Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:20, 16 December 2010 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: comments← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,038 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
== Request for clarification: ] ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> '''at''' 01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
]

]
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Will Beback}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Scott MacDonald}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Will Beback ===
Does an ArbCom decision made four years ago have precedence over current policy? Specifically, does ] override ]? If so, do all ArbCom decisions nullify community-written policies indefinitely?

The context of this question is that Scott MacDonald has been deleting sourced articles on the grounds that they are inadequately sourced, with no apparent effort to improve them and without notifying anyone, in violation of both ] and ] (IMO). He cites Badlydrawnjeff as justification. At least two of the articles did not qualify for deletion under those policies: ] and ]. Scott has indicated that he will continue doing so unless the ArbCom tells him otherwise. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

''Note'': This is not a request for any enforcement nor for any determination of a policy violation. I am simply asking which text takes precedence: WP:BLP or Badlydrawnjeff.

*To Cla68: The ArbCom policy gave a general principle. The current policy fleshes out that principle with some additional requirements, including a requirement to try to fix the article and a requirement to initiate a discussion after the deletion. The question is, if there is a conflict between a current policy and an ArbCom decision made four years ago takes precedence, which takes precedence? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*To Scott: I respect the authority of the ArbCom. The decision they made four years ago is a definitive interpretation of the policy as it existed then. But I don't think that a four-year-old decision by nine people binds the community indefinitely. Is the community not allowed to adopt any policies that modifies Badlydrawnjeff by setting limits or imposing reasonable requirements on admins before and after deleting articles? Does the community set policy or are any parts of ] which contradict or aren't included in Badlydrawnjeff void and inapplicable? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*See also: and &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*To SirFozzie: I'm asking for this clarification to find out if a four-year old ArbCom decision binds admins instead of a current policy. The details of Scott's deletions aren't relevant to that question. No evidence is required to determine which page has precedence. That said, my specific concerns are that he made little or no effort to improve the articles before deleting them, that were not so bad they they had to be deleted outright (as opposed to just deleting the under-sourced material), and that he should have initiated discussions following the deletions. Those are all part of BLP but not necessarily of Badlydrawnjeff. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
*Also, I don't see anything in ] that seems relevant to this matter. Was there a recent case that says Badlydrawnjeff trumps ]? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*To SirFozzie: Are you saying that the ArbCom makes policy instead of the community, and that the ArbCom's current statement of the BLP policy is ? If so, should we copy that text into ] and delete any text that disagrees with it? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
*Also, after that January motion, the community conducted a very large RFC. ]. The conclusion drawn by the closing admin in that (and the subsequent ] and ]) seems to be that the community has not supported summary deletions outside of policy. The BLP policy has been amended to cover summary deletions since then. My question is whether that current policy is superseded by Badlydrawnjeff, or even by the January 2010 motion. If it is, does the ArbCom have the general power to nullify community-written policies?

*To Coren: ] adds details about how and when summary deletions should be conducted. That policy says, in part:
**''Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy''' should be improved and rectified'''; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the '''entire page''' is substantially of poor quality, '''primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced''', then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as '''an initial step''', '''followed by discussion.''' Page deletion is normally''' a last resort'''. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this '''cannot readily be rewritten''' or restored to a version of an acceptable standard.''
*Does the ArbCom feel that it is unreasonable to ask admins to try to improve or rectify articles before deleting them, that it is unreasonable to say deletion should be the last resort used only for articles that can't be fixed, and that it's unreasonable to ask them to start a post-deletion discussion? If so, then I suggest those provisions should be removed from the policy in order to bring it into compliance with the ArbCom' old motions. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*FWIW, all ArbCom candidates were asked about this exact issue in question #5 a month ago.
**''ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.''
*Similar questions have been asked in past ArbCom elections. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*From ]:
**''The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy may be enforced. Previous Committee decisions are considered useful and informative, but are not binding on future proceedings.''
*If the ArbCom decides that its motions override ] or other policies then this section should probably be removed or altered significantly. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
''Note:'' There's no reason this needs to be decided immediately. Given all factors, it'd be fine to defer this to January. Maybe it'd be best to put his on the back burner to develop slowly. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*To Tony Sidaway: This clarification request is not intended as a referendum on Scott's administrative work. It is simply a question of which text is the governing policy: the ArbCom's Badlydrawnjeff/January motion or the community's ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Scott MacDonald===
I review hundreds of BLPs every month using various methods to hunt for unreferenced negative material. Mostly I simply remove the material from the articles when I find it, and there is not controversy.

