Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Clarification request: ARBMAC (May 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Nobody in particular

Statement by Nyttend

Looks like this page isn't exactly for the kind of clarification I need, but I couldn't find a better place to go. Is WP:ARBMAC meant to cover Serbo-Croatian issues too? I've stumbled into a long-simmering dispute related to their language, so I thought of Arbmac, but the remedy #3 makes me unsure (I don't want to find that someone says that it's inapplicable because Croatia is too far north to be in the Balkans, for example), and the talk page shows that at least one user has asked whether Arbmac should be applicable. I'd just appreciate (1a) a statement by the Committee saying that yes, this is definitely included, (1b) a statement by the Committee saying that no, we didn't mean to include it, (2a) examples of arbitration enforcement being applied to Serbo-Croatian issues on ARBMAC grounds, or (2b) examples of Serbo-Croatian requests being denied because ARBMAC doesn't apply to them. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

Serbia and Croatia are both definitely in the Balkans, so ARBMAC should apply. Additionally, I notice that the log of ARBMAC-related warnings includes several warnings related to Croatia, and a couple related to language differences between Serbia and Croatia. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to look in the log at the bottom. Thanks; this is just what I needed. How do we close this request for clarification? Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help. We probably need to let an Arbcom clerk close the discussion -- I'm afraid I might break something in Arbcom space. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Glad that this was all sorted. Archiving is not too hard; you just move it to the talk page of the relevant case. I'll take care of it for you guys. NW (Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal (May 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by MastCell ^Talk at 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([1])
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([2])
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([3])
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([4])
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([5])

(The list of affected users is simply a list of those who commented in the bottom subthread of this discussion. I've also posted a general note in that thread notifying readers of this request).

Statement by MastCell

In the TimidGuy ban appeal case, Will Beback (talk · contribs) was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. In March 2013, Will stated on his talk page that he had appealed the ban to ArbCom, and that his appeal had been rejected ([6]).

Pursuant to this lengthy but inconclusive discussion, I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal). Failing that, I am requesting a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released.

I am not requesting the release of any privacy-sensitive information, although of course individual Arbitrators are free to comment on their reasoning if they choose. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, I am not asking for the release of any internal deliberations. A simple "yes", "no", or "no comment" next to each Arb's name would suffice. If such a process didn't take place, then perhaps a one-word summary of each Arb's position is not too much ask. Failing that, perhaps you could explain why this information needs to remain secret. Finally, while I understand that you believe a vote tally "serves no purpose", a number of editors in good standing have requested the information as a matter of accountability, and clearly believe that it serves that purpose. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

I am unaware of any precedent for such a request having any effect on ArbCom, and suggest that iteration of the same points is unlikely to have different results from the request made a short time back. While I am in favour of following "process" I find multiple requests are unlikely to result in much at all, other than many hours and many thousands of characters of discussion leading nowhere. I see no procedural, policy, or guideline basis for demanding vote tallies. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Jmh: We ask questions about policy views of the candidates - see my ACE2012 page if you do not understand how the process works -- from answers we get, we can determine the philosophy of the candidates. Voting on the basis of political positions on any specific given case is going to be a remarkably bad way to make such decisions indeed. Collect (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@WG -- this page is not about me, though you seem to think ad hom asides mean anything. For the record, WBB and I intersect on about 4% of all articles I have worked on ... many of which do not have us editing anywhere near the same time. I have never kept any "enemies list" at any point, and for you to suggest that I have impure reasons for saying that ArbCom has no precedent for this sort of action is asinine. And, in fact, ought to be removed as having nothing at all to do with the requests being presented. Collect (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

Will Beback's ban occurred in public (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision#Will_Beback:_remedies for the vote tally) largely as a result of public evidence, presented above the decision. We know the original story. Even if we don't know what Will's emails to Jimbo looked like, ArbCom unanimously affirmed that Will Beback emailed Jimbo with allegations, and so on. It is unclear why the ban appeal needs to have special treatment such that even the vote tally needs to be kept secret. The denied appeal was never revealed to the community and no official statement was made; Will Beback said he also did not receive an explanation in its rejection. Will Beback apologized at length at his talkpage after the appeal denial (we don't know what his communications looked like, but he has said "I would be happy for any of my statements to the ArbCom to be made public"). Regardless of the result of this request, I intend to edit the policy and open a RfC on the change (I'll hold off so we don't have too many pots on the fire). There is, incidentally, precedent for revealing votes when the appeal is successful (such as Russavia's unblock appeal tally currently at WT:BASC).

On a larger issue, the purpose behind this goes back to Churchill's quote (now a cliche) that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" (called the Churchill Hypothesis in academic literature). ArbCom members have expressed concern about politicizing, and I understand that there is some purpose to being more deliberative than an angry mob. However, ArbCom is elected, and we need to know the votes to hold them accountable for their positions.

On a further note, this position of not allowing Will to have a second chance, or even a hint of a public hearing, is plain discouraging to other long-term editors as it suggests a basic lack of fairness and respect for those who have dedicated many hours into improving this encyclopedia. I should also note that I proposed a compromise: a revote, in public, with no requirement to repeat the prior vote. II | (t - c) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Arbitration policy: Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. (emphasis mine) While I agree the "working notes" of committee should remain private, a consensus summary statement and vote tallies doesn't seem unreasonable per committee policy. Did the committee make any public announcement? I've reviewed the Timid Guy case and AC/N and am not seeing any. NE Ent 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. The scope of the committee does not extend to redefining commonly used English words. It should either follow the policy as written or change the policy to follow practice. The former is preferrable per the research quoted in last October's signpost

ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

NE Ent 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Statement by IRWolfie-

@Roger Davies, as II has pointed out, Arbcom already releases tallies. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio Are you suggesting that a clarification about a decision made by arbcom related to a case should not be done here? Are you suggesting that this appeal is not a decision related to a case? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad I am sure they did vote in good faith, which is why I don't understand why other arbs are declining this measure. The alternative is, that Arbs who have declined to comment will be asked for clarification at the next election in the questions; the tin will be kicked down the road but for no apparent reason that I can discern. It isn't as though people are going to start waving pitchforks at the arbs. The justification that tallies can't be given because it violates a sacred trust or some such just doesn't appear to add up, particularly considering that other tallies have been released. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a partial tally could be released, with those refusing to release their position noted as such? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• How many sitting arbs actually voted? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Fuchs; perhaps instead of supporting a release, you could just clarify which way you voted? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I support the request that the vote tally be released. If the candidates stand for election again, there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue alone, so we need the information to be an informed electorate.

I would like to add an additional request, namely that the committee agree to re-hear an appeal from Will now in public. I understand from the BASC page that once an appeal is decided, the committee "will not revisit it earlier than six months except at the request of a sitting arbitrator." I'm therefore asking that one sitting arbitrator agree to ask the committee to hear Will's appeal again now, given that the circumstances of his first appeal have caused concern.

Roger suggested below that Will do this, but as he can't edit he's not able to request it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I know nought about TimidGuy or Will Beback and why they were banned. However, on the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for the vote on the appeal. Straw poll or formal vote, one hopes that the process was clear enough to make this information readily available. To RogerDavis's point below, it appears that all that is requested is a tally of votes, not for the release of information "lock, stock and barrel". --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Request for public rehearing

I have made public and private apologies for my past behavior,[7][8][9] and committed to not repeating the same mistakes. Despite that, my appeal was denied without explanation or indication of how the committee voted. Since then I have seen various, sometimes conflicting reasons for the denial, or the initial ban, and unclear statements as to whether or not the committee even voted on my appeal. For those reasons, I am requesting a public rehearing of my appeal to my ban which resulted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. This is per the invitation of Roger Davies.[10]   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Posted here by Will. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jmh649

A number of people have commented that if we do not like the decisions made by arbcom we should vote in different arbcom members. The implication seems to be that the only input we should get is that of voting every couple of years. But how to vote when decisions and positions are held in secret? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

While most arbitrators have commented. It is unclear how many of them weighted in on this specific case. For those who are clear and commented many thanks. I am trying to tabulate the positions here [11] If i get any of them wrong feel free to correct me / add to the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

My Summary:

• Carchroth's final comment at the WBB Arb Ban Appeal was: "the best way to get a formal response from the full committee, if not satisfied with what is said here, is indeed to post at WP:ARCA.”
• So MastCell filed this ARCA case saying: “I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal)”. It seems to me that through simple addition, the purpose of this case has been achieved:

1. Risker stated at the WBB pseudo RfC: “For the record, I did not vote on Will Beback's unban request, and I opposed banning him in the original case.”
2. At the WBB Ban Appeals case AGK, Silk Tork, Carchroth, Roger Davies and Nuclear Warfare all made their views clear.
3. And here at this WBB ARCA case NewYorkBrad, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano and David Fuchs have added their views.
4. Worm That Turned is currently listed as an inactive Arb.
5. So that leaves only two arbs that have not yet self-released their “vote”: Courcelles and Kirill Lokshin. Those that feel a strong need to hear from Courcelles or Kirill Lokshin on this matter may approach them on their user talk pages and pursue their statements in that way.

With this in mind it would appear that the WBB ban appeal issue, which has been pursued in five separate venues, involving more than 100 editors, Admins and Arbitrators, has run its course. (Note: The five venues are: WBB's private request via email, WBB's talk page, WBB's psudeo RfC in Doc James' sandbox, Arb Ban Appeals and here.)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

I note Collect's procedural/policy/guideline-based opposition; and note also the history of his interactions with WB at article talk pages, where WB clearly does not suffer Collect's debating—or editing—tactics gladly. (The discussion here is representative, e.g. where WB comments: Collect, you haven't even bothered to respond to two different compromise offers. You haven't explained how you decided to chose the items on the list. You've brushed aside my policy-based concerns and falsely accused me of objecting to the material based purely on not liking it. And you've engaged in edit warring to keep your preferred version in the article. That is not good editing behavior. [. . .] As for the assertion of a "clear consensus", I don't know if that's intended to be humorous. It's so absurd that I have to take it as a joke. If there were a consensus there would not be this long thread and the award section would not be the subject of edit warring.) Nevertheless, precedent or no, the Arbs are perfectly capable of responding to this request, and it's important they do so, not least because, as SlimVirgin has said, when Arbs stand for reelection there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue. This main narrative thread so far is one of evasion and obfuscation. It's time for full accountability and clarity. Where there's a will there's a way. Writegeist (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Heim

Apparently this committee no longer believes in accountability or transparency. Your reasoning basically comes down to "we don't want to release this information; we get to keep secrets". Fine. People here who rightly think we ought to have access to this info for our voting purposes: instead, vote out these politickers who are obstructing transparency. Though frankly, if they had any decency as Wikipedians, they'd either quit obstructing or resign from this joke of a committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So this was a straw poll, not a formal vote? I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this for such a significant matter as the unbanning or not of a long-term contributor banned on fairly serious grounds. I do thank those arbs who have revealed their own actions on this issue, but I still find this tendency not to make it easy to know what's going on behind the scenes to be unnecessarily secretive and obfuscatory. I would really like to see a more transparent committee that clearly descends from its crystal fortress to tell us what it's doing more often. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK, I'm afraid "forthcoming" is not how I would describe this committee's approach to this particular issue at all. I'm not targetting you, as you've been clear enough on yours, but it's certainly taken a while for all this information to come out. I'm hardly the only one here saying that the committee's transparency here's been suboptimal, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Momento

Agree with SilkTork. If the "discussion was held on the understanding that it was held in camera" then the Arbs should keep it in camera unless there is unanimous agreement by everybody who contributed to the discussion to change that understanding. That surely satisfies MastCell's request for "a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released". MOMENTO 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Re: Heim, "I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this [a straw poll rather than a formal vote] for such a significant matter". My understanding is that the straw poll was just to establish the current state of play - i.e. whether there was sufficient in principle support for allowing TimidGuy WillBeBack back with conditions to make it worthwhile working out what those conditions would be. If there had been sufficient support then those conditions would be developed and then a formal vote held to determine whether to accept him back if he agreed to the conditions. However as there was no such support nobody thought it worth wasting their and their colleagues time in proceeding further. It is analogous to the way the British House of Commons (and presumably similar legislative bodies) work - the proposal is put to members by the speaker for an auditory straw poll, only if there is not a clear majority for or against will a formal vote be held. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thinko error above corrected (s/TimidGuy/WillBeBack/). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Kurtis

There is obviously something more to this story than the Arbitration Committee is willing to tell us, and I imagine it must involve some very private information which likely pertains to someone's real life identity, or could otherwise cause serious harm if revealed to the public. That is the only conceivable justification I can think of for this complete lack of transparency.

Even though it's referred to as a social construct, a ban is a preventative measure. It is only applied when someone's contributions are detrimental to the well being of Wikipedia's integrity, whether through long-term disruptive editing or the endangerment of other contributors (among other possible reasons). What harm could possibly be done by allowing Will Beback to return? He's been banned for a year, and everyone knows what he did. We are all aware of Will's Machiavellian attempt to get his adversaries blocked. He'll never see the light of adminship again. But what threat is he to anyone now? Does he really have any sway? After being gone for a whole year, I doubt very highly that Will would do the same things that got him into this mess in the first place, even if his apology strikes some people as insincere (I personally think he meant what he said).

This ban serves no purpose at this point. Justice has been served. Whether Will remains unrepentant or unapologetic for his actions is his prerogative. Community consensus is not against his return; if you look through the opposes at Jmh649's recent RfC, you'll notice that most of them are merely against tarnishing the legitimacy of Wikipedia's most powerful dispute resolution process by overturning one of its rulings in such an ad hoc manner, yet they say virtually nothing about the merits of the case itself. Meanwhile, the majority voiced support for lifting the site ban. Waiting six more months before allowing another appeal smacks of process for process's sake, which is one of the most dangerous precedents we could set. If nothing else, it will seriously harm editor retention. Who wants to be part of a community where the rules are more important than the people they're applied to?

Finally, I'm not a fan of how cryptic ArbCom is about this case. It's one thing to withhold confidential information from the public, but it is something else entirely for the committee to give non-answers to basic questions and then tell everyone to just move along and go back to what they were doing. I understand that the job is much harder than people may think, and arbitrators are given virtually no gratitude for the essential services that they provide. Nevertheless, we need a transparent ArbCom; this opacity serves only to further alienate themselves from the rest of the community.

