Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

RE: Request concerning Cla68

Future Perfect at Sunrise just closed an RfE without obtaining consensus first (although they claim that they did).[1] Is this allowed? If it's allowed, is it a good idea? Do the opinions of the community not matter? I seem to recall one of the AE admins soliciting more input for feedback of uninvolved non-admins, but when that feedback is offered, it's summarily rejected. What's the point of uninvolved non-admins commenting on these RfEs if it's just going to be ignored? Are members of the community just wasting their time when they review these issues? Because if I'm just wasting my time, I'd like to know that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice that he closed it before I could come in and give a rebuttal to some of the points raised by other admins in the thread, after he blocked me to prevent me from giving my side? Notice that he moved to close it quickly when other admins were proposing sanctions against the filing party? I'm not surprised at all. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are free to appeal any enforcement action to a community discussion noticeboard or to the Committee itself. Otherwise, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. Lord Roem (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we please handle this situation in a fashion that doesn't give any further encouragement to the banned editors who are laughing their heads off at all of us already? I pose this as a request in the hope that we don't need to do anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: I was at AE and clicked on Talk. I don't know why AE doesn't have its own dedicated talk page, but this is the talk page for AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: No. I want to know why I'm wasting my time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, it appears to be that your attitude towards this is, "We can't do anything to stop this BATTLEGROUND feud, because if we do anything to the established editor, then the banned editor will think that he won." With that attitude, you are contributing to the continuation of this situation. It's got to be stopped, now. I will be filing an ArbCom case request about Future Perfect at Sunrise, probably later today. When I do, please step outside of that (well-intentioned) logic box you've gotten yourself into, and take some action to stop this. I'm not the one who is furthering it, it's stuff like what Future Perfect did today and has been doing for months which is doing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus"? When I first outlined my proposed closure [2], at 13:01 UTC, it came as a summary of two sets of proposals, each of which had previously been agreed to by several admins. After that, one other admin (ErrantX) concurred he regarded it as an acceptable solution [3]. Then I made my formally worded proposal [4], at 17:25 UTC, inviting further comments. Then three other admins endorsed it (John Carter, Timotheus C and Seraphimblade). That's when I finally closed the thread. I dare say you'll rarely get AE closures that have a more clearly confirmed consensus than this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. It's a discussion. You closed the RfE a mere 6 minutes after I last posted.[5] Do you honestly think that everyone had a chance to look at the issues I raised in only 6 minutes? Please, give me a break. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, at least, it became clear that AE is not a venue able to address the broader issues (as my attempt to do so showed). That's fine, I accept the reasoning behind that. There was little point extending the thread further, and I am a fan of quick resolutions when I stops le dramaz. If no one else has done so I will file an Arbcom case in January (when the elections are sorted, filing now would be unfair) in an attempt to have this all cleared up. There is a plethora of evidence and recent comments from arbcom indicate that they too are tired of the various participants in this dispute. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be familiar with the issues involved here, but wouldn't ArbCom have the greatest chance at resolving them before the end of the year? At the end of the year many of the current arbitrators will be replaced with new arbitrators who haven't previously served on the committee, and who won't have the same degree of familiarity with what's going on. In this situation, I would think having some background about the history is essential for knowing how to resolve it. --Mors Martell (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The knee-jerk idea of a new R&I case is a non-starter, since at present, apart from one loose end after the review, there are no unresolved issues. Fortunately there will be some continuity in the arbitration committee. Experienced arbitrators like Newyorkbrad (assuming he is re-elected) and Roger Davies will be able to help in distinguishing between trolling by Echigo mole (an irrelevance which has been allowed to grow out of all proportion) and the real issues of R&I (proxy-editing for and facilitating of site-banned users). Unless editors familarize themselves with the original case and its immediate aftermath, their input is of very limited value. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not envisioning an R&I case, which largely seems laid to rest, but one examining extant behavioural issues (battleground behaviour, gaming etc.) arising from that and other issues. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Anything remotely connected to R&I or Echigo mole would almost certainly be refused due to "R&I fatigue syndrome". Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There's something I've been wanting to say, and this is as good a place as any to say it...is why is there so much effort lately to frame this and other alleged editor misconduct issues as "personal disputes" that should be resolved by interaction bans? You know, if there really is a problem with an editor's (an I mean this in general, not directed at anyone in particular) continued conduct, then how is an interaction ban supposed to resolve it? An interaction ban simply silences the editor(s) who have decided that something needs to be done about the problem and are trying to push WP's reluctant administration to take care of it. I understand why WP's administration is hesitant to take on a problem, especially when it involves established editors, because Wikipedia's current system ensures that it will be frustrating, time-consuming, and adversarial. However, and I'm talking to you Wikipedia admins, including arbs, by becoming an admin you have signed up to deal with editor conduct issues. Imposing interaction bans when there is evidence of misconduct by one or more of the parties does not solve anything. It simply kicks the can down the road. You do this, you are failing in your responsibility.