Occasionally, when the violating material is basically the entire article, I delete it. My justification is found in the arbcom ruling:

:''Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. ''

Of course, an administrator acting on their own judgement can be wrong - and I sometimes am. (I could point to dozens of horrible things I've uncontroversially removed using this policy in mitigation of any alleged errors. Although in truth I delete very few articles.) Be that as it may, when someone approaches me about any deleted bio, I am always open to finding a way forward. I've regularly undeleted articles where an established user has agreed to fix the violations, or I've userfied it. If the challenging user isn't satisfied, then we can always amicably take the thing to DRV for a wider discussion.

The discretion given to admins here is an essential tool in dealing with BLP problems. The principle is simple, if an admin judges there to be a problem, he may remove the material, and delete when necessary. The action is always open to challenge through discussion and review - but we err on the side of keeping the material OUT until either the deleting admin, or a consensus on DRV is satisfied the article can be restored. It is better that a few marginally notable BLPs are gone for a bit, than we weaken our already inadequate safeguarding against problematic material.

In the case in point. Will beback didn't agree with my deletion. Fair enough. However, what he then did was simply restored the BLP prior to our discussion. That's clearly not acceptable and could be dangerous - even if he was right here, he's not infallible enough to be reversing BLP deletions without discussion. (After the discussion, I restored the article myself.)

Worryingly, Will rejects arbcom's authority on this matter - but insists on the exact letter of the deletion policy being followed, in the way that he, rather than the Committee interpret it. I believe arbcom has given admins more discretion: because on balance the danger of bad BLP material remaining outweighs the minor loss of some debatable stuff occasionally being unnecessarily removed.--] 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*To be clear. One of the negative BLPs I deleted did have some reliable sources - it also had deadlinks and unsourced statements. It would have been possible, on that occasion, to have taken a different view and repaired rather than deleted the article. As I said to Will when he brought it to me attention, I am always happy to admit mistakes and back up. The price of my willingness to make difficult calls on the margins is that occasionally I get it wrong. In this case, after discussion, and Will's indication he'd reviewed the off-line sources, I restored the article and improved it myself. My difficulty was with Will restoring it himself prior to any discussion, and with his demand that I stop using my judgement to delete BLPs. I have always been willing to make bold judgement calls and then listen carefully to any comments and objections - the mantra with debatable BLP material is: REMOVE - DISCUSS - REPLACE (where appropriate). In this one case it was appropriate.--] 09:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

**'''Nutshell - 2 separable things''': 1) My interpretation of''' policy is correct'''. Arbcom don't need to "clarify" anything, the admin discretion on poorly sourced BLPs is quite clear to everyone except Will beback. 2) The article in question may have had better sourcing that I gave credit for. Thus my '''deletion may have been mistaken''' or over-zealous. However, that was resolved on my talk page (and if it hadn't been belongs at DRV) - there is '''nothing to arbitrate''' here.--] 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perspective. Slap me for my mistakes if you must, but surely Will ''et al'' should be more concerned with things like and (found my me just this morning) than with stalking my deletion logs looking for any mistakes on marginal articles.--] 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