To put it in perspective, if the Arbitration Committee simply issued a statement where they described Will Beback's appeal as lacking in substance, or if they mentioned "recent developments" which cannot be released to the public for privacy reasons, then I could rest easy. I may still disagree with their decision, but they know more about the case than I do, so I'd be willing to trust their judgment. This air of secrecy gives me more than a modicum of unease. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Alanscottwalker

My understanding from what I have read is that there was WP:Consensus in the committee not to lift the ban, and various concerns were shared with the filer of the appeal. If no formal vote was taken, no formal vote was taken, and votes are clearly not the only way to determine things. I don't see any substantiated representation that the User was not in fact apprised of both the concerns and the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline. It wasn't a vote tally, it was a discussion held on the understanding that it was held in camera. Also, such a vote tally serves no purpose. Will can appeal again in six months, and hopefully when he does, he will address the concerns that have been shared with him. That is the appropriate way of dealing with this matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Decline release of tallies. Tallies in straw polls are informal documents created purely for the purpose of seeing which way the wind is blowing. They help They are part of the process of deliberating. What's more, they are rarely binary and usually express nuanced thoughts and positions. By releasing tallies, the committee would be releasing, in effect, private working papers. The committee handles too much sensitive stuff to establish a precedent that it should disclose deliberations lock, stock and barrel whenever the torches and pitchforks come out. If something is done in private with a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy, it's private. On the other hand, there has never been a problem with individual arbitrators stating, should they wish to do, what their position is on a particular issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @II. The obvious thing to do is for WBB to request a review of his ban here. I have no difficulty with that at all and it mystifies me why this hasn't been done. Instead we've got this request based purely on procedural stuff, which isn't really of that much significance. (I've added "release of tallies" to my Decline above, to make it clearer what I'm declining.)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• If MastCell wants to factor this failure to unban Will Beback into his vote come December 2013/4, he should be able to. I am disappointed in Arbitrators who opined that the appeal ought to be dismissed and are choosing not to reveal that fact to the public. NW (Talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• MastCell, this is not what clarification/amendment requests are for. In my opinion, if you wish to know how an individual arb voted, you should ask him on his talk page. That said, I believe that a more important question for Will to ask would be "why was my appeal declined?", so that he can take that into account when appealing next. This request should be archived. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • NE Ent, the policy you quote only refers to cases, not to appeals; to my knowledge, the Committee has never made a public announcement whenever an appeal gets declined (considering BASC receives many appeals per week, that would be unwieldy). Declined appeals are usually only discussed with the appellant. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that this appeal is not a decision related to a case? I believe that, according to current practice, appeals are not decisions related to cases, at least not in the sense meant by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency and confidentiality: declined appeals have never been publically discussed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• My internal comment when we considered this appeal in February was, in substance: "For us to decline this appeal, this long after the decision was issued and despite Will Beback's note to us, would be to say that Will Beback is one of Wikipedia's worst editors: that there is no set of restrictions and no amount of guidance that we could provide that would allow him to edit productively and within policy on any topic; or that the way he crossed the line with respect to TimidGuy was so unforgiveable that, to revive and modify a well-known phrase, he can never again be a Wikipedian. Given Will Beback's record of contributions, and despite his various failings, I am not prepared to say that." Accordingly, my vote was to grant the appeal and allow Will Beback to return, subject to appropriately tailored restrictions on his editing to reduce the likelihood of further problems. Because the majority voted to decline the appeal, we did not reach the issue of what the appropriate conditions for a return might have been. I do not feel at liberty to set forth the votes or comments of my colleagues, but I would stress that each of them commented and voted in good faith based on his or her evaluation of the original case and the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I didn't vote in the appeal because large parts of the appeal challenges the findings made in the original arbitration case, but I was unable to find the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case, and hence could not possibly reach an informed decision. As to whether the tally should be released, I'll defer to my colleagues who have actually voted in the matter. T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's no policy reason to release tallies for ban appeals. On occasion, we have used more formal votes as a clearer way of seeing where the arbs stand (for instance, if there are a number of options for unblock conditions, etc). But that's not applied retroactively, nor should it. As to entertaining Will's appeal earlier than six months, I don't see any reason why the consensus (or, depending on how you look at it, lack of consensus) that he should be unblocked even on narrow conditions would have changed, especially as a result of this carousel of RfCs, noticeboard posts and clarification requests. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with T. Canens that finding the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case is indeed a problem. If arbitrators were expected to review even recent cases with the expectation of reversing or overturning them, the workload would be too much (some ban appeals that focus on righting past injustices as perceived by the appellant would require reviewing years and years of e-mail and on-wiki edits, which is just not possible). It is much better to take an approach whereby banned editors accept or move on from the details of a case, and accept that a return to editing will need to be under restrictions, and then gradually request those restrictions be lifted (rather than argue about them at the time of requesting a return to editing). On this particular matter, I agree with David Fuchs. There needs to be an acceptance that this appeal has failed, and a recognition that this formal on-wiki stage is the last step in the process of seeking clarification on the appeal. I do think that a more formal response here, as opposed to the ones provided at WT:BASC, was needed, but that should now be an end to the matter until the six months has elapsed. tldr: what SilkTork said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I very much believe that each arbitrator should state whether they voted for or against Will Beback's appeal, but that cannot happen without a unanimous vote by the arbitrators to do so. My own vote, as I have repeatedly stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:BASC in one long comment), was to decline his appeal. More broadly speaking, I think people should be moving on from Will's appeal to other things, and that they are not only compounds my concern that this particular matter has become deeply politicised. Will can appeal his ban again in the autumn, and for now I have nothing more to say about this matter. AGK [•] 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Heimstern: Banned users' appeals are generally heard off-site by e-mail in order to avoid a distraction to the project. I think we quite rightly confine their appeals to the committee's mailing lists; can you imagine the enormous drama and time-sink that would be created if we were to hear every ban appeal on-site? It would be a circus, and it would waste our editors' time. We are forthcoming when there is an acute community interest in an appeal (in this case, it looks like every arbitrator has said how they voted on the appeal in question), and we consult the community when we aren't sure what to do, but I don't think it's fair to characterise our practices in the way you have done. AGK [•] 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem here, is that when it is known how a matter fell -- in this case, failing, and a non-trivial number of arbitrators state how they opined on an internal straw poll no one expected to be published, it soon becomes very easy to make accurate and reasonable guesses to how the other people voted. What should have happened, and what I really thought was going to happen based on the emails I've read, was that another vote was going to be taken, as an actual vote, as opposed to e-mail expression of opinions with the clear and universal knowledge it would either be on-wiki from the start, or published at the end. This is even a harder case than usual, because so many of the reasons Will needed to be banned in the first place are unpublishable. All that said, in this case I think at least a majority of us are fine with releasing the thrust of our comments -- I hesitate greatly to call what took place a vote -- I did oppose lifting the ban. Courcelles 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Clarification request: Climate Change (June 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by Phoenix and Winslow (talk) at 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dave_souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stephan_Schulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dave_souza notified here. Stephan_Schulz notified here. Prioryman notified here. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix and Winslow

There was another posting of Climatic Research Unit emails by "Mr. FOIA" in the middle of March, 2013. Two months later there's no mention of this event in Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as Climategate), and one comment by an IP editor on the Talk page. This is the third such posting by Mr. FOIA. The first two are already covered in the article mainspace; and the first one (with its reaction) makes up the bulk of the controversy, and the article. The third posting has been reported by at least three sources I believe to be reliable: an op-ed column by Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston in Forbes magazine [12]; a blog by James Delingpole at The Daily Telegraph [13]; and a non-partisan think tank called CFACT [14]. As well as a large number of personal blogs, which I concede would probably be considered unreliable; a few samples here. [15] [16] [17] ArbCom's prohibition against the use of blogs as a source (WP:ARBCC#Use of blogs and self-published sources) has been cited on the article Talk page by User:Dave_souza, however, the Telegraph blog by Delingpole appears to be an exception to this rule per WP:NEWSBLOG. User:Stephan_Schulz has also indicated his opposition to using CFACT, and User:Prioryman has indicated he would oppose use of the Forbes op-ed by Larry Bell. So I would appreciate a clarification of the Committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources. Are these three sources reliable enough to use in the Climategate article?

I notice below that Prioryman believes this should be addressed at WP:RSN and if this were any one of 4 million other articles, he'd be right. However, at WP:RSN, they'd notice that the reliability of blogs (as well as the reliability of other sources) has already been addressed in the ArbCom proceeding and the final decision regarding this particular article, so they'll just defer to the ArbCom decision, and I'll end up back here at ArbCom requesting this clarification. I think proceeding directly to ArbCom may be the best route. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:SilkTorkI hope you don't mind me responding in this spot to make sure everyone sees it before investing a lot of time in it. Let me save you some time. The above comments by the arbitrators have given me all the clarification I need, and I thank you. As I understand it, the Daily Telegraph blog can definitely be used as a reliable source, and the other two sources I mentioned should probably go to WP:RSN. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

On a procedural note, this is clearly the wrong place for such a request and it should have been posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard instead. Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow, what Arbcom always says in this kind of situation is try dispute resolution first and come to them last. I'm afraid that in this case you've got that the wrong way round. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

This is the wrong venue to be asking this question. ArbCom can't settle content disputes between editors. The correct venue for this question is the Reliable sources noticeboard.

BTW, there is no ArbCom prohibition against the use of blogs as a source. They can be used, but in very limited situations. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Phoenix and Winslow is here because of section 4.2.1, WP:ARBCC#Use of blogs and self-published sources. That section merely quotes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:BLP. Arbcom has not placed any restriction on the use of sources in the Climate Change area that exceeds what these policies already say. Note that they use the word 'reminded':

4.2.1) All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

It would be astounding if Arbcom gave you a special exemption for the three sources that you have proposed. Instead, you should ask for review at WP:RSN on anything you are uncertain about. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline: being a content dispute, this is outside of the Committee's remit; this should indeed be addressed at WP:RSN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing in the CC decision prohibits the use of any suitable blog from being used as verification for a Wikipedia article about climate change. Like Ed says, the remedy merely "reminds" editors about existing Wikipedia policy. As for whether the specific blogs are suitable for use in a citation, that would plainly be outwith this committee's remit - but it does seem appropriate to me to distinguish between personal blogs (on which anything can be written) and online versions of newspaper opinion pieces (like the Telegraph blog) that are significantly more reliable. AGK [•] 13:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with both Salvio giuliano and AGK that this isn't a question for ArbCom. That being said, since we are here, it seems to me to be suboptimal use of time to argue about what precise sources can be used to support a statement (that more e-mails were released in March) if no one is questioning the truth of the statement. A more relevant question might potentially be how notable the release of the additional e-mails was if the only references to them anywhere are in places like blogs. But as said above, that's a question to be answered by others than us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• The use of blogs as sources was part of an ArbCom remedy in the Climate change case. As we lay weight on using appropriate procedures, and given the special power that is granted to ArbCom, I can see how there might be some concern in answering this question in other venues, and to prefer to come direct to ArbCom. On looking at the wording, I would say the remedy did not make special provision regarding such sources in relation to the topic matter, and so the question can be raised at WP:RSN without fear of breaking any ArbCom rules. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Clarification request: Senkaku Islands (June 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by Oda Mari (talk) at 06:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SummerRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shrigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Acamar Eridanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified. SummerRat [18], Lvhis [19], and Shrigley [20] except a sock User:Acamar Eridanus. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Oda Mari

In order to prevent edit warring, the usage of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyui" should be clarified like WP:NC-SoJ. User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [21], [22] and other similar edits. Similar edits by other editors are [23], [24], and [25].

I am withdrawing my request as this is not the right place. Oda Mari (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley

NC-SoJ addresses the Sea of Japan, for which there is only one, unqualified internationally-accepted name in English. On the other hand, when discussing these islands, usage is normally split or hyphenated. News articles primarily dealing with China will say, "Diaoyu Islands, known as Senkaku in Japan"; articles dealing primarily with Japan will say "Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China". The article is titled with the Japanese name, "Senkaku Islands", simply because usage is split about 50-50, the alternative neutral English name (Pinnacle Islands) is not used much, and there's no consensus to go to the Chinese name, which would be equally biased but in the opposite direction.

SoJ dealt with the sustained problem of aggressive Korean meatpuppets going to any and every article to replace "Sea of Japan" with the obscure, parochial, and nonsensical English calque of "East Sea". No such problem exists on these Sino-Japanese islands, since the topic is of wider interest to the broader English-speaking community. However, Oda Mari has been rewriting long-stable China-related articles to erase all instances of "Diaoyu" or replace them with "Senkaku", butchering direct quotes[26] and obscuring the proper names of movements and organizations[27]: these from his own examples brought to C&A.

My advice to Oda Mari: don't seek some sort of "ruling" to prohibit the use of "Diaoyu" anywhere on Wikipedia, because:

1. There is no such mechanism outside the most drastic arbitration measures, which I doubt could even do this because of #3;
2. There is no longer a problem of sustained tendentious editing; even the last arbitration case was mostly unpleasant talk page discussion
3. The real-world, reliable source conditions are ambivalent, and Wikipedia cannot deviate from them too much.

There is nothing for Arbcom to do here, except perhaps to admonish Oda Mari for stirring the pot.

Statement by EdJohnston

Since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands provides for discretionary sanctions, and the recent edit war does not present any new issues not previously addressed by Arbcom, the best place to open a request would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. As the committee stated in the Senkaku case, "When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior." Any article edits which change the name 'Senkaku' to 'Diaoyu' or vice versa can be presented at AE to decide if enforcement is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lvhis

I completely agree what user Shrigley has stated above[28]. NC-SoJ is totally a WRONG example for this Diaoyu/Senkaku articles or case here. I was one of the participants of that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. It was not to decide what is the correct name for these islands or for the wp articles. Now user SummerRat has been topic banned for 6 months. To apply same standard and to be fair and equal, user Oda Mari should also be topic banned. She has violated what WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands has banned more than what user SummerRat did.

As for what name should be for the relevant wp pages/articles, RfC is the way to go. The last "RfC" [29] has been expired on January 1, 2013. Although I oppose this "RfC" because it was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [30][31], I did not touch any pages related to this name until I saw so obvious and blatant POV and Original Research using Japanese name for Chinese stance, organization, etc. Now it may be the time to open a new RfC from a root question in related talk page.

