Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:24, 18 September 2009

Important — please note

The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case:

"Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident."
"Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed."
"All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided."

The Clerk for this case is KnightLago (talk · contribs) who will be assisted by non-recused members of the Clerk team in enforcing the above rules. The Clerks will, wherever it deems necessary, refactor and remove statements where they violate the above directions, or where they violate the general standards of decorum and Wikipedia policies. The Clerks will, where required for particular egregious or repetitive violations, ban participants from the case pages for an appropriate period of time.

Both the refactoring of statements, and case page bans, that are implemented by the Clerks, can be appealed to the Committee.

If any user requires assistance in submitting private evidence to the Arbitrators in the method requested by Committee (see the second bullet point, above), please contact a member of the Clerks or, alternatively, an Arbitrator directly.

—User:KnightLago (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to open case

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

(archived from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator votes and comments

On a motion, a majority of all the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for adoption. There are currently 11 arbitrators listed as active, so a majority is 6. If any arbitrator listed as inactive votes on this motion, he or she shall be moved to active for purposes of this case and the majority adjusted accordingly.

Support:

As proposer. This situation requires our expedited attention and under the particular circumstances it is appropriate for us to proceed nostra sponte rather than wait for a formal case to be filed. I would like to reemphasize that nothing in this motion, or any other action taken today, reflects a predetermination of any aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the motion. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them—and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support; also without prejudice. It is important to note that the celerity with which the committee is acting in this matter is borne not out of the substance of the alleged mailing list but from the combination of the gravity of the allegations and the significant risk to privacy of a large number of editors. — Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support; — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clerk notes

Question: The notes below are written as though this is a full motion; for the purposes of knowing when to open the case, are we looking for a majority as suggested below or the usual net four? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(not clerk or arb, clerk should move if need be) I'm not sure if a case can be opened by motion (if it can, it makes the whole net 4 rule moot), but it can probably fixed by interpreting all aye votes as accept votes as well as votes in favor of the motion's conditions and modifications on the case, and any nay votes as no to both, unless the arbitrator indicates otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about your point before I made the motion; theoretically, if a case was about to be declined under "net 4" despite majority support for acceptance, a disappointed arbitrator could offer a case-by-motion motion instead. This would obviously be a misuse of this procedure (which I've just invented, by the way). I'm sure no arbitrator would act in this manner—although it does illustrate a drawback of the net 4 rule, which many of us have said needs revising (but this isn't the time for that discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recused MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I be removed as a participant?

Can I be removed as a participant? Although I am flattered to be included, I don't really have much to offer this arbcom. I just made a general comment on the ANI about cabals.[1] I have no first hand knowledge of this super-duper secret mailing list. Although I have had a little contact with Russavia, it was simply to offer him advice about his edits, etc.[2][3][4] Thank you. Ikip (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions listed in that section and contact the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel, as always, you are a wonderful help. :) Ikip (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extend this motion

Is it possible to expand the scope of this particular motion to include all specific geographic areas? I put to you, that it is time that the issue is of private, off wiki conversations regarding any action, and particularly any policy issues, is brought into full exposure of the wikipedia community at large. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect this to be both unlikely (because of no evidence), and unwieldy to widen the scope that much. Mind you, this case may end up establishing a number of principles of broader relevance than to this specific incident. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of those broader principles can be the only fruit of this case because the source of this case is an action that is a crime in most jurisdictions and a gross violation of privacy. Anything else would encourage crime by actually making it worth wile for the perpetrator. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Since I am listed as a party to this case, and there seems to be no provision for public statements as in other cases, but I dislike doing Wikipedia business per e-mail, I am posting my statement in this matter here.

I was first made aware of the (alleged) existence of this mailing list in the WP:ANI thread of 17 September 2009, and have not seen the supposedly leaked archives. I have not participated in any offwiki coordination related to Eastern Europe in general or administrative actions in this area in particular. I am not aware of any attempts, as has allegedly been the purpose of this mailing list, to influence me offwiki. My administrator and arbitration enforcement actions in this area are all based solely on the requests made and evidence presented on the administrators' and arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and this will continue to be the case. Sandstein 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to be included in the arbitration.

I am a member of this list and I hold some VERY STRONG oppinions about whats going on here. Therefore I request to be included as an involved party. The whole issue presents a several social, moral and ideological problems for me.

What editors do in their off wiki activities in unofficial channels(bedroom talk, calls, etc) is not something that should be used to judge actions on WP. WP does not OWN its editors.
Is it acceptable to hack an account of a person to obtain so called "evidence", distribute this private information far and wide and then use it to harass them? Cases in any form of judicial system can not be based on STOLEN and UNVERIFIED evidence because it validates crime.
Am I guilty of something by just belonging in this list even tho I have been almost totally inactive in WP during the existence of this list?

By taking up this case ArbCom has basically said, that it is OK to steal private information and use it for an attack on Wikipedia, directly supporting a crime.

Crime against the privacy of me, all people on that list and most of all, Tymek.

The only correct and nondiscriminatory action is to dismiss this evidence and declare that ArbCom/Wikipedia does not handle fruits of a CRIME to discourage future hackers from going on fishing expeditions into private lives of their fellow editors.

This statement is posted here because I want it to be public, not e-mailed to select few eyes.

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

Could someone please lift the sanctions on Russavia imposed by Sandstein (Sandstein still refuses to do so) The Arbcom can look at the evidence themselves to see why this is necessary, I will not break confidentiality here. Howver, the community support, and reasons, for these sanctions now look very dodgy indeed. Pending the outcome of this investigation Russavia should be allowed to edit normall, Irpen and Ghirlandajo shpould be requested to return to normal editing. The sooner these miscarriages of justice are righted - the better. Giano (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests like this and acting on them are exactly what I mean by validating a crime. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:09, 18 September 2009 edit GiacomoReturned (talk \| contribs) Rollbackers 11,926 edits →‎Request to be included in the arbitration. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:24, 18 September 2009 edit undo Alexia Death (talk \| contribs) 1,658 edits →‎Russavia Next edit →
Line 71:		Line 71:

	Could someone please lift the sanctions on Russavia imposed by Sandstein (Sandstein still refuses to do so) The Arbcom can look at the evidence themselves to see why this is necessary, I will not break confidentiality here. Howver, the community support, and reasons, for these sanctions now look very dodgy indeed. Pending the outcome of this investigation Russavia should be allowed to edit normall, Irpen and Ghirlandajo shpould be requested to return to normal editing. The sooner these miscarriages of justice are righted - the better. [[User:GiacomoReturned\|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned\|talk]]) 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)		Could someone please lift the sanctions on Russavia imposed by Sandstein (Sandstein still refuses to do so) The Arbcom can look at the evidence themselves to see why this is necessary, I will not break confidentiality here. Howver, the community support, and reasons, for these sanctions now look very dodgy indeed. Pending the outcome of this investigation Russavia should be allowed to edit normall, Irpen and Ghirlandajo shpould be requested to return to normal editing. The sooner these miscarriages of justice are righted - the better. [[User:GiacomoReturned\|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned\|talk]]) 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
			:Requests like this and acting on them are exactly what I mean by validating a crime. --[[User:Alexia Death\|Alexia Death the Grey]] ([[User talk:Alexia Death\|talk]]) 10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)