Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 66: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 75:
* I guess we should have specified "some audited content" a bit more, but to be more proscriptive seemed to me at the time to be overkill. That said, my idea was that it'd be a more substantial body of work. I think working on [[Bradwall]] was a ''big'' step in the right direction and I see some work on [[Cerne Abbas Giant]]. The former article I think would be tricky to get to FA unless some more content were forthcoming, but the latter is definitely feasible. The initial idea was a substantial body, so see [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=406311047#Motion here and scroll up for Jayjg's initial body of work which resulted in the committee lifting restrictions]. So maybe not as much as that, but I think some more material would be great. I am happy to give some feedback for a GA push on the giant, a really wonderful landmark in southwestern England. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
* Repeating my comments from last time: "It seems the original ban was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman in July 2007]. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation placed on Probation] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]]. He was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iantresman&oldid=451128252 unblocked after an appeal] six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked."
*:Iantresman is running a risk by asking to go back into an area that resulted in a site ban, and which if he causes problems again will likely result in another site ban, from which a second return would be much harder; but if he feels he can enter that area without causing problems, and has calmly accepted four GA fails on the same article, taking the fail comments on board to go back and improve the article to a pass standard, then it seems fair and appropriate to give him that opportunity. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
* Waiting for more opinions from the community, but I'm inclined to grant this, probably with a probationary 1RR as My76Strat suggests just to ensure there are no difficulties - something along the lines of "''The topic ban placed against Iantresman as a condition of unblocking in September 2011 is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. After each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction.''" [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
: My76Strat's suggestion seems good here. For all we know, Iantresman is of an age where the five years between the original ban and now would have a considerable impact. Let's give him a chance. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
*Inclined to support per Hersfold and Elen. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
*I ask Iantresman to be a little bit more specific about how he plans to edit articles about "fringe science and physics-related subjects" if this request is granted? Is this an "I don't plan to dive back into the maelstrom, but I don't want to have to risk an inadvertent violation" type of appeal, or are you going to dive right back into spending much of your time in the content areas you were banned from? If the latter, how will you edit those articles differently from the manner that previously caused problems? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
* Iantresman, thank you for responding to Newyorkbrad's question. Like my colleagues, I am minded to accept this request. I am keen on the piecemeal approach to restoring the appellant's ability to contribute to fringe science and physics articles. Hersfold, I like your suggested amendment; would you like to propose that as a motion? [[User talk:AGK|<
**Since the community doesn't appear to hold any objections, sure. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
*Willing to lift per Silk. Seems we're in agreement. Motion time?
**There's a motion being voted on now, see below. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
***That's what I get for canceling my page load. :)
=== Motion regarding Iantresman ===
:
*'''Enacted''' -- [[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]] ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 20:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 95:
# Proposed; added a few bits for clarity. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
#:@Iantresman: There is no currently approved bot that identifies revert restriction violations of any sort; those often require human judgment which a computer program is incapable of making, so I can't imagine one would ever be approved for that purpose. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
#[[User talk:AGK|<
#:Iantresman: (a) Yes. (b) You may make ''no more than one revert'' per page per 24 hours, within this topic area. I don't think that restriction needs any explanation. Partial or full reverts are included. (c) Somebody else could make the revert, but you would be unable to do so. Remember that if the restriction does not require enforcement, it will expire in 6 months. Remember also that the restriction applies only to pages within this topic area, and not to your edits within other topics. [[User talk:AGK|<