I'm a content editor, so I don't normally hang around ANI and AN looking for problems to solve. I pick my issues carefully that I get involved in. But, when I get involved, it's because I sincerely believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. When you immediately label me as having a "personal conflict" and impose an interaction ban when I'm trying to make my case, you are basically telling me, and other interested parties to "F-off." That's not the way this should be working. I appreciate ErrantX volunteering to take this one on, but it shouldn't be necessary to have to work this way. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been plenty of opportunity in the last couple of months for anyone to prepare a statement backed by some real diffs ("real" meaning that independent editors can see for themselves that a significant problem exists). As no one has posted anything substantial, the matter should be dropped. If new cases arise that cause someone concern, they can find a way to start a suitable discussion (perhaps initiated by email). Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted some evidence with diffs [6]. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Are you planning on responding? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that as an admin, you are required to justify your actions. First, you blocked an editor against consensus and then you closed an RfE without consensus. Perfection is not expected from admins, but that's 2 mistakes in a row. You need to explain why the community should entrust you with the tools. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY

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 My76Strat (talk) at 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Interior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[7]

Statement by your My76Strat

Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior[8] 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. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ 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.[9] 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. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ 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. 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. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ 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, My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note from Risker

I am aware of the deceased editor whose obituary is being referenced here; as a matter of fact, I nominated him for adminship, and have long known his "real world" name. I've also read the obituary, and know that there is nothing potentially harmful in it. On looking at WP:RIP, I note many of the entries link to real-world names that were not necessarily attached to the accounts during the editor's tenure at Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it would be safe to link to the obituary and also to use some of the information from the obituary to flesh out the entry at WP:RIP. I'd suggest this is something better to discuss with the community as a whole, instead of asking Arbcom; there's no case to attach this to, and there are no concerns about sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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. The Interior (Talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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. The Interior (Talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

Why not simply e-mail the link to the obituary to the other interested Wikipedians? This way, the info can be shared but still preserving their privacy on Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mors Martell

If a person wishes that their real name not be disclosed in public, I see no reason to stop respecting that after they die. In those cases their obituary at Wikipedia could include the person's username, and a summary of their contributions. --Mors Martell (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Can this request be archived? NW (Talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The request is a little too close to asking ArbCom to make policy, though as in one direction this could lead to oversight being necessary if the answer went a certain way, I can see the logic in asking us. IMO, if the user didn't reveal their real name on-wiki, I wouldn't make that connection now without the family's okay, but, again, this really isn't up to ArbCom. Courcelles 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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". 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. 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this a case where the Committee have no weightier insight than anyone else in the community, so it might be worth creating an RfC in a bit (there's no rush) to gauge the community's feelings. My personal feeling would be that if (as in this case) a relative unconnected with Wikipedia contacts the project, then they are surely telling us (as in this case) is that 'Joe Bloe, who edited as User:Foo, has passed away.' Usernames don't die, real live people sadly do. At which point, linking to the published obituary is a courtesy, not WP:OUTING. Attaching an obit to a username assumed to be the deceased would surely be a contravention of WP:BLP, never mind OUTING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• My take is that this is entirely a matter for the family and, absent their explicit informed consent, the username should not be associated with a real life identity.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:26, 4 December 2012 (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.

Moved from talk

Response to Roger Davies

Roger Davies, I have no problem answering your questions, but I have several of my own first:

1. When you recused from the global warming case, why did you continue to discuss the case with the committee off-wiki, as illustrated by the leaked emails?
2. If you recused from that case because of our past history with wp:MIHLIST, what has changed since then that allowed you to participate in this case? Did you notice that within hours of you voting in the last motion, Kirill Lokshin publicly recused? You don't think that that recusal was trying to prompt some integrity from you?
3. Wasn't the reason you last refused evidence about Mathsci because it didn't fit into the review that you were conducting? If so, then why would it be rejected now? Is there something going on here that you're not telling me?
4. Has there ever been another Wikipedia editor who outed other editors on four separate occasions, including one with a homo-hate edit summary, that wasn't blocked? If so, could you point it out to the rest of us? I'm asking out of considerations of fairness and consistency, which I assume you have some awareness of.

If you answer my questions I will answer yours, but I'm not holding my breath. Cla68 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Replies:

1. I didn't recuse in the Climate change case. In fact, Shell Kinney and I took over as drafters about half way through, re-organised the proposed decision page, and did many of the FOFs and Remedies. As I felt I might be conflicted because of our Milhist association, I did recuse as far as you were concerned. Accordingly, I neither drafted nor voted on the FOF/Remedy about you.
2. What has changed is that I have come to realise that my concerns about conflicted feelings were misplaced. Kirill can do as he chooses. I doubt if he was sending a coded message.
3. Without going through it all line by line, I believe all the "outing" material you've disclosed here has already been submitted to the entire committee by email as private evidence during the last case. It would be rejected now because it has already been reviewed, no action was taken, and we don't keep hearing the same stuff over and over again.
4. There's only one unambiguous example of outing in the examples you provide, and that's the 2006 one. As far as I'm aware, it has never been custom and practice to block for actions which are four years old.

 Roger Davies ^talk 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)