In any case, Wikipendia cannot be the place for Original Research --Lvhis (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Qwyrxian

As one of the participants in the original arbitration, I'd like to weigh in: the clarification requested is not within the remit of ArbCom. Currently, there is no Wikipedia-wide guideline for the naming of the Senkaku Islands. There was an RfC (post-Arbitration), which found overwhelmingly that Senkaku Islands (and its closely related articles like Senkaku Islands dispute) should remain as currently named. But that RfC does not govern the usage in-text on other pages. Should we have a guideline like the one governing how we use Sea of Japan throughout Wikipedia? Sure. But that has to be a community based process, probably covered at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), with notifications to appropriate Wikiprojects. But ArbCom does not have the authority to unilaterally make guidelines. I suppose ArbCom could "order" an RfC, but I don't think that's necessary in this case. If Oda Mari wants to have a naming convention, then we should do so. However, Lvhis's suggestion that we first re-hash the name of the main article has merit; if those who think the name should be changed want to pursue that, I think it's easier to handle that one first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am not sure exactly what the Committee is being asked to do here. If it is to decide what is the correct name for these islands, as several commenters have noted, that is not something that we would handle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with EdJohnson above, I see nothing here that would not be better handled at AE as the proper venue. Courcelles 16:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Per above, I'm not seeing there's anything for us to do here either (though I suppose renaming them by fiat to "Newyorkbrad Islands" might be fun).  Roger Davies ^talk 05:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Amendment request: Doncram (June 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 5
2. Finding 1.1
3. Remedy 2.1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Carptrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Carptrash (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
• Doncram (diff of notification of this thread on Username3's talk page)
• Dudemanfellabra (diff of notification of this thread on Username4's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General_editor_probation. Not requesting any changes to principle 5 or finding 1.1; they're simply the relevant ones, and I wasn't clear if I needed to mention them, since the preloaded template mentioned all three things.
• Requesting something along the lines of "Doncram is indefinitely banned from commenting on contributors"

Statement by Nyttend

Since the case was closed, we've had at least two AE requests (Archive132 and Archive135) related to Doncram's pattern of commenting on contributors, not on content; in both cases, AE admins decided that Doncram's actions hadn't risen to the level of "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". As a result, Doncram continues this pattern with edits such as this one: I think it is rotten that some editors feel that they can go around bashing me. Dudemanfellabra, obviously, was being rude, and it was reasonable for Carptrash to sense that, and to be offended. It is even more rude, in my opinion, for Dudemanfellabra to just clarify that he meant to bash me, instead. He meant to offend me, and to trumpet his disrespect to everyone else. Much of the case centered around Doncram's comments on contributors, not content, and if I understood rightly, remedy 2.1 was included to prohibit such actions. Is this what we permit people to say when they've been placed on a general civility probation? If the remedy were created with this kind of edits in mind, Arbcom needs to reword it in such a way that the AE admins will enforce Arbcom's intentions. If Arbcom were simply meaning to solve the general WP:NPA situation and didn't have this specifically in mind, they need to add this prohibition because their current remedies aren't working. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my original statement wasn't clear — the only reason I mentioned Carptrash and Dudemanfellabra is that Doncram's mentioned both of them in the diff to which I linked, and they're the only ones (besides Doncram and me) to have participated in the thread in question. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

(Temporary reply: I will edit this to add some diffs) I myself wondered about opening a clarification question here, specifically about the tenor of remarks by editor Dudemanfellabra in several recent episodes, and about how I should respond. Nyttend links to my response to Dudemanfellabra in current discussion at wt:NRHP. Dudemanfellabra had said something negative directed at me but not completely clearly; another editor took offense; Dudemanfellabra explicitly clarified that he was targeting me; the other editor commented and I responded similarly that I have feelings too. I in fact do not like to be targeted and to be repeatedly bashed publicly.

As I then stated, I honestly don't know how to deal with an editor repeatedly bashing at me. I think it is wrong. I think we can in general have a guideline that editors should comment about edits and not editors, but what if one editor is following and repeatedly commenting in an antagonistic, personal way. I have been wondering if I should open a Request For Comment about Dudemanfellabra, about several recent comments.

I have chosen to respond in different ways: i simply deleted Dudemanfellabra's negative comments and all of the associated discussion section at my own Talk page in one recent case, where another editor was making complaint about good edits that I had made (e.g. this good edit) because I had not done something further on the associated Talk pages, and I was trying to respond positively enough, and Dudemanfellabra chimed in with a negative comment, and after one more comment by the other editor I deleted that all with mild "okay, chat over, thanks" edit summary.

In this post Dudemanfellabra calls my work "half-a**ed"; in the next edit I deleted that with edit summary "Delete swearing post, unwelcome". I am honestly offended at this tone and the words Dudemanfellabra is using.

Showing at wt:NRHP is another Dudemanfellabra comment calling my work out negatively, with 6 links to recent articles or drafts by me, with complaint about "just a lazy longquote from the nomination form as you're so inclined to do." I disagree completely about my work being "lazy" and I disagree completely about appropriate use of good quotes from NRHP nomination documents explaining why places are NRHP-listed. The discussion was not part of any policy or guideline discussion on quotes, it seems to me as just a side jab.

At wt:NRHP just now, in further discussion where Dudemanfellabra targets me, I thought I could not delete Dudemanfellabra's comment although I do feel it amounts to a personal attack--he even emphasizes that he is meaning to attack me personally--and I chose to respond as I did, by saying basically I did not like that. I think it is fair to observe that at least Dudemanfellabra seems to feel entitled to jab me at will, showing disrespect repeatedly. I request that Dudemanfellabra be advised to adhere to standards of civility, and to stop the repeated jabs.

The arbitration case may have not gone far enough to address a culture of negativity and repeated insulting that has grown over many years at WikiProject NRHP and in associated NRHP articles and personal Talk pages. It helped a lot that an interaction ban was put into place, eliminating one source of contention and negativity. The arbitration settlement is not a solution if other editors step up with contention and negativity, however. I rather think what's needed is for NRHP editors, at WikiProject NRHP, to speak up and say they don't want the negativity and the jabs. I was inviting that; what we have here is different, taking the "solution" process away from where it should be taken care of, IMHO. --doncram 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kumioko

This submission is baseless and the comment that Doncram made, that Nyttend linked too, isn't even derogatory. I could list a dozen edits made by 3 editors alone that are far worse than that. He was simply responding too comments that were left by another editor and stated he had feelings too. I also want to add that the AE complaints that he is referring too were also thrown out for good reason. Editors shouldn't be expected to sit silently after repeated abuse. As I stated in a couple other places I think the Arbcom ban on him creating NRHP articles is a waste of Articles for Creations time. They created a special process just for Doncram because they recognize that its a waste of their time but they are forced into the situation by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Orlady, I feel I must point out that your conduct in the Doncram case was less than steller. Let alone for an admin. I don't deny that Doncram has made some harsh comments but its generally after someone has been unnecessarily harsh or insulting to him. Every link that has been provided shows that. Someone left him a nasty note, frequently uncivil and he responded in a way as to make it obvious he didn't appreciate it. I don't deny that. What I do have a problem with is him being singled out, without anyone saying anything to the other editors. I also have a very low opinion of the fact that no one seems to care and the prevailing desire here seems to be to ban him from the project. Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Devils Advocate, I agree completely. This personal crusade by Nyttend against Doncram is far beyond an admin performing their role. He's flat out harassing and hounding Doncram and frankly it appears to me that he is goading Doncram into doing something he can block him for. Utterly unacceptable behavior for anyone, admin or otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandstein, your stating essentially that it is ok for other editors to insult Doncram but its not ok for him to comment back to them. Because the whole reason Doncram made those comments is because they were making derogatory comments about him. So, if you are going to punish a user for returning comments to an editor who is insulting them then you also need to be willing to deal with the other editor and tell them to be civil as well, which you seem utterly unwilling to do. These sanctions do nothing but allow a user to be targeted by editors who do not like them or their edits and we all know that there is always someone here in Wikipedia that is not going to like what we do. If you are going to punish Doncram for his comment which to me seem petty for this comment, then someone also needs to tell the other users to stop constantly harassing and insulting him with uncivil comments. Kumioko (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf, there isn't a need to "present them", they are clearly evident in the discussion of the links provided against Doncram. The submitters just picked and choosed Doncrams comments because they supported their case. They didn't bother to present the whole picture because frankly, it would show that there is a lot more to the story than what they want to be known. Anyone can see it if they bothered to look instead of just assuming that the linkn provided is the end of the story which seems to be the case here. I'm not saying Doncram is innocent but when people are constantly harassing him over petty crap and then expect him to just sit there and take it I have a huge problem with that. Also, I couldn't get anyone to take action at ANI over an admin who was violating policy against a clear consensus why would I invest my time in an RFC when multiple admins seem hell bent on getting Doncram banned from the project. I am one editor who a lot of folks don't even like because I am vocal when they do something stupid and screw up. Particularly when they are admins and abuse their rights and status to get their way. If you want evidence go do some due diligence and read the discussions in context. Same goes for those admins and Arbs commenting on here. If your willing to block a user under a sanction for not sitting in a corner and letting others abuse them and not doing or saying anything to those other editors then you should quite being arbs and admins because you don't deserve the position or the responsibility. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carptrash

I believe that I unknowingly wandered into a combat zone and took a shot that was aimed at someone else. There is obviously history at play here and I don't understand it well enough to offer anything useful. I was invited to comment, I have never been to one of these events before. Now I have and I won't use up more of your energy. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Orlady

As a party to the Arbcom case (but not to the talk-page discussion that precipitated this request), I agree with the request for amendment. In my view, Doncram's long-standing habit of commenting on the person rather than the subject matter -- and of interpreting comments on his content as personal attacks motivated by personal vendettas against him -- was one of the main issues underlying the Arbcom case. I thought that warnings -- rather than sanctions -- under the existing probation were appropriate in the two Arbitration Enforcement instances cited because I hoped that Doncram would heed the warnings. However, that's not working. I think this amendment is needed (1) in view of the recent evidence that he is reverting to the kind of behavior that got us to Arbcom in the first place and (2) because administrators at AE were reluctant to act because the Arbcom remedies did not explicitly refer to this kind of behavior as being subject to sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: If you have serious concerns about my conduct (in the Arbcom case or elsewhere), please provide (ideally somewhere other than this page) diffs illustrating the behavior that you object to. I'm tired of innuendo about my behavior that's based on the theory that "where there's smoke, there must be fire" (i.e., the assumption that Doncram -- and a couple of other users I won't name here -- must have had a valid basis for all those horrible things they said about me). --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that Doncram has removed a couple of comments that were sources of concern in this discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dudemanfellabra

I don't really have anything to add either. I believe my evaluation of Doncram's contributions is accurate. Although his contribution history is a long one, anyone willing to take the time to look over everything will see a minimal improvement at best after the arbitration, as far as substantive contributions (i.e. article writing). No one is asking him to create only like featured articles or anything, but as has been said many times before, if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Again? Nyttend needs to leave Doncram alone. It is as simple as that. There is nothing in the diff Nyttend provides that points to any issue unless we are saying that Doncram shouldn't be allowed to object to what other people say about him. He has been dogging Doncram for some time, even using his admin tools to further his interests in their feud, and it is time for it to stop. What Arbs should consider is an amendment enacting an interaction ban between Nyttend and Doncram.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

There does not seem to be any reason for an amendment to the Doncram case. During that case, fault was found with Doncram. The outcome of the case was unambiguous and very little has changed. Continued attempts to suggest otherwise and to cast the blame on others, either here or at WP:AE, are unhelpful, not supported by any evidence and will not alter the outcome of the case.

In the last report at WP:AE, the uninvolved administrators Sandstein, Gatoclass and EdJohnston commented. Doncram was given a logged warning not to personalise discussions. A glance at the talk page of WikiProject NRHP shows that he has taken no notice of that advice. The hyperbolic personalised language—exaggerated claims of being hounded and victimised—that was criticized in the arbitration case is being repeated. It is only the editors at the receiving end of his comments that have changed. That confirms, if confirmation were needed, that it was not other parties in the arbcom case that were at fault. Doncram's comments are unconstructive, create a toxic editing atmosphere and stifle discussion. During the case, Doncram avoided a site ban and a topic ban, partly because parties like Orlady and Nyttend discouraged any measures like that.

The arbitration committee can indicate informally to administrators at WP:AE that the findings concerning Doncram were serious and that he is still on probation. The outcome of the case means that Doncram is not in the situation of a regular editor. If he continues to repeat the conduct criticized in the final decision and for which he has subsequently received a logged warning, then reports at WP:AE of future violations should result in more than just further warnings. Mathsci (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The findings of the arbitration committee were written as guidance both for the parties and for uninvolved administrators at WP:AE. They included problems with article editing (2.2) and with responses during discussions (2.1). Exactly the same problems have arisen with new NRHP editors. Those who disagreed with the outcome during the case were given ample opportunity to comment at the time. Recycling those objections now, either here or at WP:AE, is not helpful. "Evidence" of problems with other parties was presented during the case and did not convince arbitrators. Similar claims are being made now. Without supporting diffs, however, assertions of that kind are unhelpful and, as Thryduulf mentions, potentially harmful. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

In reply to AGK: I was one of the administrators who processed the AE requests Nyttend refers to (1 and 2). After re-reading the discussions, it appears to me that while my administrator colleagues and I agreed that Doncram's conduct was problematic, we were of the view that it did not rise to the level of "repeatedly or seriously", as envisaged in the relevant sanction, that would require action beyond an explicit warning. At least on my part, what may also have been relevant was an impression that the conduct by some of the editors engaged in disputes with Doncram appeared similarly confrontative, such that sanctioning Doncram only might have created the appearance of one-sidedness. In view of the most recent edit cited here by Nyttend, it does now appear to me, prima facie, that Doncram's practice of commenting about contributors rather than content, in a derogatory manner ("stop Dudemanfellabra from polluting [the project]") meets the requirement of repeated misconduct that would warrant sanctions, if this were an enforcement request.  Sandstein  05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Several users have criticized that the sanction only covers misconduct by Doncram, not by others. As indicated above, I agree in principle that this is not optimal. In my view, the Arbitration Committee should try to craft conduct restrictions in such a way that all users involved in a (future) dispute can be held to the same standard of conduct - for example, by way of discretionary sanctions or other topic-level restrictions. However, once the case is closed and we are at WP:AE, we must apply the sanctions as they are written, not as we may wish them to be written, even if that means that we must sanction users who are subject to individualized restrictions (for what I must assume are good reasons) for conduct we are not authorized to sanction in others. If that turns out to be a problem, interested users may petition the Committee, through this process, to modify the sanction. But in this case, I do not think that the possibility of Doncram being provoked into disruptive behavior warrants amending the sanction. In my view, everyone is responsible for their own conduct, without regard to what others may have done. That means everyone is also responsible for not letting themselves be provoked. Including not by comments such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style": While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards.  Sandstein  15:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

@AGK: I participated in the May 28 AE. I agree with Sandstein that if more reports are made to AE of a similar nature we should consider taking some admin action. Blocking is something to consider, but short blocks seem unlikely to affect the long-term hostilities. In June 2012, User:Doncram returned to editing after a six-month block without evidence of any change. Read his talk page for the dates immediately following his return. See the tone of the Round Barn talk thread of June 2012. Doncram was picking up just where he left off, both in the positive sense (content) and the negative sense (interpersonal) [32]. See the comment about 'hateful behavior':

If you are a person reading this who has in the past engaged in what a reasonable person can view as hateful behavior, please reconsider your interest here, and please go away, please leave me alone.

The six month block was the last community action taken, and if the problem continues, one could see the argument for a 12-month block. Another option might be more restrictions on Doncram. That couldn't be done at AE, but a new request for amendment could be made to the committee. Short blocks for incivility in a case like this one seem like they wouldn't stop the endless recurrence of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

@Kumioko, The Devil's Advocate and others

If you feel that one or more users are harrassing and/or baiting Doncram, then you need to present evidence (diffs) of this behaviour in a suitable location, probably an RfC about their conduct. Being on the receiving end of incivility does not excuse anyone from acting incivilly themselves, but if you feel that he is being baited and that this should reduce any punishment then you need to comment to this effect at AE when his incivility is brought there.