# [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
# On balance, I consider this proposal to be worth trying. If Iantresman's can demonstrate that he is able to edit this topic area in a manner that isn't problematic, then he deserves to be able to edit without any restrictions. Conversely, if his editing of this topic area raises serious concerns, we could reinstate the topic ban. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
# '''[[User:SilkTork|<
# Support as amended. Worth a try. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
#
; Oppose
Line 117:
==== Community comments regarding Motion 1 ====
Will unrestricted editing automatically ensue after six months with no violations, or will it be necessary to file an additional amendment? <
: If the appellant does not violate his 1RR restriction, the restriction will expire after 6 months and he will be as free as you and me to edit that topic area. [[User talk:AGK|<
::Exactly. Conversely, if an indefinite block is instated at any point during the restriction, ''for a violation of the restriction'', the topic ban will be reinstated without need for further amendment. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 167:
=== Statement by Mar4d ===
The analogy present here is incorrect; any user who restores a sock's edit does so on their own behalf and it is usually when he/her feels that this edit was valid. What if a sock revert vandalism, will you revert that too? Furthermore, an amendment like this will not go down well because Darkness Shines has a history of targeting innocent IP editors 86.x, 109.x, 39.x IP ranges who were not related to a sock. There are hundreds of people using these ranges and if this gets passed, then DS will pretty much revert anyone whom he thinks to be a sock on hindsight without evidence, as he is doing with another long-established [[User:Jozoisis]] using his poor judgement. He is kind of topic banning all editors from editing using the sock label even when usually in those cases there is nothing to suggest that this particular editor may be a sock. '''[[User:Mar4d|<
=== Statement by Richwales ===
Line 198:
I was the administrator who put the original restriction on DS because of there being issues of baseless SPIs being filed. One of the conditions was that DS may not file against Nangparbat. This is now worse off than it started, we are going from baseless SPIs to not even presenting evidence, but making a closed decision on who's a sock of who. While I admit (although I haven't looked for the behavior to verify it, i'm trusting the administrator's judgement) that DS has done some correct reverts like [[User:109.145.251.152]] which was blocked, reverts and tags like those to [[User:Desiray09]] are not appropriate as there is no trail of evidence to link this to the master, and it's one edit. If there is a block or something because DS emailed another admin or something, that's fine. It shows a second step in the process which is critical, especially when users can present bias from editing in the subject area. This is why a ruling that "editors may not remove suspected sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet user pages", as requested by DS, would be problematic. It also creates a horrible restriction if people are wrong and '''need''' to remove the tags, which i've had to do in my wiki-lifetime a few times.
On to the actual request for clarification, the request for a restriction that "no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor" actually undermines the policy at [[WP:BAN]] in which the community policy says that editors take responsibility for any edits restored. While I agree it's not optimal to restore banned editors contributions, if it's a good improvement, then why should we chuck it out the door? Were already blocking them, or protecting articles, making it harder for them to edit, it's not like we are [[WP:DENY|giving too much attention]] to the issue. I haven't specifically looked over the R/I ArbCom motion yet, but as Rich stated above, {{talkquote|The Race and Intelligence motion was, as best I can tell, passed in response to a particularly troublesome situation which was originally dealt with in an arbitration case. Quoting from the originally enacted remedies in that case: "[T]his topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment."|Richwales}}. There has been no presented evidence to indicate that this area is hostile, and further more, I don't see the extensive disruption. So there is no precedent to go on, and it undermines community policy in a way that would hurt it, not help it. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<
=== Statement by Smsarmad ===
Line 206:
Tagging suspected socks even before they blocked or confirmed is not an uncommon practice. However, I do not advise in tagging socks until there is sufficient evidence to warrant a tag. By sufficient evidence I mean something usually in the case of more than one edit though there are exceptions. In the particular case where DS asked me to take a look a suspected while subsequently tagging it, I feel that perhaps tagging the account was a bit early. It might be possible that the suspected account is indeed a sock but I feel the evidence isn't really there at the moment. Was the tagging inappropriate? Some would say yes, some would say no. IMO, there really isn't an established standard on when to tag socks. I believe that DS is helpful in the aspect that he's reporting suspected socks to me, however as I said previously, greater caution should be taken.