::@Carcharoth. I'm not sure what you mean. Naturally, I'd encourage as many people as possible to seek to identify and remove BLP violating material. The fact that I can pretty much guarantee to find a significant violation with less than 10 min looking speaks for itself. However, I'm not sure how I'd do that collaboratively. I'm not working through any backlog. If there were a queue of "BLP violating articles" to work through that would be a worry in itself. My MO is to use various metrics to search for unreferenced negative material. Once I've found it, there's generally little to discuss - I remove it. I salute those who systematically work through unreferenced BLPs and source them - but that's not by chosen area. I spent nearly a year searching the unreferenced BLP categories and removing negative material - I've now moved back to searching for offending material more widely. More people should do this, but I'm not sure how one does it collaboratively. For me it is simply a "seek and remove" mission. That's my contribution.--] 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cla68 ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
''If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step.'' Current policy supports summary deletion of contentious material awaiting verification. So, any assertion that the past ArbCom decision is contrary to current policy is false. ] (]) 01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with Tony Sideaway's fairly strong statement below on this matter. In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. ] (]) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lar ===
A review of Scott's talk page recently is quite enlightening, Will Beback gave the appearance of rules lawyering. In this case Will Beback gives the appearance of putting a false spin on this by suggesting that current policy and the cited precedent are not in harmony. Scott's analysis of how he is in full compliance with both the case finding and current policy is spot on. I ask that ArbCom swiftly and clearly affirm Scott so we need not waste more time and effort on this. As a bonus, please admonish Will for restoring BLP material without first discussing matters. ++]: ]/] 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:I too agree with Tony Sidaway's strong statement, as well as with Cla68's assessment of those admins who obstruct progress. ++]: ]/] 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cyclopia ===
I endorse the statement of ] on Scott talk page: ''But whether you like it or not, a fully fleshed cite to a newspaper article that is not online remains "fully compliant with every aspect of the policy". If you don't like that fact, go build a consensus to change WP:V. As an administrator, your job is to enforce policies as they are, not as you personally wish they were.''

The only thing that worried Scott Mac was that references to negative statements were not directly accessible online. To delete an article on the suspicious that offline references are false is way beyond the standards that we require for BLP and it is a requirement not written in any policy. BLP requires the article to be fully verifiable and sources to be fully reliable, but it doesn't require, to the best of my knowledge, for them to be ''online''.

In deleting the article and in arm-twisting with Will Beback about the restoration of the article, Scott Mac did not enforce BLP, because there is nothing in BLP that requires fully online sources. So we can be sure that an enforcement of BLP policy is out of the discussion. Scott Mac could have at most asked for confirmation of the sources' content at ] if he wanted to be sure, and raise perhaps the issue at the BLP noticeboard to get some editor's attention: but even if both attempts yielded no result, in no way deletion of the article was proper.

I also want to personally note that this is only the last in a long number of attrition incidents between Scott Mac's overzealous interpretation of BLP policy ''versus'' the rest of the community. While a significant number of members of WP community are sympathetic with Scott Mac's reasonings and actions, it must not be forgotten that an at least equivalent, if not larger, number of members of the community -including myself- feel that firm enforcement of BLP policy must not become a regular jolly card for administrators to act regularly outside of policy. Such actions have a deep impact in the community by endangering the delicate relationship between admins and common editors, and making many editors feel that BLP overzealous application has a generic, negative chilling effect on editing and consensus-building. I recommend ] as an interesting read on the subject. Scott Mac in particular seems regularly unable to understand that his own personal interpretation of BLP spirit and ruleset and his personal ethical weighting of BLP interests ''versus'' the other encyclopedia interests is not necessarily the only right one.

I hope ArbCom, while recognizing that Scott Mac acted for sure in good faith and with the best intentions, will warn Scott Mac that his own personal interpretation of BLP spirit and policy is not necessarily the only right one, and to confront the concerns of other editors on his actions less defensively and more collaboratively.--]] 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Question from Timotheus Canens ===
Coren, in your statement that "BLP trumps consensus", do you mean the version that is viewable at ], or the committee's view on what ] should be? ] (]) 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:Okay. First, can the committee give an up-or-down answer on whether the deletions at issue here are acceptable? I think no one here disputes the basic rule that unsourced or poorly sourced controversial or negative information must be removed; it's the applications that are generating the controversy.<p>Second, since you seem to think that the "general principle" is something separate from what is written in ]: if I were someone new to this whole BLP thing, where would I be able to find the documentation of this "general principle" that you are referring to? That is, if someone, who has never encountered this BLP business before (perhaps because they only wrote about, I don't know, moths?), wants to figure out if a particular action is consistent with the "general principle" you refer to, how can they learn about it? ] (]) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Resolute===
Cyclopia already stated my position on Scott's talk page, and I suspect my opinion of the January 2010 motion is quite well known, so won't rehash that either. What is highly concerning here is that Scott has moved beyond his habits of attacking unsourced articles and has now turned his zealotry towards ''sourced'' articles. And he is using an ArbCom judgment that pre-dates the current ] policy. Coren - your statement is nothing more than the canned response I've come to expect, but the facts of this issue go beyond simply unsourced material. Scott is attempting to unilaterally re-write ], ], ] and ] because he disagrees with how those policies are currently interpreted, and he is using an ancient ArbCom decision to justify it. Scott deleted an article that '''''was sourced'''''. It met BLP, V, RS. He deleted it anyway because *he* couldn't read the offline cites, and because *he* disagrees with these policies as written. To be blunt, this is borderline abuse of power. As someone who routinely spends time digging up offline sources and old newspaper articles to turn crap biographies into something valuable, this attitude is highly concerning to me, as I would hate to think my work could be so easily deleted because another admin simply disagrees with policy. Deleting unsourced negative articles? Wholeheartedly endorse. Remove unsourced contentious content, reducing an article to a sub-stub if necessary? Endorse. But to delete properly and sufficiently sourced content on a whim? Surely ArbCom was not so shortsighted in 2007 or January 2010 to believe this is a logical extension of those decisions. ]] 05:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