Accusations of baiting, without presenting evidence of such, are just as harmful as actual baiting is (c.f. Orlady's "smoke without fire" comment). Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

I'm inclined to agree that there is no need for an amendment to the case and that I see no reason why a complaint of this type couldn't be handled at WP:AE. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The thing here is that Doncram could already be placed under the restriction you suggest under the terms of his existing probation if, at WP:AE, the evidence were there to justify or if an individual administrator felt strongly enough to do so. Am I misreading this or is it being suggested that the sanction be modified in order to encourage others to sanction them and/or make it easier for them to do so?  Roger Davies ^talk 05:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• We need to hear from the administrators who declined to sanction Doncram after the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) requests in question. Nyttend, please notify the AE administrators of this amendment request, and then tell us when you have done so. We need to know why the administrators determined they should not sanction Doncram. AGK [•] 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with AGK. NW (Talk) 03:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Ed: AE actually has quite a lot of flexibility here. R2.1 was written as a "you can try to do anything short of a site ban" remedy. I originally proposed that remedy because it is clear that while Doncram has a lot to offer the community, normal sanctioning procedure has not worked. That's not holding him to a different standard; that's saying that procedural restrictions on obtaining consensus for novel sanctions to address the same problematic behavior as another hypothetical editor can be dropped. With that said, I don't think that there is much that the Committee could or should do in this instance, and I think it's up to the broader community to address the matter in the manner that they see best. NW (Talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• In light of Sandstein's statement, I don't think it's necessary for us to intervene here. T. Canens (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Ed: Remedy 2.1 explicitly allows for the imposition of "any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate". AE is fully empowered to impose additional restrictions to address the issues, and to enforce them with blocks if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I fully support Sandstein's comments. There has traditionally been difficulty/discomfort in imposing conduct sanctions on a user who is unnecessarily provoked, and there may be room to consider a provision somewhere that users found to have unnecessarily provoked a user under conduct sanctions should share in the imposed sanction. Dudemanfellabra's remark was uncollegiate, and it may be appropriate for AE admins to consider giving him a warning. Meanwhile, Doncram should have better sense at this stage than to respond in the manner that he did. However, AE can handle this, and Sandstein appears to be on top of it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Clarification and amendment request: Syrian civil war articles (July 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by Greyshark09 (talk) at 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Emesik and Sopher99 block on 28 April ([33]); Sopher99 block on July 10.([34])

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1
2. Finding 2
3. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• FutureTrillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marianian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pug6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ItsZippy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

FutureTrillionaire notified here. Marianian notified here. Jake Wartenberg notified here. FunkMonk notified here; Pug6666 notified here; ItsZippy notified here.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Amendment

• Currently, the article Syrian civil war is under the arbitration remedies of ARBPIA, despite that the Syrian conflict has no direct affiliation with the general Arab-Israeli conflict. The ARBPIA was enforced by administrator User:Jake Wartenberg on March 2013 [35] in order to control constant edit-warring on the Syrian civil war page with the most suitable tool, chosen by him to be ARBPIA. Jake was later requested to amend the issue of enforcing ARBPIA on Syrian civil war and using instead a new 1RR took for the Syrian civil war articles, answering that Arbcom is the correct target for such request [36].
• A new arbitration 1RR tool is proposed to be created to deal with Syrian civil war articles in order reduce edit-warring, and stabilize a large number of pages, to keep order and refrain from confusion because of current use of ARBPIA for the Syrian civil war article (ARBPIA to be replaced with Syrian civil war 1RR restriction).

Statement by Greyshark09

The ARBPIA 1RR restriction was enforced in Syrian civil war article in order to prevent constant edit-warring. The 1RR restriction was made by admin Jake Wartenberg on March 24, 2013, as an answer to editors' request to limit edit-warring on that page (request[37] and enforcement[38]). The enforcement of ARBPIA was made simply because it is the most convenient 1RR tool available and not because of an affiliation with the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, there might be a serious flaw in using the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" tool on Syrian civil war articles: first of all Israeli involvement is so far very limited in that conflict and hence Israel is not present in the infobox yet; secondly, even if considering Israeli involvement, the context is clearly not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (conflict between Israel and Arab League), but actually part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict (Iran is not an Arab country and of course is not part of the Arab League). Considering that Syria is suspended from the Arab League (see [39]), thus the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" on Syrian conflict is irrelevant. I suggest creating a new arbitration tool named "Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement" for 1RR enforcing on Syrian civil war related articles instead of ARBPIA to resolve this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Basically, your understanding of the presented case is in line with my attempt to present it. Let's see additional opinions on the case.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Marianian: You should reread my proposal - the request is to remove the ARBPIA tool (because it has nothing to do with Syrian civil war) and implement a different 1RR sanction tool - proposed to be 1RR for Syrian civil war articles. Alternative solutions were also proposed by administrators.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: I would like to bring to your attention that in addition to Syrian civil war article and Syrian civil war infobox template, there is also a constant edit-warring on articles Syria, Syrian civil war spillover into Lebanon, Siege of Homs, etc.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FutureTrillionaire

As an editor who has made many edits to Syria-related articles (although I've recently been less active), I can safely say that the Syrian civil war is definitely not an Arab-Israeli conflict and should not be restricted by ARBPIA. However, the main Syrian civil war infobox often does suffer from edit wars. An 1RR restriction might be helpful there, but the Syrian civil war battle articles usually don't experience edit-wars, and therefore a 1RR restriction for those articles is unnecessary, maybe even inappropriate. I support restrictions for the infobox template, but do not support restrictions for the main article or related articles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Marianian

I have only got involved in the Syria article alone to try to resolve the infobox issue where international events at the time could pose a conflict of interest into how the country's infobox was presented.

Although the RfC initially went towards a neutral solution where the government would be in separate infoboxes preferable at the politics and government section, the ultimate consensus was keep the status quo for now, for which I respect.

However, my talk page and user page was subject to personal attacks on 25 April 2013 (see this and this). This resulted in me posting a complaint about their actions, yet a user known as Eliastoma (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) tried to silence me on that, resulting in a another complaint to an administrator. Further investigation resulted in the said account blocked on suspicion of sockpuppetry.

My last recent edit to Syria was to remind users that the consensus was the status quo.

Therefore I could support a new Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement tool with tougher measures against personal attacks. Even where my experience has been completely independent of the Israel question, it seems that the civil war needs its own taskforce to deal with the present issues, although I tried my best to respect WP:NPOV. --Marianian^(talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question to Greyshark09

I am not sure if it is okay to have sub-headers under my space for asking questions, but I was wondering how it would be possible to have an article under two Arbcom cases? --Marianian^(talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jake Wartenberg

My involvement in this issue began in late March when I responded to a protection request that was made as the result of an edit war over whether Israel should be considered involved in the conflict. It seemed initially as if I had been able to broker a compromise between some of the editors involved, but the situation quickly deteriorated after I lifted the protection. I read through the talk page archives and found that this was a dispute between entrenched editors that had been going on for months with little progress, despite extensive DR. ARBPIA reads, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." In light of this, there seemed to me little question that the sanctions were applicable. This is the first and only time I have worked in AE. I apologize if my actions have not embodied the same finesse that might be expected of an administrator more experienced in this area. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by FunkMonk

Will cool the many hot-heads down, and force them to use the talk-page, which is a good thing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Pug6666

I agree with the statement that Greyshark09 made. I support putting 1RR the article. However it must be labeled appropriately. Labeling the Syrian civil war as part of the Israeli-Arab conflict without reliable sources calling it part of said conflict could be seen as POV pushing. So we could make the category Syrian Civil war protection as a temporary category and clearly state that fact. I hope I am not posting too late if so I apologize. Pug6666 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ItsZippy

I have no strong opinion, really - I'm not incredibly involved in this dispute. I did block a user recently for a 1RR violation, as a result of the 1RR restriction on the page. The block itself was slightly contentious, and I asked for other admins to review it at AN, though I don't think the main points of contention would not really be resolved by an ArbCom motion either way. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

Israel as a state is already directly involved in the conflict, as clear from the text of article, for example here, airstrikes by Israeli aviation and a lot more [40]. Therefore, I think this particular article falls under ARBPIA. There is no need in any clarification, amendment, new case or ANI/AN discussion. This can be decided by admins on AE if anyone files a complaint.My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

In'm not involved in anything Syrian Civil War-related, although I have long experience in dealing with ARBPIA-related AE requests. In my view, this civil war is at most partially and indirectly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As such, I think that the civil war as a whole is outside the scope of that conflict, and consequently outside the scope of the case's remedies, except as concerns edits that relate to Israel's involvement in the civil war. In addition, as I've said elsewhere, I have concerns that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is not enforceable as written, because it was voted on by the Committee only indirectly in the context of a motion amending it, and, if it is considered a discretionary sanction by an administrator, it would need to be the subject of individual prior warnings per WP:AC/DS#Warnings.

Because arbitration is the last resort of dispute resolution, if I were on the Committee, I'd request more specific evidence that community- or admin-level dispute resolution efforts or tools have failed to effectively prevent continued edit-warring before considerint imposing any arbitral sanctions. Such evidence has not been presented here. I therefore recommend that administrators first make use of normal anti-editwarring measures such as warnings, protections or blocks, or ask for a community sanction at WP:AN, before asking the Committee to impose sanctions.  Sandstein  04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lothar von RIchthofen

It should be made known that the Syrian civil war topic area suffers from a fairly high level of sockpuppetry, both account- and IP-based. ArbCom member User:Salvio giuliano can well attest to this. Any 1RR restriction should explicitly take this into account with a clear exemption for the reversion of sock-edits. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Thryduulf

I have only taken a cursory look at the article but it seems that 1RR is generally working there (and the statements by users here suggest likewise). If this is so, then I don't think that a community sanction authorising discretionary sanctions (or just 1RR restrictions) at the discretion of uninvolved administrators for all articles (and templates, etc) related to the Syrian Civil War would be hard to come by. However, ArbCom sanctions normally supercede community ones, and there is the potential for wikilawyering during a period until the community sanction is passed. As such I'd say that an arbcom motion retroactively authorising the existing sanctions and authorising their continuance until such time as the community reaches a consensus about whether to authorise sanctions or not. Although I don't think it likely, the community could decide not to authorise them, and at the same time it allows the status quo to remain in the event of no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Courcelles: re "are to be treated as if they were a valid implementation of arbitration enforcement.". My reading of the intention here is that they should should be treated as if this motion was in place when they were issued. It makes no judgment on whether they are/were correct or not, other than there was a valid authority to place restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: "All sanctions made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.". I don't think you mean all sanctions, as that would include those not relevant to Syria. "All sanctions related to the Syrian Civil War made..." is what I I think you want. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Your motion looks good to me, but you might want to be explicit that a community consensus at AN/I can in this case supercede the ArbCom resolution, as they usually can't. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The phrasing of the discretionary sanctions regime from ARBPIA is as follows:

“ All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. ”

Looking over the article and talk page, it is clear that Israeli involvement in this inter-Arab conflict is of significant editorial interest, which reflects the interest shown by reliable sources. ARBPIA doesn't pertain solely to Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but even if it did the PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) are involved in the conflict and have threatened to attack the Golan Heights currently occupied by Israel. Since the discretionary sanctions apply to "related articles, broadly interpreted" I would say this falls roughly within the lines given all these facts. From my reading, however, this is strictly a question of the 1RR restriction on the article as any edits relating to Israeli involvement would be normally covered by the discretionary sanctions anyway. The general 1RR restriction actually has similar wording as the discretionary sanctions saying:

“ All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. ”

The bolded wording would clearly accommodate the position that the article falls under the 1RR restriction. My impression would be that sanctions wouldn't apply to every article regarding the Syrian civil war, just those where Israeli involvement would be a significant point of interest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

I am posting at this point only to respond to NW's comment. It's hard enough for admins to decide whether a particular article belongs under sanctions. Now, you're saying that we have to parse the actual circumstances to see if the violation occurred in a part of the article that relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's like putting sections of articles under sanctions. I see that as a practical nightmare. Also, although you recommend NYB's option #3, you appear to ignore NYB's first #3 (" no one so far seems to disagree that having the article under DS (in particular, a 1RR) is a good idea"), a statement rather than an option, and seems to contradict your view as how to apply the sanctions to this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, thank you for your response, but I still want to return to practical considerations as to what we should do in the meantime before you folk actually make a decision. The article and the related template {{Syrian civil war infobox}} still have notices that sanctions are in effect. They also have edit notices that pop up if an editor edits either page. I think it's safe to assume that some editors, both admins and non-admins, aren't aware of this request here. What happens during the pendency of this request if an editor violates 1RR? One possible solution is to remove the edit notices (they are not required anyway - they just help to give notice), to leave the talk page notices on the talk pages, but add a notice that links to this request for clarification. It's not ideal as it has a certain schizoid quality to it, but I'm struggling to think of what's fair, yet at the same time not prejudge the outcome of this request.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I hate to be a pest (it's one of my many annoying flaws). Your advice makes sense to me except for two issues. First, if I remove the notice and edit notices, I think it would be better to post a message on the talk page warning editors not to construe the removal as a license to battle. To make it more visible, I'd like to put it into the header (I assume that can be done - I'm not experienced with editing talk page headers). Second, although it's true that a breach of WP:3RR is not required to block someone for edit warring, one rarely blocks an editor who reverts twice unless there's some additional factor, e.g., a recent history of edit warring in the article. And just because I can't resist, you might wish to fix your inadvertent and entertaining typo ("I think the former might be latter and preferred here"). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Greyshark09

It is my understanding that motion proposal shall result in retroactive change of ARBPIA sanctions to be moved to appropriate Syrian civil war sanctions log and the ARBPIA sanction (considered to be inappropriate by most) be replaced with a temporal tool, specific for Syrian civil war article to extend for three months. In my opinion, it would be a reasonable (though temporal) solution for the issue. However i should ask to clarify whether template:Syrian civil war infobox (which is also a big source of edit-warring) shall also be included in this proposed change.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the irrelevant question, i now see that the 3 month restriction is to be be applied to all Syrian civil war topic articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I remind all users commenting that you must only edit your own section. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Let's see if we have consensus on what the issue is, before we try to figure out the resolution to it. If the filing party is correct, the basics seem to be this: (1) there have been editing problems on Syrian Civil War, (2) an administrator started using discretionary sanctions on the article based on the Palestine-Israel case, (3) no one so far seems to disagree that having the article under DS (in particular, a 1RR) is a good idea, but (4) people have noticed the obvious fact that the Syrian Civil War is primarily an inter-Arab conflict rather than an Israeli-Palestinian one. Procedurally, we can't really say we are "clarifying" the Palestine-Israel case by expanding it to a subject that is neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and I'm not sure that are our doing so would fall comfortably within the scope of an "amendment" either. So I guess the procedural choices would be (1) to open a case (which might be overkill), (2) to adopt a motion in lieu of a case (which is do-able but only if the facts aren't in dispute), or (3) to recommend that the parties take this to AN and try to get a community sanction adopted there. Awaiting further statements to see if my understanding of the issue is correct and from there to recommend a solution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Recommend NYB's option 3 here. The automatic 1RR block is not enforceable as an AE action when it comes to this article, except when the content clearly relates to Israel in some fashion (Golan Heights skirmishes, or something related to conflict motivations). NW (Talk) 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23:: I do not disagree that having this article be under 1RR / discretionary sanctions is ultimately a good thing for the editing atmosphere. However, my opinion is Jake had no authority to implement them under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions authorization. I know it is not the best thing in the world to do it this way, but it is in my view the only thing that ArbCom has authorized. Some examples:

  We use the phrase "broadly construed" a lot in our decisions. If the Syrian civil war would count under this, so too would the Egyptian revolution, the Gulf War and the US-Iran naval tensions. With all three of those topics, there are situations where the Arab-Israeli [or I guess more broadly Middle Eastern-Israeli] sanctions would apply: upheaval in the Egypt-Gaza region, the decision by Saddam to fire Scud missiles at Israel, and I'm sure the occasional presence of the IDF navy operating alongside the Fifth Fleet respectively. But for those three larger topics to qualify for discretionary sanctions, ArbCom would have had to have passed a motion putting all of MENA under discretionary sanctions, which it has not.