@DS [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brickchairbrickchair This isn't NP]. That's {{user|MohammedBinAbdullah}} if memory serves me right. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b>[[User:Elockid|<
=== Statement by RegentsPark ===
Line 217:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* I've asked the clerks to delist this request as declined after 24-48 hours, absent any change in the balance of arbitrator opinion in the next section (or objection to archival from my colleagues). [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Without a clear pattern of abuse and disruption, and evidence of the community trying and failing to deal with that disruption, ArbCom would not get involved. ArbCom are not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of authority - we are a group of fellow Wikipedians who have volunteered to temporarily act in a committee which by agreement of the community makes ''final'' and binding decisions in cases of dispute which the community have been unable to resolve. The nature of our role is that we do not step in too early. This request appears to be too early. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*In the Race & Intelligence case, a set of banned editors were continuing to cause a great deal of problems with wholly disruptive edits being restored by editors in breach of their own topic bans. The evidence doesn't suggest that we are at this stage yet in this area. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
*I think the request here demonstrates that the former prohibition should be appropriately narrowly drawn: since edits relating to a topic made by a banned editor and later removed would be considered edits on that topic, editors topic banned from that particular topic would be in breach of that topic ban by restoring them. Blanket prohibitions on non-sanctioned editors restoring banned user edits would foreclose the ability of editors in good standing to proxy the ''useful'' contributions of banned editors, an option the committee has extended to banned editors in the past. Full disclosure: I did not support that motion, for this reason and other concerns. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
*I would decline this amendment request, per my three colleagues above. [[User talk:AGK|<
* Agree with my colleagues - I think we should decline this amendment request. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
*I agree with most of the commenters and with my colleagues that we should not act on this request. With regard to the more general issue, the observations by Richwales and the other administrators who have commented are generally sound. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 273:
* Mathsci, the presence of this on arbitration-related pages is a magnet for drama. Recent developments mean the motion is not passing and hence we have a pathway to clearing the decks. I fear and strongly suspect examining things further at this time would prolong unpleasant interactions. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*Agreed with NYB and Cas, this case and topic area needs a rest, and I see no value in re-examining the Review items questioned here at this point in time. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
* It was a mistake for Mathsci to submit this request. Unless any arbitrator disagrees, I echo my colleagues' calls for this request to be delisted by a clerk. [[User talk:AGK|<
----
{{abot}}
Line 308:
==== Comment by Durova ====
Have customs changed? Or is it no longer customary for clerks or arbitrators to notify the principal party of a case when a request for clarification arises?
=== Clerk notes ===
Line 314:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*If the community cannot reach a consensus on the publication of e-mails, then I am loathe for this committee to adjudicate policy its behalf unless an unresolvable dispute compels us to do so. Should you press me, I would answer that no user should publish an e-mail on-site (without the sender's consent). In particular, any e-mail that contains personal or sensitive information should never be published on-site. One function of the Arbitration Committee is to decide a matter on behalf of the community if the making of that decision must take into account sensitive or confidential information, such as an e-mail. This arrangement is working well, so I don't think this question is especially important at this time. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Further comment: This is one of only a few arbitration "principles" that have been adopted as psuedo-policy. Typically, our decisions are intended only to resolve the dispute at hand; generally, we hope that, in time, our decisions will become a historical irrelevancy. The ''Durova'' principle cited here seems to have become more important with time, not less, and I don't think that was a desirable development. If the editor who filed this request wants to change site policy about off-wiki communications, I would advise him to engage the full community in a discussion to that effect. As a personal view, I concur with my colleagues that the principle in question was a sound one, but I maintain that the ''Durova'' principle is irrelevant because it has no formal weight in policy and can easily be overridden by a proper community decision to adopt or reject a proposal to change those policies that affect off-wiki communications. In short, this request is the wrong way to go about policy-making of any kind. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Durova, it was never customary for arbitrators to notify the parties to a request that they were named, and in any event this request is substantively unrelated to you or your actions. This decision is one of only a few that has transcended the original dispute, and therefore when the community speaks of the "''Durova'' ruling" we refer to the "off-wiki communications" principle—not you or the incidents that resulted in that case. [[User talk:AGK|<
* I generally agree with AGK's comments. The Arbitration Committee has several functions, including settling matters that are unusually divisive amongst the community in general, and admins in particular. In the situation mentioned in this request, the community, including admins, weren't especially divided on how to proceed. In this context, I don't think there is any urgent need to rescind the remedy from the 2007 case. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