:@TS, Lar and Cla68 - Administrators who show an utter disregard for Misplaced Pages's policies and community and who willingly choose to abuse both in the name of their zealotry should be regarded as incompetent, and lose their bits. BLP is not a shield that grants immunity from the consequences of that incompetence. Inappropriate deletions in the name of BLP are just as wrong as inappropriate deletions based on any other policy. ]] 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nomoskedasticity ===
To emphasize Resolute's point: the material Scott deleted '''was not unsourced'''. It appears (though he hasn't answered my question to this effect) that Scott was simply unwilling to make the necessary effort to acquire them himself. The sources in question were entirely normal newspaper articles, and so there was not even a problem of "poorly sourced". ] (]) 07:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by user without an account ===
There's a false conflict being set up here between policy on the one hand and Arbcom's well established power to apply remedies that give additional enforcement options to administrators in areas in which Arbcom has identified problems. Arbcom have found severe problems in the area of BLPs. Arbcom have remedied this by giving administrators discretionary powers to act in supporting the policies requiring e.g. reliable sourcing of all contentious material, and the Foundation's mandate. That's the clarification. A review of Scott's and Will's particular actions might be warranted, that's something else entirely.

=== Questions to Coren by Cyclopia ===
Given that the articles under debate were '''not''' (I repeat, '''not''') unsourced, but that the sources were merely not immediately available online:
# Could you clarify the meaning of your statement below in this respect?
# Do you have anything to comment on articles that are fully verifiable and sourced but from offline sources, as apparently were the articles herein discussed?

Also, when you declare that "BLP trumps consensus"
# Do you mean that every editor claiming BLP for an edit/action has a free card to do whatever they want disregarding every policy? Should I delete statements fully sourced but from offline sources in BLPs today, against all consensus of editors, would my actions be endorsed by BLP policy and ArbCom?
--]] 11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Question to Coren (and other arbitrators) by Cyclopia (II) ===
Thank you Coren for your reassuring answers. It is now clear that your statement is not an endorsement of Scott Mac's actions. Now, however, an unsolved point remains, that is, the problematic statement that ''"BLP'' (or any policy FWIW) ''trumps consensus"''.
# If you declare that "BLP trumps consensus" and then say that "just claiming something is done to enforce BLP doesn't give a free pass" ; then, how can we distinguish mere claims of a single editor from genuine BLP enforcement? For, if BLP application does indeed trump consensus, in ''practice'' a free pass is given, since whenever I claim I am applying it, this gives my actions freedom from editorial consensus, and I can safely ignore any claim of my actions being not proper. Conversely, if the genuinity of BLP concerns are to be decided by consensus, then BLP application does not trump consensus but merely applies it. For example, this very RfClarification is basically done to build consensus around an action claimed in the name of BLP. So, actually, consensus seems to be queen. Could we clarify the relationship between BLP and consensus?
--]] 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by WereSpielChequers ===
Whilst Scot is to be commended for his removal of unsourced and poorly sourced BLP material, his attempted broadening of the definition of poorly sourced to include offline sources and deadlinks is more troubling. I would accept that if the editor who originally added that information had subsequently turned out to be faking their references then we should regard all of their offline sourced info as poorly sourced. But it is the way of the Internet for links to go dead or be hidden behind paywalls, and if we concede the principle that only currently clickable online sources can be treated as good sources then we do great damage to the pedia.