  What I would not be opposed to (and indeed, which I might propose if it sounds good to everyone) would be a motion implementing 1RR / discretionary sanctions for one month with respect to the Syrian civil war. This should give enough time for the community to authorize sanctions of its own if it wishes; should it not, that's its own prerogative and the matter can be brought back to ArbCom when there is a genuine "serious conduct [dispute] the community has been unable to resolve" (WP:ARBPOL). NW (Talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: That hypothetical editor can be blocked for edit warring separately from the blanket 1RR prohibition, and I would encourage that any blocks in the next week be given on a simple edit warring rationale instead of a 1RR violation rationale. Reviewing sysops are always at liberty to apply more stringent standards to enforcing the edit warring policy than the 3RR standard, whether on this or any other topic. I would remove the talk page banner and edit notice for now.

  For a more permanent solution, I think there are two routes we can take. One would be what I suggested earlier. Another would be to simply pass a motion adopting discretionary sanctions for the Syrian civil war topic area. I think the former latter might be better and preferred here; it is pretty clear that the article is a long-term minefield. The fact that the (wrong) implementation of discretionary sanctions and 1RR calmed down the topic area is almost evidence in and of itself that Arbitration enforcement was if not necessary, highly helpful, in helping calm down the topic area. NW (Talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Don't worry about being a pest :) I wouldn't bother making any changes now. It's OK if the warnings are a little out of date if the ultimate intention is the same one. Hopefully the motion that I have proposed below will pass quickly enough and satisfy everyone's concerns. NW (Talk) 23:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• @Lothar von Richthofen:: 1RR has an automatic exemption for sockpuppetry, BLP, copyright, illegal content (WP:NOT3RR). There's no need to mention it specifically here. NW (Talk) 21:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think there exists a real risk of tying ourselves up in procedural knots here, when we seem to have broad agreement that the underlying idea -- imposing a 1RR over the Syrian civil war -- is not a bad idea. Rather I make the issue more that the ARBPIA remedy doesn't quite fit. I agree with NYB that a case is overkill, but that looking for a community sanction to fit this will either succeed, and split enforcement between AE and a community noticeboard, or fail to come to any consensus and end up right back here. So I guess my current preference is for some sort of motion to resolve this. Courcelles 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion 1: Syrian civil war

In March 2013, Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. The Syrian civil war is a broad-ranging conflict, but any connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict comes largely from Israel's geographic proximity to Syria and not any significant involvement of Israel in the article. While content that involves Israel in the Syrian civil war topic area does fall under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, the overall topic area does not. However, the revert restriction and the presence of discretionary sanctions has been helpful in calming the editing atmosphere. Accordingly:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed, for three months. Notifications and sanctions made pursuant to this remedy are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.
2. A one revert per editor per article per day restriction is established for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed, for three months.
3. Should the community authorize a form of general sanctions for the topic area that is broadly similar to this motion, the first two provisions will automatically terminate.
4. All sanctions relating to the Syrian civil war made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Support

1. Proposed. Equal choice to 3. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't wish to quibble over wording or procedure. NW's proposed motion works well enough - ArbCom temporarily take over Jake Wartenberg's fix until the community decide a more permanent fix is needed (or not, as the case may be). It appears the path of least disruption. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
3. All three of the motions are reasonable solutions that strike me as likely to lead to more-or-less the same place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Extending ARBPIA in this way is unnecessary, though I agree legitimising Jake's sanctions is the right thing to do. AGK [•] 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. I am quite familiar with this entire topic area and I agree that it definitely needs to be placed under DS (it doesn't really matter if we end up being the ones who authorise them or the community do it in our stead) and the sanctions already imposed so far need to be grandfathered, but I don't see why we should choose a three months' limit, thereby forcing either the community or arbcom to revote on this same issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Leaning toward support, but will allow another day or so for community comments before voting, and may propose a couple of copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "are to be treated as if they were a valid implementation of arbitration enforcement" Well, not really. We're waiving the question of jurisdiction as it regards ARBPIA, not declaring anything valid in all respects... Courcelles 04:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• NYB, I would appreciate any copyedits you care to make. Courcelles, I just looked over all of the sanctions issued since March and it doesn't appear that any active ones were issue in relation to the Syrian civil war. I'm just going to drop the clause. NW (Talk) 12:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Salvio, if the community decides not to authorize general sanctions in this three month window, I am going to take that as conclusive evidence that they do not feel that sanctions are required for the topic area and would not vote to renew it then. I am not entirely in favor of Newyorkbrad's proposal because of the lack of a sunset provision: it seems off to implement discretionary sanctions indefinitely without a serious evaluation of whether that is 100% appropriate long term for the topic area, as we would do with a case or a better argued case request. NW (Talk) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion 2: Syrian civil war

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. Concern has been raised that the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war might fall within that topic. Nonetheless, there appears to be a widespread view that placing these restrictions on the Syrian Civil War topic area has been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed. In addition, a one revert per editor per article per day restriction is established for the Syrian civil war topic area, broadly construed.

Any editor who believes the discretionary sanctions relating to the Syrian Civil War or the 1RR limitation should be lifted or modified may request a change either on the Administrators' Noticeboard or by a Request for Amendment to this Committee. However, we recommend that editors wait for a reasonable amount of time before making any such requests for amendment.

Notifications and sanctions made pursuant to this motion are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. All sanctions relating to the Syrian civil war made pursuant to the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} prior to the passage of this motion are to be relogged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
2. I could support this in light of the community input above as well as the proviso that the community could supersede this motion if it wished. That being said, I understand that the approach here would be a departure from the norm and why my colleagues might not want to go in this direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think a temporary out of process fix for an exceptional situation is one thing, but this makes it permanent, and appears to be straying too far from our remit. ArbCom is the last resort for tricky situations the community can't resolve. The community can deal with this in three months if needed, and it doesn't appear to be a decision that would be difficult to make. If it were, we would require a case rather than a motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm inclined to agree with Silk here. While I doubt the Syrian Civil War will resolve itself in three months and peace will descend upon the Middle East, it still seems far outside our scope and powers to indefinitely extend such a restriction without a full case and the FoFs that come with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
4. For the same reason I opposed the motion above, we (the committee) should for many reasons not be thrusting discretionary sanctions on this new topic area unless we have no other choice. AGK [•] 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• Proposed for discussion. I realize that as with NuclearWarfare's motion, this would be a departure from standard procedures, but it may be the most efficient way of proceeding. Among the differences from NW's original formulation is that I've dropped the three-month sunset, but made it clear how editors may seek to change the sanctions regime if that becomes appropriate. Further honing is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion 3: Syrian civil war

Enacted Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Support:

1. Equal choice to 1. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2. This seems like a sensible and reasonable solution. Only choice. AGK [•] 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
4. First and only choice. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Only choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

   For completeness, I've added "In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log" as a logging mechanism is absent in this motion though present in the others. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

7. Worm^TT(talk) 04:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Barely. I don't think 30 days is long enough to solve anything at all. Courcelles 14:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

   I think it should be more than sufficient for an AN discussion to resolve whether discretionary sanctions and/or 1RR should stay in place on this article. I agree 30 days won't be sufficient to resolve all editing disputes on the article, especially since the article concerns an ongoing event, but it doesn't have to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

10. Risker (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Inadequate solution. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• Proposed for discussion. This is the other way of handling the issue that has attracted any support, so I'm posting it as an alternative for voting. In this case I think all roads lead to roughly the same place, so we probably ought to just vote to select from among the alternatives. I will vote in the next day or so after reviewing any further input from the parties or others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• There really is no significant difference between this and motion 1. I am happy to support it. NW (Talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Clarification request: Scientology (August 2013)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Drg55 (talk · contribs), currently blocked (notification)
• Peter cohen (talk · contribs) (notification)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (Notification. For the purpose of editing this section, the restriction this user is subject to is vacated to the extent it applies, provided that they do not reveal any identifying information about the user whose privacy is at issue here.  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
• Prioryman (talk · contribs) (notification)
• Editors participating in the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein (notified there)

Statement by Sandstein

Recent actions I undertook to enforce the decision in the case WP:ARBSCI (the Scientology case) have given rise to an extended discussion at the ANI thread indicated above. I identify three key questions related to the case that are controversial in good faith among at least some participants to that thread:

1. Is the alleged full real name of the editor sanctioned in remedy 17 of the Scientology case private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?
2. Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki, if the purpose of that prohibition is to reduce the risk of the unwarranted on-wiki publication of that private information?
3. Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations, as an exceptional measure, or as a last resort if other admin or community tools would not help, or subject to other restrictions (if yes, please codify these expectations at WP:AC/DS), or may they be used just like other admin tools whenever the policy requirements for their use per are met?

For my views on what I understand the answers to be based on my interpretation of current policies, please refer to my ANI statement. In short: 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. no.

A response by the Committee would help to mitigate the drama and (in my view) ongoing privacy breaches generated by that thread, and would also help me and others bring their conduct more in line with the Committee's expectations, to the extent necessary. As an administrator regularly working at WP:AE, I at least would appreciate being able to review and modify any current or future sanctions by me depending on this feedback.

And while you're at it, could you please indicate when (if ever) the in-progress revision of WP:AC/DS, particularly the clarification of the appeals procedure, will be forthcoming? Thanks,  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for preventative measures

Considering that the two arbitrators who have commented so far share my view that publishing private identifying information about the editor at issue constitutes outing or harassment (except under special circumstances not present here), I recommend directing a clerk or other functionary to take measures the Committee deems appropriate (such as redaction, courtesy blanking, oversight, warnings or restrictions) to suppress such breaches of privacy as have already occurred in the course of the ongoing ANI thread (as I intended to prevent with my warnings and sanction), and to prevent further breaches of privacy from occurring while the Committee considers this request for clarification. In view of some of the more surprising arguments put forth at ANI, I also recommend considering to amend the case page such that the names used in it may not be used to erroneously justify future breaches of privacy.  Sandstein  06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusion

I'd like to thank the five arbitrators who have commented, and all those who have offered constructive criticism here and at ANI. Attempting to summarize the arbitrators' views with respect to what I consider the salient issues:

• Concerning question 1, arbitrators are mostly, though not all, of the view that the use of the alleged real name is likely not outing, but they agree (though to varying degrees of intensity) that the use of the real name, against Prioryman's express desire for privacy (now repeated to me by e-mail) may constitute harassment. It's not clear whether there is agreement about whether the earlier username is private, but that is of less concern in my view.

  I broadly agree with this assessment: I have now been pointed to a 2009 edit by Prioryman where they acknowledge their real name by providing a diff in which, they say, they edited a citation to their own works, and where the diff leads to a reference with the name at issue. This excludes outing in the narrow sense defined at WP:OUTING, because that policy excepts situations where "that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". But, as arbitrators have emphasized, posting the name against the editor's will except where clearly justified (in COI discussions: WP:OUTING, par. 2, third sentence), is sanctionable harassment under most circumstances in my view.

• Concerning questions 2 and 3, the views offered by Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Risker and Nuclear Warfare are not in agreement, so I can't conclude anything yet. I'd appreciate hearing the opinion of other arbitrators as well.

As to what to do now: The sanction I imposed on The Devil's Advocate does not strike me as useful or advisable any more. This is principally because it has failed to achieve its goal to prevent continued undue attention from being focused on private information. But I must also take into consideration that two arbitrators as well as relatively many apparently uninvolved editors at ANI (even after discounting those apparently motivated only by grudges unrelated to this issue) have expressed concerns about the approach taken by the sanction. For these reasons I intend to vacate this sanction.

But, in the light of the foregoing, Prioryman's expressed desire for administratively enforced protection from privacy-breaching harassment in the Scientology context still appears worthy of protection. Therefore I intend to impose a discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of Prioryman, except by or with permission of arbitrators, or (for the purpose of COI discussions) by or with permission of uninvolved administrators. All users who contributed to this or the ANI thread would be informed about this sanction, which would of course be appealable as usual. If there are any objections by arbitrators to this way of moving forward with this issue, I'd of course appreciate hearing them.  Sandstein  23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano:: In my view, a reason to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki is that, unlike all these other editors, this editor has been, as far as I can tell, the subject of continued efforts at on- and offwiki harassment because of longtime feuds involving Scientology and Gibraltar, another DS topic. (He may well share part or all of the blame for these disputes – I don't know anything about them – but that does not change that he, like any other editor, is entitled to edit Wikipedia without being harassed.) However, if you and other arbitrators believe this proposed sanction is not proportionate, then a way to implement the case-by-case approach you envision would be to issue further discretionary sanctions warnings to the individuals whose recent conduct leads me to believe may be among those who might engage in harassing conduct in the future; this would allow targeted ex post facto discretionary sanctions.

Jayen466 (who, the Committee has found, has previously engaged in edit-warring to advance a Scientology-related agenda, and has been subject to a Committee topic ban) is mistaken to consider, below, that the information that the editor at issue may years ago have indirectly identified himself invalidates the block of Drg55, or my other admin actions. Outing is only a specialized form of harassment. The block of Drg55 and my warning and sanction remain valid for (actual or possible) harassment, whether or not it was or would also be outing in the technical sense. Additionally, any alleged conflict of interest situation does not excuse the conduct of Drg55, because Drg55 engaged in harassment in the context of an appeal of his own topic ban for his own misconduct. This is not a situation in which any conflict of interest of another editor with respect to some other article requires any discussion at all. Furthermore, what triggered this clarification request is my sanction against The Devil's Advocate, which is not a result of Drg55's actions, but of those by The Devil's Advocate.  Sandstein  15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The underlying problem is that my offense was not that I at any point disclosed Prioryman's real name. Oversighters are free to look for themselves to confirm that my comments to Sandstein only noted Prioryman's previous account, which is identified plainly on a WP:ARBSCI section I linked to in my comment, and that Prioryman had used the previous account to restore self-published information, which is backed with public diffs on the WP:ARBSCI finding I linked to in my comment. Furthermore I linked to a community noticeboard discussion from October where it was decided that mentioning Prioryman's first and last name did not constitute outing due to numerous public disclosures on-wiki. He warned me for that initial post and apparently sanctioned me just for noting Prioryman's previous account in my response to said warning. If I had noted Prioryman's last name on either occasion then I might understand his actions, even though they would still be in error, but I find it hard to accept that I can be sanctioned just for repeating what is noted at the public arbitration page being used to support the sanction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

My statements at ANI speak for themselves and I suggest reading that entire thread. My concern isn't Prioryman, but the threat of Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors. It seems to me that threatening a user with Arb sanctions should be the exception, used only when it is the best or only option, not a regular or "ordinary" course of action simply out of convenience. Since discretionary sanctions are a "fast track" exception to standard community policies, as defined by the Arbitration Committee, and not a community determined policy, they must be treated as such. There exists a high potential for abuse due to the limited avenues of review, which is why it seems they were designed to be used sparingly when there is a clear need, and with a higher standard of accountability. Because they are an exception to actual policies, they should be narrow in scope and used cautiously.