*ArbCom does not make policy, so the Committee who passed that principle must have been basing it on existing Wikipedia policy. There is a link in the principle to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". On looking at that page it seems to relate to work, including emails, which may be classed as creative, and which are used in Wikipedia main space. In instances of copyright violation Wikipedia (not just ArbCom) does encourage all editors (not just admins) to remove the violations. Without knowing the case I don't know what the use of the emails were, but I see that Giano was found to have caused concern by publishing on wiki some private correspondence, so I assume that is what is being referred to, and I assume the private email was from one Wikipedian to another, and likely not to have come under the Copyright policy, but more appropriately under the Harassment policy, which is where [[WP:EMAILPOST]] is located. The Harassment policy says that "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." We do then appear to have an inconsistency. If the 2007 Committee were dealing with a use of an email that was considered harassment, and were using [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] to enforce it because the community do not have consensus regarding such use of emails, then that seems an awkward fit. On the whole I am not in favour of people forwarding emails without permission let alone posting on wiki - it is not something I do. However, in the world of Wikipedia, I feel that there are many who are very supportive of the openness of the project, the collaborativeness, and the sense that the project comes before any one individual; and if an email is from one Wikipedian to another, I can see that some would regard that as part of the project as a whole rather than belonging to the individuals concerned. Personally, I see the email system as a means of communicating in private - this may be done for a variety of legitimate reasons; and I would regard passing such emails on without permission as bad manners at the least, and would usually be a violation of privacy. I would support any community discussion which aimed to make violation of email privacy a sanctionable offence. But as it stands, despite the 2007 ArbCom principle, I don't think it is sanctionable under Wikipedia policy. Remove copyright violations on sight, yes. Remove unapproved Wikipedian communications - down to the editor on the spot to make a judgement, but I don't think removal can be blanket supported by ArbCom. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*The principle as articulated in the ''Durova'' case was sound, and I see no reason to modify it. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
**Responding to some of the other comments, I think this issue is more usefully viewed primarily as a matter of courtesy and expectations of privacy, rather than through the lens of technical issues under the copyright laws (some of which are situation-dependent and some of which are unsettled). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 456:
*Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
*While Nina Green has done some good work, no doubt about that, I am horribly suspicious that everyone appearing here so far is trying to argue from a premise that the '''original '''ban and topic ban were unwarranted. That just isn't going to wash, and raises deep concerns about the reason for this request. I'd want to hear from some of the people she has actually edited with since the ban ended. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
*There is a lot of community support for this, however I feel that more time is needed than two months to assess someone's behaviour. In NinaGreen's case, the language of the Findings of fact is very strong: "{{User|NinaGreen}} ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself." Generally, six months is considered a minimum amount of time to assess someone's behaviour. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I authored the original decision in this case, and I am confident that the decision we reached in that case was well-supported: NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis. The remedies that were adopted—a period of separation from the project, followed by a topic-ban upon her return—were entirely warranted. Since her return, NinaGreen has abided by the topic-ban and has focused on editing historical articles, although her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is obvious that NinaGreen has a thorough base of well-documented historical knowledge and it appears that she is capable of improving Wikipedia articles about English history and biography with reliably sourced writing based on that knowledge. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to lift the topic-ban altogether, which could allow NinaGreen to edit about who wrote the plays, which I don't think she is looking to do right now anyway. Thus, I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
*This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* On Newyorkbrad's suggestion: I oppose any change (incremental or not) to NinaGreen's sanction unless at least six months have passed. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Six months of trouble-free editing would be a starter. Evidence of collaborative behaviour such as GA or FA article production would be helpful too. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 468:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 481:
=== Statement by My76Strat ===
On November 4, 2012, Arbcom enacted the following motion:<blockquote>1) The topic ban placed against {{user|Iantresman}} as a condition of unblocking in {{plainlinks|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iantresman&diff=451128252&oldid=407852043|title=September 2011}} is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.</blockquote>{{user|IRWolfie-}} filed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Iantresman]] on November 9, 2012, requesting enforcement of [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases]], an outdated page that Iantresman is not sanctioned under. Furthermore, IRWolfie cites this talk page discussion<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration]</span> as impetus for seeking [[WP:AE]]. Nothing in that discussion rises to a violation of the enacted motion. Instead IRWolfie alleges that Iantresman should be topic banned under existing provisions of the discretionary sanctions in place for the topic being discussed. {{user|Timotheus Canens}} and {{user|NuclearWarfare}} both indicate support for the topic ban. I mentioned that nothing Iantresman had done was a violation and that [[WP:AC/DS]] points 2. and 4. were clear that a warning was required first. {{user|EdJohnston}} then stated that since "Iantresman was a named party of the [[WP:ARBPS]] case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them." I am seeking a clarification to this prevailing premise. It does not follow that Iantresman should be subjected to an immediate ban without warning simply because he formerly was. Especially when no action was a direct violation of the sanction in place. I thank the committee for giving their attention to this matter. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@Thryduulf Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon". It seems intuitive that including the '''requirement''' (to warn) is a reasonable measure to alleviate this anticipation of uncertainty. Such a view is further indicative when considering the subsequent requirements that, "warnings should be clear and unambiguous", and they should "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Instead of clarity, thoughtful editors are expected to accept misconduct happened without being shown where the transgression manifest. I would seriously like to know what specific action of Iantresman equivocates the crossing of an acceptable line. Was it when he asked the question, or when he offered his opinion? And if there is no right to be informed of this, failing to follow point 5, "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process" become rather moot and seem a waste of effort to proffer. One day I suppose I'll learn my place, and quit asking questions myself. Until then, just ignore my prose, and be thankful the servers can accommodate the wasted bytes necessary to publish my babel. Regards, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
=== Statement by iantresman ===
Line 585:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Although I commented on the AE request cited here, the motion is on a broader subject and I don't see any reason to recuse from enacting it. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
*Enacting below motion. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Line 601:
Remedy 13 of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|Pseudoscience]] Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."<p>Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under ''Pseudoscience'', rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
:
;Support
:#Asking AE to decide whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe science is a waste of time; the concepts are so closely related that having the applicability of the sanctions turn on deciding which term applies to an article is a distraction at best, and pure wikilawyering at worst; this nullifies the issue, and puts the focus back on conduct, and not terminology. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:# Just in case there is any doubt. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:#Support. Also, '''I've added two sentences to the motion:''' I've copy-edited this motion so that it says any previously-authorised discretionary sanctions that are subsumed by these new ones may simply be <s>stricken</s> and marked as redundant (in the usual way). If we think separate motions to deprecate those sanctions are needed (''Homeopathy'' and ''Cold fusion'' are mentioned below as two decisions that this motion would deprecate), then please revert my copy-edit—but as this is a matter of keeping our records in order more than anything else I think it might be sufficient for us or the community to use common sense in deciding how to implement this motion vis-a-vis existing decisions. [[User talk:AGK|<
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:#
:# [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 623:
***Exactly, NYB, I know full well they're not the same concept; but the behavioural issues are quite similar as the topics occur on WP, and the time of the AE admins is wasted in dealing with arguments over which label an article deserves, rather than cutting right to what they are really being asked to do; evaluate conduct. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
;Community comments on proposed motion
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures]] states: "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made." I think modifying an "area of conflict" qualifies as "significant or substantive modifications" and believe the prescribed steps should be followed as outlined. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
:It's not a procedure. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) This isn't a change to ''Arbitration Committee procedures'', so the policy My76Stat cites isn't really relevant; nonetheless, I'm definitely glad to wait a couple of days for any additional community input before voting on the motion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
::I thank both esteemed members for correcting my perspective. It would be great if either of you would have linked the relevant guidelines that do govern best practices for adding or modifying an area of conflict, but I am aware that you could not; because there are no such guidelines. I have reviewed the guidance available, and the closest prose I could find are shown in my original comment. I didn't pull it from thin air either, but followed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions]], which seems to imply it is a "procedure", giving credence to "modification of procedures" as an appropriate clause. I guess that makes me a "wikilawyer" too, because I'm curious enough to seek guidance, humble enough to ask for help, and bold enough to state my opinion. It does not sit well with me, seeing Iantresman silenced by a discretionary topic ban for identical conduct, nor that he has been adorned with a compliment of labels that arguably rise to incivility. Some of the rhetoric has been echoed here, by esteemed members who are apparently comfortable wielding a rubber-stamp opposed to examining the merits of an action at their fore. Therefor, allow me to correct my original statement to reflect the policy that is relevant; [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] where we are encouraged to not only ignore the rules, but to ignore them "beautifully". So much so, that there is no pressing need to even write them anymore. If someone does ask, call them a wikilawyer and show them the door. Regards, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
:::They are not modifying how the sanctions work, they are just applying them on more articles. That's not a modification of Arbcom's procedures. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 14:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. Thanks, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
::::I don't think this will really make it apply to more articles than originally intended; rather it just clarifies edge cases from doubt. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 645:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 654:
Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by [[User:The Interior|The Interior]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Interior#Passing]</span> I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?