I appreciate that if we were to start getting vandals who assert fictitious offline sources then we would need to put measures in place for trusted users to check and mark such references as confirmed. But that would be a more logical route than to arbitrarily redefine offline sources as poor sources and start deleting such information. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Milowent ===
Epic breaching experiment fail. Mezzatesta was a rash and unnecessary deletion; obviously many folks are monitoring Scott's actions to catch these things. I traipsed through Will and Scott's discussion when it started, saw the deleted article via google cache, and quickly was able to verify that the content of the article was substantially accurate. All the bad news stories about the guy are among first hits on google. In the past, Scott has stubbed out articles like this, like he did with ] here on October 27. That move was also criticized and the article restored with sources, but it was no doubt a less drastic and much preferable move to outright deletion. We don't want to discourage Scott from removing truly unsourced contentious BLP content, but don't endorse this deletion.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tony Sidaway ===
As far as I can tell Doc is quite happy to restore a deleted article whenever somebody undertakes to improve it to Misplaced Pages standards. Hounding him like this can only deter other willing admins from doing the right thing, and gives the general users the false impression that substandard BLPs are acceptable. --] 22:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
: The problem, and it's a pretty obvious one over five years after Siegenthaler, is that we knowingly and perversely retain crappy articles that we're not prepared to maintain, on the subject of living people. Only arbcom can motivate us to resolve this problem, which has only grown since the principle of deletion was established in 2007. I will ask the new Committee to take this problem on as a matter of urgency. The community is not only failing in this primary objective, it's openly and vociferously thwarting reasonable attempts to mitigate the problem. --] 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Gigs ===
One of the major points of ] is that "the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". This is a fundamental and important part of ]. We should not allow any concern, no matter how important, to override this principle. If we let this happen, we become a mere summary of public internet sources instead of an encyclopedia. The policy of ''verifiability'' is not a policy of ''verification''. While I'm aware of breaching experiments which have exploited the fact that we AGF on offline and otherwise inaccessible sources, we must not let these rare exceptions drive our rules.

I share the concern of TS and Scott that we are allowing the creation and existence of thousands of articles that we are not fully able to maintain. I see this as a fundamental problem with our notability standards, the subject specific ones, which allow for articles to be created on subjects which have not drawn much or any biographical secondary source coverage. I don't think the problem with notability should be addressed through perhaps more expedient means of invoking BLP or perverting Verifiability standards, but rather we need to ]. ] (]) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
:To clarify, I'm not saying we should retain exceptional claims sourced to dubious sources, especially inaccessible ones. I view our policies as minimum standards for inclusion, and subscribe to the ideas in ]. That said, I don't think we should let exceptions shape the rules. ] (]) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
I'm disappointed that things have flared up again. My personal thoughts, both as an editor who's gone through multiple iterations of the BLP policy, and as an arbitrator... Misplaced Pages must take the utmost care in its articles as they can mislead or actively do harm. BLP articles are especially prone to this. The Arbitration Committee has specified time and time again in rulings (as recently as the beginning of this year) that the utmost care be taken with these articles, and mandated that editors and administrators take every reasonable precaution against doing unjustified harm with BLP articles.

