definition. If one is above criticism or if one never makes mistakes or if one believes that Wikipedia is flawless and problemless — back off, stay away, there is nothing to see because you have nothing to learn. If you want to partake of slightly-filtered criticism, to have issues raised in an aggressive manner under a spotlight, venture forth if you desire. At its best, WPO is to Wikipedia as Sixty Minutes is to government agencies. The mission is not "to out and harass." Carrite (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich - Do not necessarily conclude that the lack of publicly-viewable criticism of a WPO poster's material means there is nothing happening backstage. WPO has a Direct Messages system and there are behavioral requests made there periodically which will never show up in a thread. Don't make the mistake of calling out inaction until you know there was actually no action. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Mangoe
We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Lightburst
Recently an administrator in an AfD linked to WPO as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned.
The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: Are there other ways to report or deal with canvassing? I am likely in the minority based on the inaction of all. It seems this discussion is about linking to off-wiki, and the collective yawn from those in positions of power might give you your answer. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Thanks for the message. I see a few messages in my junk mail. After reading them, the fact remains: all concerned did nothing to remove the link. The link to off-wiki PAs is still there in the AfD. This seems like a work around for leveling PAs, i.e. join WPO, disparage a Wikipedia editor and then link to it on Wikipedia. I am definitely not OK with linking to off-wiki sites like WPO. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf the wording about other projects is found in note 1 of the harassment policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: your 3 situations confuse me. At the moment I'm not aware of anyone taking administrative action against scenario 1. Am I wrong here? For situation 2, it feels like whether or not
"possibly under their real name"
happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)- JPxG, thanks that's helpful in explaining things. No arb - not even CaptainEek who has spoken out the most strongly against WPO - is saying you can't ever link (let along mention) WPO and we both know WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal. However, if a link reasonably serves to harass someone the link would be inappropriate and writing a comment that includes such a link could be a conduct issue (depending on other factors). If the link reasonably serves to doxx someone (which is one form of harassment), it would make the comment with the link eligible for overisghting. The odds are higher that a link to WPO is a form of harassment than a link to say reddit (as another forum based community), but even that doesn't mean linking to most threads at WPO would be harassment. Most threads at WPO not having harassment also doesn't mean that a link couldn't have been harmless when posted, but turns into harassment (though no fault of the person posting) after the fact because there is subsequently outing that could reasonably be found by clicking on the link. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do think this is something that the community as a whole needs to address, as these effect fundamental policies. If there are aspects that only ArbCom can address then we should do so, but the broad discussion is something the community should shape and change as needed. @Just Step Sideways: emailing ArbCom and saying that you did so on Wikipedia should not in and of itself carry any weight whatsoever, and doing this should not protect that editor from the consequences of their actions on Wikipedia or negate their responsibilities as an editor (WP:CIVILITY, WP:OUTING, etc.). @Joe Roe: there is a userbox disclosing the fact that I am on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I am also on a few English Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Outside of that, I do not and to the best of my knowledge have never posted on any Wikipedia-focused off-wiki forum or made any comments about Wikipedia on any off-wiki forum. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @Joe that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and WP:EMAILPOST doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the classic adage about wrestling with pigs applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea that
Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided
. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) - To extend on that idea and reply in part to Joe, I understand that this has been brought forward as a line drawing exercise. The community wants to know how close to the line it can get on linking this kind of stuff. My suggestion is that's the wrong inquiry. I go out of my way to avoid having to discuss WPO, because I find it a problematic and unhelpful site and think that referencing it feeds the trolls. If you don't share my opinion, than I understand how you might find my advice not helpful at resolving the underlying issue here. I stand by my aversion to WPO though; one of the best pieces of advice I have received was to never get a WPO account (and to any newer editors reading, please, avoid WPO. It will only do you harm). To reply to JSS, I have read WPO threads; it's an unpleasant experience. One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. Still, having to read WPO threads is an occasional part of Arb business. Thus I stand by my blocked trolls comment, the power posters at WPO include a lot of our nastiest trolls. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- In furtherance of the line drawing exercise, I suggest that perhaps ArbCom isn't the one to answer that question. I think the issue is that the recent RfA reforms and our harassment/doxxing policy are slightly at odds. The community has expressed a very strong desire to not have doxxing material on-wiki. But it has also expressed it wants detailed reasonings for oppose votes at RfA. Those two aspects have come into conflict with one another, and absent further input from the community, we are continuing to lean on the side of caution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea that
- I appreciate the feedback and discussion among the community (and arbs) so far. I am inclined to say that the community will need to reconcile its wishes. In particular it's up to the community to decide how it wants to reconcile OUTING and the new expectations at RfA and whether or not it wants to review past decisions about DISCORD/IRC/EMAIL (Joe Roe rightly points out that some of this sprung from arbcom interpretations, but as I think it has been adopted and expanded by the community it's not for ArbCom to say one way or another anymore as that would be a policy change). As it stands I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis when it comes to RfA:
we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA
. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: India-Pakistan
Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Contentious topic designation
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Contentious topic designation
- Adding the 500/30 rule specifically to the India military regiments topic area (defined as List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army and any page that is or could potentially be listed there)
Statement by Jéské Couriano
Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.
- @Guerillero: The community has been playing whac-a-mole and finding both older accounts and created-in-the-past-12-hours accounts on a daily basis, which get listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT on discovery. The drafts as I said are easily dealt with, but there's little the community can really do to stop the article editing other than roll dice on protection (which will likely be ECP, due to the age and habits of several of these accounts) as the accounts appear to be under orders to violate WP:OWN and there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit. All we know is it's going to be about an Indian military regiment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith (ARBIPA)
It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic
rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
India-Pakistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Has the community gotten a chance to resolve this issue? If not, I am inclined to deny the request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that 500/30 is the right response to this disruption. However, IPA along with PIA and EE are topics where I don't really expect much community attempts at resolution prior to arbcom given the nature of those disputes on and off wiki. So I am open to doing something here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I know we generally protect pages as a result of disruption and not pre-emptively, I think the argument could be made that because of past disruption at related pages, it is not unreasonable to extend that protection to a class of article (in this case Indian military articles). In other words, would ECP across all of the related pages solve this issue? WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would solve the issue because the edits/editors are already being reverted on-sight, and it is really meant more to restrict all editing to those who have been around for a while. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Primefac with questioning the efficacy of this proposed solution. Jéské Couriano's assessment that
there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit
means that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions
Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by EggRoll97
Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice
, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.
Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.
- ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.
Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion
- My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me,
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) - The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- EggRoll97, I think adding
{{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}}
as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related toXYZ
would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
Adding{{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}}
as an edit notice to pages related toXYZ
closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
There's an exception though: I wouldn't add{{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}}
to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- EggRoll97, I think adding