When an editor is threated to be blocked via an Arb sanction, and knows that no admin can review or overturn that block, and only the admin making the threat or the Arbitration Committee can review it, this is a big deal. There is nothing "ordinary" about it. Of course, that is the purpose, to deal with the worse problems where policy falls short. When this is done in a situation and it is clearly unneeded and overkill, it is brutal to editor retention and morale. It flatly comes across as admin bullying, even if that is not the intent. Arb sanction blocks do not have the same checks and balances that a regular block has, and most people know little of Arb, except that it is something to be avoided. Without comment on this particular case, I maintain that using the threat of an Arb sanctioned block when it is clearly not needed would be a textbook case of abuse of admin tools, as only admin can issue these warnings.

Sandstein has clearly indicated that he believes that these sanctions can and should be used any time that their use isn't a direct policy violation. I believe this is turning the system upside down. Community policy comes first, and Arb sanctions are for when regular policy is insufficient. The standard should be (or is) that Arb sanctions are somewhat narrow in scope and should only be used when less aggressive methods are not likely to be effective, or have been tried and failed. Not necessarily the last resort, but certainly not the first resort. These aren't emergency situations, and if they were, the block button is the right tool. His interpretation is a recipe for abuse, as it would allow some admin to use them liberally to simply prevent review of his blocks, thus dominate an area, while greatly limiting the scrutiny in each block. The threat of an Arb sanction is simply too powerful a tool to be used so casually. Clarity is requested. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Arbs I trust Sandstein acted in good faith, but I think the tags were overkill here and they may be getting used too often. My concern is moving forward that we understand that threatening an Arb sanction is not as trivial as a TW template, and it requires a higher threshold than using a TW template, due to the reasons and risks I've outlined. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Drawing to your attention my comment at [41] as it deals with your privacy jurisdiction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB: COI editing is a terrible scourge that reduces, in appearance and fact, the value of the Pedia, agreed. However, such concerns give way under the demands of CIV and the check of NPOV. Both these pillars working together provide the shield, crucible, and veil necessary to focus on the edits (which is what really matters to the Pedia) and to countermand the POV pusher. Yes, on occasion we have to delve into COI, to understand what is going on but the Pillars still, as that instruction quote notes, says where the balance lies, because COI itself does not necessarily actualize in edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: A mens rea for negligence? Criminal mind? That is the type rhetoric that is so over-the-top that it leads to disruption and discredit upon the proponent of it. Which is in part what appears to bring us to this pass. That comment [42] continues the pattern, which was the pattern found against the blocked user, to so gratuitously waive around the name, that you bludgeon the discussion with it. It appears your rhetoric wants to make it about the person, but Wiki policies for good reason resist such personalization. And it's one factor why reasonable minds think that warning about such use, after the block of the other user, is within reason, and thus within discretion. Reasonable minds may differ, of course, but, in the end, you may not intend your rhetoric to be personally harassing, yet it looks like that to plenty of others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: 1) conduct is about conduct, it is not about the person, it is about certain acts the person has taken within a given context; 2) being rebuffed in criticism comes as no surprise to anyone, nor is it a license for continuing an apparent pattern of harassment of another user; 3) the "name" and personal harassment that I referred to above is the name of the person that you identify as the person you "have had previous disagreements with Prioryman" about on-wiki and off wiki things; 4) Whether or not you believe it was legitimate for the admin to act to protect Prioryman, and thus the functioning of appropriate and policy compliant discussions of other people on the Pedia, that is the apparent reason for all of the Admins actions at issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayen466: This comment [43] proves too much. Indeed, its shows why the discretion was warranted. Note they all say it could be harassing, which is the rasion de etre for the Outing policy. More importantly, the fact that reasonable minds disagree shows that the Admin acted within reasoned discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

My position is similar to TDA's above.

I made two posts to Sandstein's talk page querying his actions. These are visible in the last section of this version of his talk page. In those posts I linked to User:ChrisO, (which is and was a redirect to User:Prioryman,) but did not explicitly state any of the user's more recent account names. I also linked to the archived ANI discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive773#Repeated_violation_of_RfC_restrictions_-_site_ban_proposed_for_Youreallycan and referred to User:Qwyrxian's closing summary. I pointed out that Sandstein had gone against the community's consensus or near consensus that naming Prioryman is not outing. In accordance with the spirit of the conclusion I did not give Prioryman's real name even though I think that it has become a secret as open as that of the identity of the author of Waverley at the time that Bertrand Russell wrote "On_Denoting". I then said I would take Sandstein to AN for going against the community consensus or near consensus previously expressed at ANI id the issue of Prioryman's name was the substance of his actions against TDA and Drg55. Sandstein's response was to issue me with an Arbitration warning under the Scientology case. To the best of my recollection I have never edited any articles related to Scientology and have not concerned myself with that dispute.

I therefore ask the committee:

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

I ask Arbcom to undo the actions that Sandstein has taken against me. Also, on the evidence I can see, I think that the actions against TDA should also be reversed. I have not looked at Drg55's history but I ask Arbcom to do so and consider whether at the least the grounds for various admin actions need tweaking. I also ask Arbcom to consider recent criticism in assorted places on Wikipedia of Sandstein's conduct and consider whether some guidance and advice would be of value.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that consideration is being given to protecting Prioryman's name from association with the Arbcom case. I ask that consideration be given to disassociating mine? Even though I cannot be unnotified, Sandstein's poor judgment has resulted in my name being recorded on the same page as Prioryman's website is linked and being associated with Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I should like to draw attention to various aspects of policy and Arbcom rules and procedures that Sandstein has ignored

• WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

By issuing warnings against myself and TDA and by issuing a sanction against TDA Sandstein failed to respond civilly to queries that are clearly within the bounds of civility and reasonable good faith and that were not personal attacks. He aggravated his breach of admin accountability by attempting to intimidate me from taking his poor use of his powers to ANI, one of the standard methods for appealing against the abuse of admin powers.

• WP:AC/DS "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;"

Given that both TDA and I had pointed out that many editors had expressed the view in the previous ANI discussion to which Sandstein's attention had been drawn that it was not outing to name Prioryman, then Sandstein willfully ignored the fact that many reasonable uninvolved editors would question the sanction.

• WP:INVOLVED "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Both TDA and I were in current disputes with Sandstein as we had both questioned his judgment with regards to the WP:OUTING. Especially as I had mentioned my intention to take him to ANI, Sandstein had a clear conflict of interest in imposing the warning on me as he hoped that it would prevent me from taking him to ANI.

• "WP:ADMINABUSE If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process further). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly."

ANI is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate channel for complaining about improper actions by Sandstein. He sought to prevent it being used.

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith There is too much here to quote but Sandstein has clearly failed to accept that anyone can question his judgment in good faith. He immediately assumed that there must be some malice behind what TDA an I did and went looking for what he considered the most likely bad faith justification.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except... following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)."

Here ANI has been identified as a legitimate location for discussing and overturning enforcement actions. Sandstein has tried to prevent his decisions from being the subject of community discussion even though he knew from the archived thread to which both TDA and I had drawn his attention that most participants in that previous discussion at ANI disagreed with his interpretation of WP:OUTING.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that Sandstein has only come to the committee because he has lost control of the situation and the community has become involved despite his best efforts to prevent in being allowed to express its views on this matter. His actions against me and TDA show that he lacks the ability to consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Wikipedia is littered with posts such as "I'm deeply, deeply tempted to jump on the desysop bandwagon as well. 'ArbCom repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins' — check. And cowboys such as Sandstein and ... place blocks that they obviously know are highly controversial, without advising with anybody, without warning the user, and throw primadonna fits if somebody ventures to unblock without first collecting a consensus on ANI." I wonder if the poster of that message would consider Sandstein's actions against TDA and myself to be throwing primadonna fits.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Question for Heim, Salvio and anyone else who thinks warnings are not reversible

Would you still maintain this opinion if a) an admin party to an Arbcom case who thought that they were about to be de-sysopped went and issued assorted warnings against the Arbcoms members they blamed for their impending de-sysopping; or b) an admin who had become disillusioned with WP issued warnings against various people listed at Wikipedia:Famous_Wikipedians, picking and choosing subjects that would be particularly likely to be sensitive to the targets?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Information to clarify Arbcom's focus

Here is a section of the [thread] to which TDA and I drew Sandstein#s attention

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

These quotes are not from far down the thread in question.

The reference to any potential rudeness in referring to User:ChrisO is therefore a red herring. Prioryman has stated that it is not a problem within the last none months. Perhaps he has changed his mind since October, but for someone to have the mens rea to be harassing him by referring to the ChrisO identity, that person needs to be aware that Prioryman has changed his mind. As far as I know he has not, which also means that I doubt that TDA would be aware of any such hypothetical change. Therefore Sandstein's claiming that TDA was outing Prioryman by mentioning the "ChrisO account is spurious and therefore the sanction is unjustified. Further Sandstein's failure to read even as much as the first couple of screens of the ANI discussion to which two users have drawn his attention in order to find that the reference to "ChrisO" has been declared not to be problematic by the man himself shows that Sandstein has the mens rea for culpable neglect or willful negligence in his exercise of his Admin powers. He either could not be bothered to perform his duties (culpable neglect) or was so arrogant in his conviction that he is always right and that mere ordinary users did not have the right to challenge him that he did not look (willful negligence).

In either case the discussion of whether it is harassment to mention the previous userid of Prioryman is a red herring except as evidence that the people who have been mentioning it up to now haven't yet done their homework.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker You have failed to notice that Sandstein made it about the person from the moment he chose not to assume good faith and not to abide by rules of admin accountability by using his against the individuals who questioned his previous use of them. By issuing warnings and by using discretionary sanctions he made this matter an issue of user conduct and not one of discussing the applicability of certain powers to a situation. Once he chose to make user conduct part of the issue, then his own conduct could not be excluded from this affair. He only sought advice from Arbcom on this matter after a substantial number of users condemned his actions at ANI.

You also ignore basic human psychology. When someone has a legitimate complaint and they are rebuffed, then the normal reaction to such behavior is to shout louder. Just look through some recent newspapers and I am sure you will find people saying about hospitals or police or other public institutions that it was not financial compensation that they wanted, rather all they wanted to do is have their complaint listened to fairly. It is the action of the authorities trying to silence the complaint that then creates all the drama that ends in the court cases and newspaper reports and hearings in parliament. It is the behavior of people like Sandstein and of people like you who back him as a reflex action that is the root cause of Wikidrama, not that of people who have been the victims of admin abuse. The Wikipedian way you praise is what has resulted in umpteen content creators walking out, in Wikipediocracy thriving and gaining press coverage of malfeasance on this site because it ignores how anger and hurt are the feelings generated in ordinary human beings who are maltreated by officialdom and that it is perfectly normal to express those feelings of anger and hurt by complaining about the abusive officials. Telling people that they have no right to express the anger and hurt just creates more anger and hurt and increases the expression of it. Dennis Brown, however, has modeled behavior that reduces drama through asking questions to clarify his understanding of what has been going on and by waiting to hear from Sandstein before reaching his conclusions about the matter. If more people at ANI followed his lead, then there would be an awful lot less drama.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlanScottwalker "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Whether or not Sandstein's motivation was good, he paved this particular highway to Hell with his arrogance and self-righteousness. An accountable admin who assumed good faith would have read the thread that TDA and I referred him to and would have come back and said "Okay the community does not support my view that it is outing to indicate what the "O" stands for but the closing admin did highlight that the use of the surname could be intended to harass Prioryman. In my view the intention was to harass. I will go and change the block grounds to one of harassment, not of outing." That is the non-drama-mongering way in which he could have handled it. However, Sandstein has a history of not being to accept disagreement, hence the comment about him from the bureaucrat board that I quote above. He does not listen to people who point out his errors of judgment or even have simple disagreements with him. It is his failure to accept that people can disagree with him in good faith and his insistence on using his admin powers against people who have merely disagreed that have led to his being taken to AN/I. Unless he shows signs here of being able to accept that his conduct has been hugely sub-optimal, then he is not fit to be an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Sandstein's proposed new sanction

I don't see how this is needed. As indicated above Prioryman has not too long ago replied to an explicit question that his old id being mentioned is not an issue. No one has produced evidence that TDA and Prioryman have an intense ongoing dispute. In fact, in a recent AN thread concerning Gibraltarpedia, TDA supported Prioryman's assertion about some Gibraltarian being notable. All TDA has done to trigger Sandstein's ire is to point to evidence contrary to Sandstein's interpretation of the fact. Sandstein chose to ignore policy on admin accountability and started slapping around warnings and enforcement restrictions. If he felt that the discussion should not be on Wikipedia, Sandstein had the option of emailing TDA and carrying on the conversation offline. Sandstein rejected the civil options and decided to go all Terminator instead. There is no need for any ongoing restriction.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking some questions again

I asked the following in my original statement and don't see much response from the Arbs. I ask them again in the hope that they might be noticed this time.

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

--Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

Leaving other issues behind, I just want to say please, please, please listen to Sandstein's last sentence, for the love of Pete. People are asking for warnings to be rescinded. I still don't believe warnings can be rescinded, as I view them as mere notifications, but since the committee has never clarified this, I cannot prove this, nor can those who believe warnings are a first step to sanctions. We asked for clarification on this months ago (I can't even remember how many). It's not right that we've had to wait this long. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Salvio, as you can see, I totally agree with you on the non-rescindability of warnings, but I have no good documentation for that. As has been pointed out, our documentations is contadictory, and some of it supports the notion held by others, including (I believe) Sandstein, which is that a warning is a formal step toward sanctions issued only by admins and in the case of conduct violations in the area, like when the cops give you a warning for speeding it goes on your record. In such a case, it would make sense that they would be rescindable. That's why we still need clarification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Warnings are logged here for future reference by other admins (who may directly apply sanctions as a next step). If the warnings were inappropriate, of course you can rescind them. You just delete them from the log, or strike them. What's so difficult? Andreas JN466 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: In practice, a logged warning means that any other admin can block or ban the user without further notice. It's a target painted on the user's back. This is not theory: it's what happened to The Devil's Advocate here. If the warning was inappropriate (and it was, in both cases), it should be rescinded, simple as that, to "reset" these editors' status to the same status everyone else enjoys.

We now have two (possibly three, given that there was a COI issue in that article) arbitrators saying that even Drg55's original mention of the editor's surname was not outing, which is the official reason given for the block given in Drg55's block log. So half the arbitrators commenting here are saying that Sandstein's block rationale was invalid. This is all The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen said. As things stand, Roger and Salvio are permitted to say it wasn't outing, without finding their names logged on the ARBSCI page by Sandstein, while The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen stand warned and sanctioned for saying the same thing. This is not right. Please remove their warnings from the log, and rescind The Devil's Advocate's sanction. --Andreas JN466 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I think we are all in agreement that Drg55 should remain topic-banned. But your trying to demonstrate that Drg55 is a wicked scoundrel is beside the point. For, to quote a man I am fond of, "it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all" (Mencken). Censoring arbcom pages years after the fact to make something that happened in plain sight of the community unhappen is Stalinist rubbish.