So, my thoughts fall to the following point of evidence. Was the action taken to remove the un-verified (or inadequately verified), negative BLP information and as necessary delete the article (with no prejudice against recreation should a NPOV, sourced article be written) fall under the phrase "reasonable precautions" ? That's what I'll be looking at in this clarification request, and I would request that the parties and interested onlookers answer. ] (]) 02:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:@Will, ] that affirmed the deletion of unverified or poorly verified BLP articles as a reasonable action. ] (]) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
::I wouldn't go so far as what you say.. the Committee knows that the community is deeply divided over the issue, as the care taken in those two motions state. Those are the facts on the ground. ] (]) 04:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
*The fact of the matter is that, in the end, BLP does and ''must'' trump consensus. While the efforts of the community in crafting a reasonably orderly manner of dealing with biographies of living persons that are "merely" unreferenced is to be commended, negative statements not supported by a reliable source ''must'' be summarily removed, and if the article as a whole is substantially negative and unreferenced then it ''must'' be deleted (provided there isn't a proper version in its history to revert to).<p>The onus of providing references for a BLP lie on those wishing to keep it, not on those protecting the article subject (and the project) by removing unsourced negative material. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
**@Cyclopia: No, offline sources are just as good as online sources, if a little less convenient for verification (which is why it's ''preferable'' to point at online source when possible).<p>To answer your second point, just ''claiming'' something is done to enforce BLP doesn't give a free pass&mdash; but I was answering the general question posed and not commenting on the precipitating incident specifically. Like any other policy, it can be abused or misapplied. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
**@Timotheus Canens: I mean to the general principle, but ] is clear there too: "''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability.''" &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
*I think a point is being missed here: the claim that Scott MacDonald deleted articles because the sources were not available online for him to verify. I think this does need clarification, though on balance I agree that the approach Scott MacDonald takes is OK, as long as he does continue to discuss any contested deletions. Pointing to other clean-up work he does (e.g. the years-old BLP diffs he removed) makes a case for more people getting involved with that - Scott, have you tried to get a group of people together to adopt your approach and do more work than you could do alone? You could, for example, include people that had access to sources you might not have access to. The administrator discretion clause doesn't mean administrators have to work alone - they should still work with others as needed where needed, rather than rely too much on their own judgment. What tend to happen there is that admins end up in a 'defensive' mindset, which can be avoided if you work within a group steadily clearing backlogs. ] (]) 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
***Scott: My point was simple, ''"I spent nearly a year searching the unreferenced BLP categories and removing negative material - I've now moved back to searching for offending material more widely. More people should do this, but I'm not sure how one does it collaboratively. For me it is simply a "seek and remove" mission. That's my contribution."'' - you can still do that, but why not work with other people as well, unless you think you can do all this by yourself? Efforts such as the one you are undertaking have to scale, otherwise they make very little impact. Discuss with others how you find and remove negative material, and encourage more people to do what you do. It is possible that others will find ways to improve what you are doing, and discussions will reduce the chances that standards will diverge widely among those doing this work. ] (]) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

*I do not see any direct contradiction between the BLP policy and this Committee's decisions in cases such as ''Badlydrawnjeff''. With regard to the appropriateness of outright deletion of problematic BLPs, this needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through a uniform rule or practice. In general, deletion (rather than removal of particular bits of problematic content) is more likely to be warranted where the problems with the article are of long standing, they are serious (rather than more technical in nature), and where the notability of the article subject to begin with is borderline. Of all the BLP related priorities (and there are several), the greatest focus should be on article content that actually poses a thread of harm to the article subject. ] (]) 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ]/scope of topic ban of Mathsci ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Mathsci}}
*{{admin|EdJohnston}}
*{{admin|Timotheus Canens}}
=== Statement by Mathsci ===
{{collapsetop|Please click to expand}}
At the close of the case ], I readily agreed with arbritators on a topic ban by mutual consent, even after an arbitrator had suggested a shorter topic ban, which would have been over by now. I agreed to this because I no longer had any interest in editing content in the area of ], broadly construed, and because, as I said during the case, my presence editing articles was wholly dispensable and completely desirable. My compliance and agreement with almost every point made by arbitrators significantly shortened the closing of arbitration. My topic ban was carefully formulated and did not apply to process pages and noticeboards.

During and after the close of arbitration, Captain Occam, joined by his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, have militated to have sanctions imposed on other editors, notably {{User|WeijiBaikeBianji}} (and to a lesser extent {{user|Muntuwandi}}). Third parties have appeared on wikipedia in the past month or so, since a topic ban was imposed on Ferahgo the Assassin, whose sole purpose so far has been wikihounding and harassing WeijiBaikeBianji. I have communicated off-wiki with arbitrators about some of these issues, in particular Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, which are violations of the topic bans of Captain Occam and Ferhago the Assassin. On specific occasions it has been suggested that I contribute to arbitration noticeboards. I have additionally been asked asked whether information I have provided can be passed on to other arbitrators.
I have no views on the editing of WeijiBaikeBianji. I made a brief statement containing only one very general piece of constructive advice on methods of editing and adding sources that would apply to any editor. Since the close of arbitration, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin's activities in militating have not declined and the reports I recently made to ] reflect this renewed activity. This has resulted in a logged warning for {{user|Woodsrock}}, for ], and a block for {{user|Ferahgo the Assassin}} for tracking his edits. In my perception both incidents formed part of a campaign of harassment and wikihounding of WeijiBaikeBianji. Another example are these kind of edits by a newly arrived editor. ,
In addition I have identified and reported a series of troubling sockpuppets of {{Userlinks|Mikemikev}}, some with specifically antisemitic overtones, including {{User|Suarneduj}}, {{user|Juden Raus}}, {{User|RLShinyblingstone}} and {{User|Oo Yun}}.

