Revision as of 05:25, 30 May 2009

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

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

Tango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Tango

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Since the reorganisation of RFAR there doesn't seem to be an explicit place for appeals. It has been just over a year since I was desysopped and, now that everything has calmed down (and I've finished my exams!), I would like the ArbCom to take another look at the case. My main grounds for appeal is this principle. The rule doesn't exist (hence the need for a link to MeatBall, there being no Wikipedia page to link to). It's not an "unwritten rule" that everyone knows, as evidenced by a arbitrator voting against it on the grounds that it doesn't exist. Therefore the principle is fundamentally flawed and any decision based on it is likewise flawed. For that reason, I request that the result of the case be overturned and, if anyone wants to, a new case be started so the matter can be considered de novo (I am happy for the desysopping to remain in force pending the result of a new case, if one is started). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To MBisanz: I wouldn't generally consider the person that wrote it to be "involved or directly affected" (at least any more that anyone else on the committee at the time), but I'll go an notify him now, since you've asked. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no objection to Newyorkbrad's participation in this appeal. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirill: "An administrator is expected..." is a statement of policy, either written or unwritten, there is no other reasonable interpretation of that wording. An unwritten rule can only exist if everyone knows about it, that's the nature of unwritten rules, so one arb not knowing about it is enough to invalidate it. If I just wanted the mop back I would go to RFA, I'm here to clear my name. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Clerk notes

The specific provision in question was drafted by ex-arb User:UninvitedCompany, Tango could you notify him of this request per the standard procedures? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

When this case was originally brought, I recused myself because the underlying dispute involved a block based on user conduct relating to articles concerning the events of September 11, 2001, a topic area on which I do not arbitrate for reasons previously discussed on this page. At the time, some editors privately advised me that they my recusal in this case was unnecessarily conservative. In any event, I consider that the issues raised by the present request/appeal are quite remote from the underlying September 11 disputes. Accordingly, unless an objection is raised within 48 hours, I will participate in the consideration and disposition of this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that all principles in an arbitration decision be found in project policy, written or otherwise (compare, for example, this); they are simply statements of principle that the Committee considers to be valid. As such, asserting that the text of the principle is not found in policy is not grounds for an appeal even if true. (Nor, for that matter, does the opinion of a single arbitrator that a rule does not exist outweight the opinions of nine others who assert that it does.) If you wish to ask for your adminship to be restored (on the basis of good behavior in the interim, for example), I'm happy to entertain that appeal; but I see no reason why the original decision could in any way be considered invalid. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tango: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken if you believe that one individual's ignorance of a rule somehow invalidates it. (If you really want to argue policy, incidentally, then consider that blocking for attacks against oneself is implicitly prohibited by the policy that an administrator may not use their tools "to [their] advantage... or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist" (WP:ADMIN); that linking the title of a finding to an external document does not in any way invalidate the text of the finding itself; and that the section titles used in arbitration decisions are, in any case, present for convenience only, with only the text of each adopted provision constituting a substantive statement from the Committee). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I provided evidence in this case as a non-involved party. I had originally commented here, but on consideration believe it would be better for me to recuse. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case still would appear coherent and rational in the absence of the principle. Regardless, it seems basic to assert that when the admin is a directly involved party that they shouldn't be the one pushing the block button. If a rule is needed to spell out the principle: Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools takes care to try and broadly communicate that the tools should not be used when an administrator is biased or involved in a situation or likely to appear as such. --Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Scientology

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

Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
So many other people, but God willing we do not need to list them all for this simple an issue.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

Given the sudden press attention on the Scientology case, including a Slashdot link and a Register article, I would like to request that all pages related to the case be courtesy blanked so as not to have people show up in search engines over this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt the arbcom dragged a lot of people unrelated into the dispute into this case and sanctioned them, often in ways linked to real life identities. This was something I had considerable concern about at the time, and I still do. People who have not seriously edited Wikipedia in two years are named and sanctioned in the case, and the case is the subject of media attention. This goes to the heart of the "courtesy" aspect of courtesy blanking - there is no legitimate interest served in displaying the arbitration pages prominently in any way shape or form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, when I opted to edit Wikipedia under my real name several years ago, it was out of a sense that credentialed and published experts in subject areas ought edit Wikipedia openly - as an attempt to bring legitimacy to the project. At the time it was inconceivable that the arbcom would approach a case in the cavalier manner they did here. At this point, I regret greatly my decision to edit openly and under my real name, and feel like the project has greatly betrayed me as a long-time contributor. Yes, I assumed a certain measure of risk when I edited under my real name. But this goes well beyond what I had any reason to expect would happen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the archive is still there. In practice, I take a several-stanced position on it. To my mind, sanctions that are intended for enforcement need to be publicly listed. I have long wished that the arbcom would stop issuing reprimands publicly, just because I do not think "shame" is an appropriate disciplinary mechanism. This case brokers new ground in this particular calculus because it adds the new wrinkle of enforceable sanctions against people who are functionally non-editors. This is something the arbcom cannot fix at this point, and is why I am appealing the case outright. But given the particularly high publicity of this one, I think a courtesy blank is in order. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

It seems a bit rude to deliberately interrupt links to content. Courtesy blanking usually has the effect of hiding the content to most users. "not to have people show up in search engines" ← As far as I'm aware, all Arbitration pages and subpages have been excluded from search engines for some time. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? I have absolutely no objection to removing the content from search engines, but deliberately obfuscating the content (esp. when we know people are trying to read it) seems to be the wrong path to take. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional points I think should be considered, though I'm not particularly sure if this is an appropriate forum. In my opinion, at a minimum, all /Evidence subpages in all cases should be courtesy blanked following the conclusion of a case. The amount of garbage stored in them is unbelievable. This may or may not extend to /Workshop and /Proposed_decision subpages as well. (A broader discussion about this has been on my mental to-do list for some time.)