The right thing to do is to sanction Drg55 for what s/he did. The wrong thing to do is to change the truth for them and everyone else just so that you can use a bigger ban hammer on them. Andreas JN466 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I agree that Drg55's editing was disruptive, and said as much at AE. Drg55 would need to learn a bit more about sourcing policies and come to a better understanding of what sources are and are not considered okay to cite; as it was, s/he did not respond well to entirely germane criticism of his/her sources. In light of that, declining the appeal against the topic ban seemed perfectly reasonable. Andreas JN466 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein's statement at AN/I

Sandstein has now posted the following at AN/I:

This has been up for some 12 days now, even though discussion has stalled and I think it's pretty clear by now that this will not result in administrative action. Additionally, the discussion among arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology has broadly supported my view that the naming of the editor at issue against their expressed will constitutes (at least) harassment, except perhaps under certain circumstances not present here. The presence of certain parts of this thread in this public space may contribute to this harassment. For these reasons, I request that an uninvolved administrator close and archive this discussion.

If people disagree with my AE actions, I am always ready to discuss them, but – particularly if they relate to private information – I ask any who disagree to pursue the formal appeals and/or dispute resolution process, rather than to just make noise and assumptions of bad faith in public fora, which (as shown here) accomplishes little. As discussed in the clarification request, as soon as that request is closed, I intend to replace the sanction relating to The Devil's Advocate (which has failed to accomplish its purpose) with a sanction intended to prevent the continuation of the harassment at issue here more generally. Sandstein 15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not encouraging. Sandstein's view that this was outing has not been supported here: Sandstein would have to warn and sanction several arbitrators for telling him the precise thing that Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate told him. (Both said it was not outing, without repeating the name, which is precisely what several arbitrators did below.) In addition, Sandstein elides the fact that there was a very significant conflict-of-interest issue in the article at question, which is at best ignorant, and at worst disingenuous, given that the very question of whether the mere mention of the name itself is even harassment hinges on whether there is a conflict of interest or not. Furthermore, Sandstein promises that he will take unspecified further action on his own, bypassing the committee. This is nothing but a power grab by someone who dearly wanted to be an arbitrator, but has never managed to garner enough of the community's trust to actually become one, and for good reasons. Andreas JN466 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I object to Sandstein's reference to an "alleged" name of the editor in question. The editor in question, the former ChrisO, identified himself by name in his edits, voluntarily, and linked his old account to his new one, voluntarily. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. Once an editor identifies by name on WP, that editor is identified by name on WP. For example, I can't tomorrow start to squawk about "outing" and ask that all references to my real life name, Tim Davenport, be stricken from WP and any future reference to it result in sanctions. That's just the way it is. Sandstein is expressing an extreme view of this situation, one with plenty of precedent on Wiki to discount his position. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

To contrast with what Dennis is saying; warning about "Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors" is precisely what one should do where sanctions are in force. Articles are under discretionary sanctions precisely because a "fast track" exception to standard community policies is what is needed in those topics areas covered by them, and editors in that topic area should know. These warnings should not be treated as something handed out with great deliberation and controversy, or else they lose the entire point of their existence; trying to deal with particularly problematic areas.

There is a process for getting an AE decision overturned; that a single admin can't just simply overturn it is irrelevant. Discretionary sanctions are here because they are a necessary mechanism in those topics areas. From experience, one also gets a damn sight more due process at AE than at ANI. The contrast with AE is a lynchmob. What's the alternative? Look at the ANI thread about Sandstein, where those with an axe to grind come out of the wood work and don't declare their involvement.

Sanctions, meanwhile are almost universally defined as being broad in scope across a topic area, they are not narrowly defined (I don't know of any such case of narrowly defined DS scope), and its uninvolved admins that look at the case. The checks and balances are stronger for AE than ANI, and there is a clearly defined process.

.. and it's not just admins that can warn about DS, the guidelines were ambiguous last time I checked and non-admins have given warnings, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

@Salvio: If there is one area on Wikipedia in which a "legalistic" approach is appropriate, it is surely the area of discretionary sanctions, which are only promulgated for subject areas in which the normal Wikipedia approach has broken down, and, in some cases, descended into near chaos. It is necessary in those areas to be less forgiving of behavioral eccentricities and more "legalistic" in order to implement ArbCom decisions, which are, after all, "legalistic" in form and content.

Already we have a situation where there are very few admins who are willing to patrol AE and discretionary-sanctioned subject areas, and the Committee should be extremely careful in their comments and actions in this case, since the result could be that even fewer admins will be willing to police it, which will leave a gaping hole in the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. Unless the Committee is prepared to take personal responsibility for the enforcement of all its decisions, it needs admins such as Sandstein, whose work ought to be praised and not denigrated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

There seems to be a lot differing opinions about whether notifying/warning an editor about discretionary sanctions is really a warning or just a simple notification. Some editors believe that it's simply a notification. Other editors believe that it is a warning after some alleged misconduct. IIRC, I've been told by at least one admin that a warning/notification (whichever it is) is best given by an uninvolved admin who patrols the topic space. I don't know what the correct answers to these questions to these questions are, but I do know that different editors/admins answer them in different ways. It would be nice, and probably best done separately from the current dispute here, for us to reach consensus on these questions. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

According to WP:AC/DS,

“ Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways ”

This is an exact quote according to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.

Can the Committee please confirm (or reject):

1. That such warnings/notifications are in fact, not notifications, but actual warnings (per the wording of WP:AC/DS)?
2. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning) should identify the actual misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways?
3. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning and assuming the answer to question #2 is yes), do warnings that do not identify misconduct and/or do not identify how the editor may amend their ways still count?

Also, can the committee clarify who should make such warnings/notifications? Can only admins do this? Or can regular editors do this? Does it matter whether the admin or the editor is involved or uninvolved in the dispute?

There seems to be many differing opinions on each of these questions. Can the Committee please provide clarification? If the Committee would prefer that such clarifications be separate from the current request, I can file a separate Request for Clarification. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I probably am misunderstanding your last comment (so I apologize in advance) but did you just say that you - a sitting member of ArbCom - don't have WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment on your watch list? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

The original enforcement request concerning Drg55 was lodged by Prioryman. One of the recent diffs presented there[44] questioned whether, like MartinPoulter, Prioryman was, "an unreconstructed neo fascist participant from alt.religion.scientology". Drg55 further stated, "our critics are generally insane" and "I personally exposed quite a few attackers of Scientology with weapon of truth, and truth does defeat lies." It was on the basis of edits like that that Drg55 was indefinitely topic banned from all edits relating to Scientology or religion in general. Drg55's appeal was rejected, because of the non-neutral nature of his edits, as EdJohnston commented. During that appeal Drg55 again made comments discussing Prioryman's activities off-wikipedia. He did so repeatedly even after receiving warnings, the first of which was from Future Perfect at Sunrise.[45] That resulted in Sandstein's indefinite block. The objections to the block did not address in any way the problems with Drg55's editing. Instead there were wikilawyering edits suggesting that the identification could be deduced from "join-the-dots" sleuthing on wiki. However, Drg55's comments about both MartinPoulter and Prioryman were unambiguously attacks on and harassment of both editors. The wikilawyering about outing on public noticeboards has had the unfortunate and probably unintentional effect of continuing possible harassment. The two logged notifications of WP:ARBSCI seem fairly standard in the circumstances. Effectively that advice was ignored and the disruption initiated by Drg55 has continued. The extensive catalogue of criticisms of Sandstein by Peter cohen on this page seems completely disproportionate to the logged notification or warning. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jayen466: My reading of the situation is that Drg55's editing was disruptive; and in various ways, hence the very broad topic ban. During the appeal it became more so, even after warnings. Previously in June there was indeed an edit summary where Drg55 mentioned the possibility of wikipedia being sued.[46] Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Someone not using his real name

It seems that most arbitrators commenting below have missed the fact that whereas Peter Cohen was "only" warned, in the The Devil's Advocate case, the warning was followed by an actual sanction imposed. I think that there is only an academic distinction between an admin officially AE-warning an editor not to do something and officially AE-sanctioning him with a ban prohibiting said editor from doing said something. Sandstein's warnings were not mere notifications of the existence of some Arbitration case. Both editors warned were already aware of that, and Sandstein was aware that they were aware. The two editors were in fact sanctioned for being too aware of some content of that Arbitration. Downplaying the obvious stifling intent with which Sandstein placed the two warnings and the one topic ban he subsequently issued to TDA as a mere notification shows the vast chasm between how this is perceived by the editor-peons and the lofty admins/arbs on this page and at ANI. And people wonder why most editors see admins as an unaccountable Old Boys' club... By the way, Arbcom has yet to address Sandstein's subsequent "Request for preventative measures" made on this very page, in which he asks that the Scientology Arbitration case be redacted so that certain editors may be no longer be "outed" by linking to it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan

I would like to second A Quest for Knowledge's request for clarification for when and how DS notices/warnings are to be given, and express hope that will be in the policy that Salvio refers to below. As presently stated, step number 4 of the DS process states, "4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". That formulation is unclear as to whether actual misconduct is needed before the warning can be given or whether it is possible to give it (a) merely because an editor is either merely editing in the area to which DS apply or (b) because the editor is engaging in conduct which is questionable, but which is not clearly misconduct (e.g. a very slow motion edit war consisting of clearly revert–y edits stretched over days or weeks or conduct which is viciously curt and abrupt but short of being clear incivility). I fall on the side that they ought to be able to be given merely as notices. If these areas are important enough to establish DS's for, then these warnings ought to be no more than statements that, in effect, "We're not saying that you're doing anything wrong for sure, but your behavior has caught our eye and we want you to know what you have at stake." The alternative would be to establish that a notice must be given first, perhaps by templating the article talk page (as far as I know, the talk page templates currently have no actionable effect), then make the current individual-editor templates last-chance type warnings per se once that notice has been in place for a period of time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Following RegentsPark's analysis, below, and to make clear that I consider the alternative I describe above to be the poorer choice:

1. Any uninvolved editor should be able to give the notices, but the rule should also say that a notice given by an involved editor is not invalid but is only incivil.

2. Giving the notice should not require prior misconduct, merely participating in a DS area should be enough. The rule should say that if misconduct or questionable conduct has occurred it should be pointed out, but that failure to do so should neither invalidate the notice nor require another warning prior to the imposition of DS if the conduct or questionable conduct continues.

3. In light of how and why — I think — DS came to be, i.e. to reduce drama, individualized notices probably ought to be required, but since I'm not sure of that provenance, my opinion on this point is weak.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark

Though this is not directly relevant to the Scientology case, I concur with TransporterMan above that we need some sort of clarity on the process of notifying an editor about discretionary sanctions in a topic area. In particular, arbs need to clarify:

1. Who can issue these notifications - any editor, any uninvolved editor, admins only, uninvolved admins only?
2. Are these notifications merely informational or should they follow some sort of wrongdoing?
3. Are editors subject to action under discretionary sanctions only after notification or at anytime (assuming article talk pages are clearly templated with a DS notice)?

My personal inclination is to treat these notifications as purely informational in nature and editors who edit in a sanctioned area should be notified of the existence of these sanctions by any editor. That way, it is clear to an uninvolved admin that an editor knows about the sanctions and we won't need to get into extended discussions of the sort we're seeing here - i.e., when someone's behavior is wrong enough for sanctions to be issued. Clear and unequivocal guidance from arbitrators is, I think, essential. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

In terms of making people aware of discretionary sanctions, I think there needs to be a distinction made between "notice", "general (or friendly) warning" and "specific (or formal) warning".

• Notices are a heads-up to editors working in the affected area making them aware that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working in. They imply no wrong doing or cause for concern, and should be worded to make this clear. They may be left by anyone.They cannot be revoked or withdrawn as once you are aware of something you cannot be made unaware of it.
• General warnings are for making editors aware both that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working and that there is potential cause for concern with their editing, and that although there is no specific problem they are sailing close to the wind, or that there could be problems if they go much further than they have already - be careful. The tone should be friendly and contain no threats of specific action while making it clear that sanctions could be imposed if the warning is not heeded. These warnings may be left by anyone, although preferably by someone not directly involved and definitely not someone with any history of interpersonal conflict with the recipient. They cannot be withdrawn/revoked as it is just making people aware that there are concerns, and you can't be made unaware of that.
• Specific warnings are for use where there are specific problems with an editor's actions, such that their edits are actually disrupting the topic area or attempts to resolve the dispute, etc. These should explicitly indicate specifically the problems, ideally with linked examples, and make it clear that continuing will lead to sanctions without warning. The tone must be formal and precise, and the specific warning may also include a more general warning regarding other parts of the same topic area. These warnings may not be left by anyone directly involved with the dispute or an interpersonal history with the recipient. Ideally the should almost never by be left someone involved at all, but if they are they must make this clear. References to specific actions as harmful or problematic may be withdrawn, but awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions and that their editing is potentially problematic can not.

Sanctions must be preceded by one or more of the above or other evidence of awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions (e.g. active participation in the arbcom case or community discussion that authorised them, leaving a warning for another user, etc), except in the case of gross or wilful disruption.
What level of notice/warning has been left before, how long ago it was and the nature of the disruption should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to sanction or futher warn. If a user has only received one notice, it was a long time ago and they haven;t been active in the topic area recently another notice would probably be appropriate for minor issues. However for gross disruption very shortly after receiving a notice sanctions without further warning are probably justified. Users should not get more than one specific warning about the same actions/specific area unless they are separated by at least several months with no sanctions and little to no editing in the topic area between - the warning hasn't worked and sanctions are needed. Similarly a user shouldn't normally be getting more than two or three at absolute most general warnings before sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by DGG

I almost never comment on these matters. But it seems the trend of some views expressed here are so contrary to what I regard as a community-based way of doing things that I must say something.

• As for outing, I think NYV's discussion below is pretty definitive. Once the name has been widely revealed it is not outing. Using it against the preference of the user is in most situations discourteous. Whether it was or not discourteous in this case I am not commenting, but it is not outing and does not justify the application of penalties as if it were. Mentioning a widely known former user name against the preference of the user is not in the least outing, and can be discourteous when not germane to the discussion. It is a much lesser problem as compared to a similar use of a real name, let alone to outing.
  
• As for the broadness of discretionary sanctions, they're a very strong and direct sanction difficult to appeal, and should be used cautiously. I can't rule out that a use in an indirect violation or in a manner not literally specified might not be sometimes required. I do have an opinion that Sandstein's action was excessive and not justified by the situation. And, as is often the case, if the purpose of DS is to immediately stop something from escalating, it was certainly counterproductive. I hope such unjustified use of power will always be noticed, so we admins will learn not to do it. Whether it is sufficiently unjustified in this case to call for action against the admin would depend on many factors, such as whether such overreaching is a one time event or habitual, and I am not now giving any opinion.
  
• DS are not ordinary sanctions. They're the invocation of arbitrary action based on the decision of a single individual, that requires action of many individuals to undo. Such measures should be used only when unquestionably necessary. The opinion expressed that it's no harsher than ordinary blocks is unrealistic--they are so much more powerful that I personally would never feel sure enough of myself to use one. I find it highly alarming that arb com routinely resorts to them to make decisions that affect the actual resolution of a dispute, one that they often hesitate to make themselves. Arb com is, as it should be, deliberately set up in such a way as to provide for extensive prior discussion and joint consensus among the members of the committee. DS are the exact reverse of that, and to rely on any of the wide diversity of individual admins doing them right is alien to the spirit of a cooperative group of people. It produces such anomalies as the present one. Admins sometimes need to take emergency action, which is then subject to community review. I accept that with particularly difficult articles situations for more permanent immediate action may arise, but if so they should be construed as narrowly as possible and used with the greatest possible amount of consideration and judgment. Drastic action left to the discretion of any one of hundreds of individuals is dangerous, because someone among the hundreds will always be found who take an unreasonably alarmist view of a situation. DS encourages such extremism.
  