I am requesting that arbitrators please clarify the particular nature of my topic ban by mutual consent and whether it should in future apply to process pages, for which there has been no indication so far. Please could arbitrators also provide guidance for administrators overseeing the arbitration noticeboards as to whether they may change the nature of carefully formulated topic bans of this kind.

; Response to Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney : Thank you for these kind comments. Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area.

; Out of process extension of topic ban by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens: According to this diff these administrators, without any clear remit or justification, claim to have extended my topic ban in some imprecise way to policy pages. Please could arbitrators explain whether this is permissible and could these administrators please explain their reasoning a little more carefully.

; Further comments:

I have made two requests on ArbCom noticeboards since ] was closed on August 26 2010:

* Nov 22: about Captain Occam and possible meatpuppetry, a somewhat complex situtation. The result was that Woodsrock received a logged warning from MastCell. I had corresponded prior to this with members of ArbCom.

* Nov 26: Ferahgo the Assassin blocked by MastCell for contravening her topic ban.

ArbCom carried out a checkuser on the two users mentioned above. From what I understand ArbCom is concerned about issues connected with meatpuppetry. Several administrators made comments about that in the first request. After the extension of the topic ban to cover RfCs was announced, Ferahgo the Assassin posted five times to the RfC/U in question:
I mentioned this to EdJohnston in a recent email. It seems unlikely that ArbCom would impose restrictions on participating in RfC/Us. In almost all circumstances they concern issues of user conduct not content editing. My outside view in this particular RfC/U, which does not conform to standard RfC/Us, was anodyne and commonplace, having no relation whatsoever to any kind of topic ban. I have also contributed to the RfC/U on YellowMonkey and will continue to do so while views are still being posted. If any administrator attempted to block me for doing so, I assume that they would risk being desysopped by ArbCom.

; Additional statement about meatpuppetry : Details of another account, recently active in this area since the topic ban of Ferahgo the Assassin, have been sent in private to a member of ArbCom, who has passed on the details to other arbitrators. This additional evidence, found completely by accident, seems uncontestable at the moment.

; Reply to Timotheus Canens : Many thanks for your statement. I had assumed this in the interim. I was not intending to comment in the RfC/U any further, even if I agree with some of the subsequent statements. I sent a wiki-email to EdJohnston concerning ] and will forward that email to you. Apologies that I did not do so before.

; Comment on Captain Occam's additional statement : This is directly related to the recent information that members of ArbCom have been sent in private. Both EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens are now aware of the issue. I have no complaint at all about the advice offered on ], which seems extremely sensible.
{{collapsebottom}}

; Response to arbitrators : Many thanks to arbitrators for suggesting (unexpectedly!) that my topic ban could formally be lifted. If other arbitrators agree that my name could be removed from the list of those under personal sanctions from ArbCom, I would adhere to my voluntary undertaking never again to edit articles or their talk pages related to race and intelligence, broadly construed.

=== Statement by Captain Occam ===

Since this thread discusses both me and Ferahgo, I think Mathsci should have notified us about it, but now that I’ve found it I’ll offer a statement here.

As someone who was accused of meatpuppetry in one of Mathsci’s recent AE threads, I beg to differ with the assertion that Mathsci’s participation in process pages has been completely harmless. I would recommend that arbitrators read ] before concluding that Mathsci is correct to claim this. Apparently Mathsci is convinced that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are both meatpuppets of mine, and this has resulted in a week-long AE thread, although almost none of the people commenting (and no admins) have believed that there’s a good reason to assume this. Even so, Mathsci is continuing to claim that I am violating my topic ban (as in the statement above), and bringing up this accusation in unrelated discussions where the accounts that he suspects of being meatpuppets have participated. (Such as ). I have neither been blocked nor warned for violating my topic ban since the end of the arbitration case, and as far as I know Sightwatcher and Woodsrock are just a pair of new uses who happen to disagree with Mathsci (although I admit it wouldn’t hurt for Woodsrock to improve his civility), and for Mathsci to keep bringing up this accusation against us is very irritating.