As to this specific case, and more generally to Final decisions, I think it's very important to consider the possibility of a mini Streisand effect by courtesy blanking any pages on our project. Right now, people can easily link to the pages on our site and our pages are kept out of search engines. If the pages are blanked, I think it increases the possibility of other sites either copying the entire contents or specific sections onto their own sites, where it increases exposure and puts the content into search engines. Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Rootology

Arb pages, as MZM said, are already excluded from all the ethical search engines that honor NOINDEX. What are the people referred to in "not to have people show up in search engines over this case"? If it's in regards to any editors that actively choose to edit under their own names... while it's unfortunate, any sanctions and the like picked up under their own names are their own responsibilities. If this happens, it could open a slippery slope leading back into WP:DR that may give "named" users inappropriate advantages in content editing, DR, the AC process, or any number of things. While I have no problem giving named people deference on things like {{indef}} tags on their user pages until we start NOINDEXing user space content, I dislike this on Arbitration related or DR-related content. If anyone is/was sanctioned/under sanction in some way, there is no reason to hide or minimize that. It's all public record for our processes. If we didn't NOINDEX this content, I'd have absolutely no objection to blanking it even myself. rootology/equality 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Phil -- that's a good point, you just made. But I'm worried/wondering about this from the precedent standpoint, since no matter how much the AC says "we don't set precedent and we don't set policy", it's a fact that editors do interpret them that way and how it could trickle down to other situations in DR. Blanking itself is one thing, and I really don't have a problem with that in the general sense of the word--its just decent. But its the fact that it could lend obscurity to one's record, or cause something to be missed on later cases or situations as evidence. Have you ever had any other Arbcom findings go against you on your current user name (I haven't checked, you've been around for ages :))? rootology/equality 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Phil didn't answer my open question of whether he has received Arbcom sanctions or findings vs. him before under User:Phil Sandifer, I wonder if this is--as he mentions--due to the press angle? If the finding is bad, and the decision is bad, I recommend the affected users appeal it normally. Hiding it, as Thatcher starts to say, due to "press" isn't a valid reason to hide anything. It will if anything just inflame things thanks to the usual problems that sort of thing causes. We're each of us responsible for our own actions here. If there is a problem with the AC decision, there is an easy way to fix that--appeal it in public. If the decision was bad, it can be overturned with enough community mandate. That's how things work. rootology/equality 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

I would strongly advise against blanking the case pages en masse. I think some selective redaction or hiding of evidence and decision sections that mention real people might be appropriate. But the full decision (listing the rationale for the decision and the specific principles and findings) needs to be generally visible. Thatcher 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cenarium

I agree that the main case page should not be blanked, at any rate not entirely; that page is now highly visible and linked from several newspapers; we ought not to deny those readers the reading of the case. For the reasons mentioned above and also because it's so rare when they can see the arcanes of Wikipedia... If needs be, specific findings of facts or remedies mentioning real names could be courtesy-blanked, e.g. "This remedy has been blanked as a courtesy.". For other case pages, I have no major objection, but in the same time, they are much less visible. Cenarium (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shutterbug

To me this looks like the attempt to cover up a bogus "judgment" that ended up discriminating a certain group of Wikipedians, as some media correctly pointed out already. I would not recommend it. Shutterbug (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Please note that this is currently being discussed. Tiptoety ^talk 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have no objection to courtesy-blanking all the case pages, with the exception of those portions of the final decision that involve principles and generic findings and remedies (as opposed to those naming particular individuals). In the meantime, however, note that all arbitration pages are designated "NOINDEX", meaning that they should hopefully not be showing up in search engine results in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, case pages other than the primary case page (and, by extension, the final decision itself) has been blanked as a courtesy to all involved. I could be persuaded to support blanking the initial statements as well, leaving only the decision directly viewable if my colleagues agree. However, the decision itself should not be blanked; both as a practical matter (since reference to it for enforcement is required), as a matter of process, and because of the very large number of external links now pointing to it given the current media attention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 === Comment by Cenarium===
 I agree that the main case page should not be blanked, at any rate not entirely; that page is now highly visible and linked from several newspapers; we ought not to deny those readers the reading of the case. For the reasons mentioned above and also because it's so rare when they can see the arcanes of Wikipedia... If needs be, specific findings of facts or remedies mentioning real names could be courtesy-blanked, e.g. "This remedy has been blanked as a courtesy.". For other case pages, I have no major objection, but in the same time, they are much less visible. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 23:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
+=== Comment by Shutterbug===
+To me this looks like the attempt to cover up a bogus "judgment" that ended up discriminating a certain group of Wikipedians, as some media correctly pointed out already. I would not recommend it. [[User:Shutterbug|Shutterbug]] ([[User talk:Shutterbug|talk]]) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 === Clerk notes ===