@ Courcelles, I appreciate your comment, and the counsel within. I did consider that this request could fall contrary to the arbitration process, hoping that the function "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" might apply. It is possible that a community discussion could reach an improper consensus without any malice intent, encroaching legal ramifications beyond what a lay body would reasonably consider. It seems within the clause allowing the Committee to "interpret existing policy". Even these provisions might require the protocol of a full case, which I would understand if the mandate is clear that a clarification must be narrowly construed within the context of an existing case. I apologize to the extent I may have approached this outside of process, and will comply with any directive issued. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at [[WP:RIP]], as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page.<span class="plainlinks">[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deceased_editors]</span> This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ The Committee, The more I think about this question, the more it seems clear that there really could only be one answer. I can't even support the notion myself. I think my sensibility was temporally impaired by emotion, or something like that, I hope, or I am afflicted with chronic brain-fart. <s>I'd like to withdraw this request as malformed unless you prefer ill-construed. But I will leave the task of removing it to the better discretion of the Committee.</s> Sincerely, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
@ Roger Davies, I agree. A significant factor of the counsel coming from this clarification, is the notion of "informed consent". This follows the insight Silk Tork elaborated on in saying; "when asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence." Further suggesting; "a guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up", acknowledging that this is a community prerogative. I am in full agreement. I am curious however, if this prerogative should be accomplished at the communities leisure, or if it is prudent for the Committee to direct a timeline? Besides a timeline, should specific points be directed for the community, to addressed? Like a protocol for soliciting informed consent. A guideline for designating which family member had the authority to speak for the entire surviving family. Perhaps even a protocol for the possibility that one member might give consent while another expresses dissent. In any regard, I am pleased that the Committee has rallied to provide this valuable insight, in such a timely fashion. Sincerely, [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><
===Note from Risker===
Line 666:
===Comment from The Interior===
Thank you for the advice, Risker. I'm going to go ahead and add the information. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask the community if we need to add to [[WP:PRIVACY]] a clause about deceased Wikipedians, but maybe it's (hopefully) such a rare occurrence that it can be dealt with case by case. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">[[User:The Interior|<
:Update: will hold off until we here a few other opinions, but I trust Risker's assessment as they knew the editor better than I did. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">[[User:The Interior|<
=== Comment by A Quest For Knowledge ===
Line 677:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Can this request be archived? '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Line 683:
*I agree with Courcelles, while I can certainly understand why we would wish to do such a thing, I would suggest without it being disclosed previously, or with the family's ok, I would hesitate greatly to say "there's no problem with it". [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
:I've had a bit of time to think about it.. I would tenatively see nothing wrong with it, but I think I'd be happy if we did a RfC (not a long one, just a quick say, seven day one with a link to the usual places.. and until a decision one way or the other, I would say, "Tenative ok" with the caveat that should the decision be against it, that the identifying info be removed. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
*We respect users' wishes to conceal their real identity in order to prevent harassment, and will suppress edits in which the real life identity is revealed for otherwise anonymous accounts. Policy, however, is not clear on deceased users. While the user can not be harassed, their family could be. I can see a possibility that the family of an admin who had blocked trouble makers might experience harassment at a sensitive time. When asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence. A guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up; and that is for the community to do. As regards the Committee's involvement in these matters. If the real life identity of a deceased user were suppressed when there was no clear indication of permission being given, I would view that as an appropriate interpretation of policy. If another user tried, after suppression, to again reveal the identity, and this became a dispute which escalated until it was before the Committee, I would support the suppression and be inclined to support sanctions against a user edit warring to reveal a real life identity without evidence that this was the wishes of the deceased user or their family. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
*Most of the time that I see a pseudonymous user named as deceased, it is at the behest or notice of the user's relatives or friends. Where such approval is ''not'' given, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and avoid tying the account to the real-world identity. While I think it's unlikely that the kind of harassment Silk mentions would actually happen, there's no reason to give an opening for that harm either. If it's considered important enough, I'd recommend an RfC for a line mention to be added to the policy or whatnot; as it is this doesn't seem like a clarification that we can decide as a Committee.
*I would also recommend that community input be sought into this; my personal thoughts are similar to SilkTork's in that the family of the deceased should give consent prior to anything being posted. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
**Reply to A Quest For Knowledge: If providing such an obituary link is determined to constitute outing, then that is not a feasible alternative and could result in more problems; any person with the email could very easily forward it on to someone else, and so on, until the point of using email is entirely defeated. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||