I think I am in all this essentially agreeing with Dennis, though I may be stating it even more strongly than he would endorse. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mangoe

I am largely in agreement with DGG's analysis of the situation, but I wish to add one note. Well, two notes actually.

Admins are not supposed to be exalted users beyond the judgement of more mortal editors, but that's the crux of what happened here: two ordinary editors were threatened for questioning Sandstein's judgement in an issue. It's one thing to refuse to reconsider, though I think that to do so as a matter of course demonstrates an unbecoming and disruptive arrogance. But be that as it may, neither response outed anyone, whether or not one thinks that Prioryman's identity is public knowledge. It's abundantly clear that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to that last issue, so it's hard for me to take seriously the need for discipline in raising it as an issue. But it is quite clear to me that the function of ARBSCI in this is abusive, perhaps inadvertently so, but nonetheless disruptive. It seems that Prioryman has become a protected person because it is alleged somewhere that he has some connection to public critique/defense of Scientology, and therefore any discussion of him can be slapped down with AE even if Scientology itself doesn't figure in the dispute at hand; and furthermore, if anyone complains about how some admin has handled such a dispute, the complainants can be summarily disciplined by that admin. Heck, if I wanted to cultivate the same protection, I could publish some anti-Scientology tracts off-wiki, let slip that I authored them (without even really revealing my true name), and then cultivate some admin to defend me.

And in the end I feel that I shouldn't have to go through this elaborate an analysis. Allowing admins to discipline people simply for disagreeing with them has such an obvious potential for abuse that it should be forbidden absolutely. ARBSCI has nothing to do with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An additional point on outing: Years ago when I authored Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, one of my points was that the genie of identity cannot in reality be stuffed back in the bottle once it has been let out. It seems to me that if people want to reclaim anonymity here, they must make a clean break from their old identity and leave no trail back to it. It's absurd to insist that people pretend that they don't know, particularly when off-wiki there's no need for such a pretense. There seems to be some dispute in this case as to how well-identified the old account was, but no real attempt at a clean break was made, so it's unreasonable to insist that people pretend otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comments:

At this point I will address Sandstein's question whether it is permissible for an editor to mention Prioryman's real name; I may return to the other questions raised later.

Our policies permit editors to choose whether to associate their real-world identity with their Wikipedia identity. Putting aside editors who simply use their real name as their username, as to whom this issue does not arise, editors have a range of options in this regard. One can imagine a continuum, with editors who make no secret of who they are at all (such as by mentioning their names on their userpages), at one end and editors who make no reference at all to their real-world identity on-wiki or in any Wikimedia-related forum on the other.

Prioryman falls somewhere between the two extremes I have described; I don't think it's necessary to resolve precisely where he falls on the continuum between total openness of identity, on the one hand, and total separation of one's RL identity from the wikiworld on the other. At a minimum, it is clear that at this time, Prioryman does not want his RL name mentioned on-wiki. That preference, like any editor's, should be respected to the fullest extent possible.

As this Committee has observed several times, there is an unresolved tension between the project's policies against "outing" and our guidelines governing conflicts of interest, because it is sometimes impossible to diagnose or meaningfully discuss a COI without acknowledging who someone is. One can imagine conceivable scenarios in which it would become necessary, after careful deliberation and for a very good reason, to mention a (formerly) anonymous editor's name on-wiki. The example that has quickly become canonical is: "What if Qworty hadn't posted his name on his page before he was banned? Would we be unable to talk about his behavior, even as the rest of the world does so?" Our policy does not really deal with that kind of scenario.

But short of some sort of very serious COI problem or the like, there is simply no reason to mention Prioryman's (or anyone else's) real name on-wiki, especially if one knows that he prefers that it not be done. I don't see a lot of value in discussing whether this behavior should formally be classed as "outing". It is sufficient to say that "doing something that one knows annoys another editor, without any corresponding benefit" is a classic example of what one might call harassment, or at least unhelpful behavior. So in my mind, the starting point for the discussion should not be "are we allowed to mention Prioryman's real name?" but "why is it desirable to even think about doing so?"

A similar question has been raised concerning whether one may refer to Prioryman's former account name. In general, an editor is entitled to be referred to by his or her current username and not a previous one. In my view, it is permissible to refer to Prioryman's prior username where there is a specific and meaningful reason to do so, but not to do so gratuitously or unnecessarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the above, it bears emphasis that the project's current COI guideline and COI noticeboard instructions assert that the desire to avoid COI problems yields to the policy against "outing," i.e. revealing the identity of editors against their wishes, when the two are in conflict. See Wikipedia:COI#Avoid_outing. Whether that goal is realistically attainable in every case is partly a practical question and partly a policy question, and the extent to which an editors' name being disclosed elsewhere online or being widely known bears on the issue is something on which policy is less than clear. I realize that this is not exactly helpful, actionable guidance, and will try to formulate something that is sharper, but the project as a whole has been grappling with the tension between the COI-discouragement and the non-identification ideals for at least seven years without being able to resolve them, so I can't promise an access of insight overnight. One thing that I can say is that the reaction to an editor who mentions someone's name in good faith in a COI discussion should be very different from the reaction to one who does it for the purpose of annoying or harassing, so as with any other violation of policy, an appropriately tailored caution or warning will often (not always) be the proper response to a good-faith first offense (not saying that is what happened here, just speaking generally). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning to another question, whether warnings or notices can be retracted and whether they are appealable. If an editor has edited problematically in a given area subject to DS, even borderline problematically, letting him or her know that there are DS available in the topic-area and at least one administrator perceives he or she may be getting close to incurring one, is generally a service for everyone. Such notices are not necessarily meant to be seen as scarlet letters, and entertaining appeals of "I didn't deserved to be warned" on the same basis as "I didn't deserve to be 1RR'd" or "I didn't deserve to be topic-banned" isn't likely to be a good use of everyone's time. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to rule out the idea that such notifications are appealable ever. If an administrator, for example, started issuing notifications/warnings to editors who did not even arguably do anything wrong, I'd be hard-pressed to say that they must automatically stand without reexamination. So my own take, which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will also respond to Sandstein's first question while contemplating the other two. As far as I know (and I've had plenty of reason to review this over the years), the editor in question has never published his full name onwiki, and has made it very clear that he considers any on-wiki publication of his full name (or anything that could be construed to be his full name) to be outing and/or harassment. As such, Drg55's repeated insertion of that information constitutes at least an intentional effort to harass the user and link him to an off-wiki identity. This outing took place in direct relation to a topic that Drg55 knew was under Arbcom and discretionary sanctions, as he was appealing a sanction that had been applied to him. Therefore, the removal and warning to Drg55 from Future Perfect at Sunrise and the subsequent block by Sandstein on Drg55 under the discretionary sanctions of the Scientology arbitration case are appropriate and I see no cause to lift these sanctions. Risker (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The clarification regarding the policy on discretionary sanctions is almost ready and will be posted on wiki for discussion and voting soon, I believe. I'm sorry it took this long, but it was a complicated effort and there are still disagreements among the committee as to certain details. That said, I agree with Heimstern Läufer that warnings cannot be rescinded, as they are merely notices; and when a person has been made aware of them, there is no way he may "be made unaware" again.

  Furthermore, Sandstein, in my opinion, your approach to discretionary sanctions is way too legalistic. Our decisions are not legal documents and cannot be interpreted using the same construction rules a lawyer would use to interpret an act of Parliament: as far as I'm concerned, I expect people to interpret and enforce our decisions using commonsense, never forgetting that IAR is one of the five pillars. Not to mention that discretionary sanctions are always "authorised" and never made compulsory, which means that an administrator should use his discretion to determine whether the imposition of restrictions is the best way to stop the disruption an editor is causing; if not, then nobody is obliged or expected to impose a discretionary sanction.

  Also, I believe that the sanction you imposed on The Devil's Advocate was not warranted and, what's more, I'm not sure it was validly imposed (I'm not sure questioning a sanction you've imposed can be considered making edits about a topic, not even using a very broad construction of the clause).

  Finally, and I know I disagree with my colleagues here, since the link between Prioryman and ChrisO has been disclosed many times on wiki, including by ArbCom, to say that the two accounts are the same person is not outing. Moreover, *in my opinion*, not even saying what the "O" stands for is outing because it was indirectly acknowledged by the subject and was the basis of an ArbCom's finding of fact. Again only in my opinion, WP:OUTING only protects those who try to protect their identity: no policy on Wikipedia demands that editors play dumb... Referring to Prioryman's name may be harassment, when done maliciously, with the sole intent of causing him distress, but that's the exception, not the other way around. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peter cohen: I think that warnings are merely a way to insure that a user editing in a contentious area does not get sanctioned out of the blue; the way I see them, so, warnings are a way to protect editors from unpleasant surprises. Which means that, no matter the reason, once someone has been notified that DS have been authorised for a given topic area, there is no way for that person to be un-notified. If there is a good reason, I have no objections to removing a warning from the log, but that does not invalidate the notification.

    @Newyorkbrad: which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate., almost every warned editor thinks the warning was clearly undeserved; your limit would be pretty much useless and would require us to waste our time all the same, even if only to make sure that the warning in question was appropriate and deserved. I don't think that's a productive use of our limited resources. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Beyond My Ken: there is a difference between criticising and denigrating and I'm surprised that someone here is confusing what I consider constructive criticism with belittlement.

      @A Quest For Knowledge: & @TransporterMan: yes, those aspects (and others) will be clarified hoperfully soon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Sandstein: I don't really like the new restriction you proposed: you're, basically, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This problem requires a nuanced solution, one that deals with every use of Prioryman's name on a case-by-case basis. As I've said, using his name is not outing and may be harassment, depending on the circumstances; furthermore, I don't see any real reasons to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki. There can, of course, be an ex-post evalutation of whether a given mention of his name was warranted, but not a blanket ban. (Clearly, this is nothing but the opinion of this one arb.) In my opinion, the best course of action would be for Sandstein to lift TDA's restriction and then walk away, forgetting about this episode. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Responding to Sandstein's questions and using his numbering;

  1. Back in the day, the editor's real life identity was common knowledge within the Scientology topic. He regularly linked to sites mentioning it and acquiesced when it was used on-wiki. At that time though, the applicable policies were not as they are today and current policies acknowledge an individual's wish for a degree of personal privacy. It follows, therefore, that while referring to him by his real name is not outing, such references may well be intended to have a chilling effect or to cause discomfort.

  2. In my view, it's overreach to use discretionary sanctions for matters which are only coincidentally related to the topic and which can be dealt with satisfactorily underr existing policy. I haven't looked at this situation closely enough to see whether that is the case here.

  3. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide fast track remedies to contain disruption arising from dysfunctional conduct in relation to the topic. They do this by sidestepping the usual community dispute resolution processes. Because they give administrators greater powers, and limit appeal options, they should be applied conservatively.

  Otherwise, I agree entirely with Salvio's point. Someone can no more be unnotified than they can take back a sneeze. Roger Davies ^talk 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Couple of quick points in response to Sandstein. I haven't had the time, nor likely will I be able, to read all of the background.

1. It's pretty clear at this time which account Prioryman used to use. It is also clear that Prioryman at the time did not object to the use of his real name in general discourse: I see now-banned editors and then-administrators alike using it in the archives. However, Prioryman now longer wishes other editors to refer to him by his real name; accordingly, the only appropriate reason to use the name of his old account is "for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" (Wikipedia:Harassment). I don't think it matters what things were in the past; there is really no legitimate reason to continue using it. BASC is hearing Drg55's block now; that is a separate process and we can handle it as per usual.
2. It's a stretch of the discretionary sanctions procedure, but in my view that's an appropriate use of both discretionary sanctions and the standard administrators' toolkit. It may have not been warranted in this case ultimately, but that's a separate matter.
3. Discretionary sanctions absolutely do not need to be used in narrow cases only. An individual administrator can adopt that approach, but it is not required.

• And I really really apologize for previously promising and failing to follow through, but we really are working on an updated discretionary sanctions procedure that should moot the current ambiguousness about both warning prerequisites and rescindability. NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have not researched into the background of this request so am unsure of the reason for the questions. I will simply respond off-cuff to the questions as asked, and if prodded on my talkpage will look deeper if needed.

1 Is the alleged [name of a user] private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?

Yes. If a user has not revealed or acknowledged their real name on Wikipedia it is considered WP:OUTING to mention it. If the name has previously been revealed or acknowledged, but the user has expressed a wish to currently suppress it, then continuing to use it would be anti-social at the very least, and very likely to be WP:Harassment. That a user has been involved in an ArbCom case does not impact on the situation. It is no greater or lesser WP:OUTING/WP:Harassment. A user is not afforded protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case, nor are they a legitimate target. All users are covered by the same general guidelines unless explicitly stated otherwise.

2 Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki...?

No. A user is not afforded special ArbCom protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case (but nor are they a legitimate target for harassment or mistreatment). All users are covered by the same Wikipedia general guidelines and procedures unless explicitly stated otherwise by ArbCom.

3 Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations...?

Yes. DS are only to be used as described on WP:AC/DS. If a user editing in a topic area under DS published on the talkpage of an article under DS the real name of any user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment then DS would apply. But if a user published elsewhere on Wikipedia the real name of a user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment, then standard guidelines would apply, even if the user outed/harassed had been a party to an ArbCom case. Unless ArbCom specified that DS applied to an individual user, DS only applies to editing within a topic area. But it does mean that any repeated or serious violations of Wikipedia norms, such as harassment, on pages within DS, are liable to DS.

I am not watchlisting this page (and I don't have my name enabled on the new notifications software), so please ping me if a follow up is required on any aspect of what I have said. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Sandstein's questions are based on the assumption that DS has been authorized for the relevant area. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I was attempting to answer the questions asked. If the questions were more direct: such as "Was the block of Drg55 appropriate?" and "Were the subsequent AE warnings appropriate?" then a different set of answers would apply. I think the lack of clarity of Committee members' responses is to do with the wording of the questions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge. I use {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to alert me to this page. I will come back now and again to see what is happening on an open issue - the amount I check back will depend on the circumstances; but, no, I don't watchlist the page, so I may sometimes let people know that if they want a response from me personally (such as clearing up issues in a statement I make) it would be quicker to ping me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the first question, I have little more to add to NYB's comment, with which I completely agree. As to the second question, I think the answer is yes, as long as the incident that leads to the sanction is connected to a topic area for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized. For the third question, I think the answer must be no; provided that discretionary sanctions have been authorized in the topic area, there's no great need to strive to avoid employing them. Otherwise there's little need for them; a "normal" block would prevent any disruption that could be prevented by a discretionary sanction on an editor. Rather, administrators should aim to employ the least restrictive sanction that is likely to be effective in preventing disruption; in some cases it may be a warning, in others it may be a "normal" admin action, and in still other cases it may be a discretionary sanction. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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