More importantly, dealing with these accusations first from Muntuwandi and now from Mathsci has made it very difficult for me to work on the other articles that I’d like to. My style of editing is that I prefer to fully focus on one article at a time, and not allow myself to be distracted by anything else until I’m reasonably satisfied with it, but this requires me not having to constantly deal with accusations being made against me. During the three months since the end of the arbitration case, there has only been around one month during which I was left alone sufficiently to do this, during which I wrote the ] article. I had been hoping to get started on my planned rewrite of the ] article over the past week—I’ve now done all of the research that I need to for it—but while Mathsci is continuing to badger me, that’s not possible.

As can be seen from before Mathsci volunteered to be topic banned by consent, when he agreed to this the arbitrators were already voting in favor of him receiving a topic ban identical to the one received by me and David.Kane, and opposing the lesser remedy for him. The only reason Mathsci received a topic ban that was voluntary rather than involuntary is because he volunteered for this four days before the case closed. The “Review of topic bans” decision also states that applications for topic bans to be lifted will not be considered less than six months before the close of the case. To make an exception to this in Mathsci’s case because his topic ban was voluntary would send a message that any time an editor is clearly going to be sanctioned in an arbitration case, he can avoid being subject to some aspects of the ruling by volunteering to receive the sanction that arbitrators are already voting for. --] (]) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

; Additional comments : Although it’s correct that Mathsci is no longer participating in the RFC, he’s still using unrelated fora to snipe at the people who express disagreement with him there. Is Mathsci’s participation in discussions like that one really helpful, and something that ought to be encouraged? --] (]) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

; Response to Mathsci : By any objective standard, it’s disruptive for you to hijack an unrelated discussion in order to accuse an administrator who disagreed with you in the RFC of “silliness and absurdity”. I’m obviously not a party to your private communications with ArbCom, and neither are the admins who will be closing the AE thread, but I don’t see how any kind of private communications with ArbCom would justify acting this way. You’ve made it clear what your excuse about this is—that all of what you’ve been doing recently is acceptable in light of your private correspondence, but that since you can’t actually tell anyone else about the content this correspondence, the admins closing the AE thread will have to just take your word for this. You’ve been in private correspondence with ArbCom for around two weeks now. Isn’t it a little inappropriate to use this secrecy as a one-size-fits-all excuse for whatever you want to do in the meantime? --] (]) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

====Questions about EdJohnston’s new sanctions====

I don’t think it’s a bad idea in principle to extend topic bans to all discussions related to the articles in question, and I know this has been done with topic bans from other arbitration cases. But I have some concerns about the process by which EdJohnston made a decision in this particular case. When I discussed this with EdJohnston in his user talk, he said that I should ask ArbCom about it in this thread, so I’m doing so. The thread where I explained my concerns to him is ]. Since EdJohnston has suggested that ArbCom examine this situation, I think arbitrators should read the thread there.

As I stated there, EdJohnston in the AE thread that this expansion of topic bans from the R&I case be extended for Mathsci as well as me and Ferahgo, because he and Timothy Canens both felt that all three of us have contributed to the continued conflict over these articles. Mathsci subsequently contacted both of these admins privately via e-mail, and shortly thereafter, EdJohnston and Timothy Canens decided to sanction me and Ferahgo but not Mathsci. No other admins commented in the discussion about this. As far as I know, after EdJohnston’s original proposal to sanction all three of us, the only thing that changed about the situation was Mathsci e-mailing him. (Unless you count Mathsci’s new comments directed at Cirt, but those would argue in favor of him being included in the additional sanctions, not against this.)

In the discussion in his user talk, EdJohnston has said that his decision in the AE thread was not influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails. He also said in there that once Mathsci began e-mailing him, it would have been a good idea for him to close the AE thread with no action, in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence. But even though EdJohnston clearly agrees that it would not have been appropriate for him to let e-mails from one of the involved parties in an AE thread influence his decision there, he has not been willing to explain what other than Mathsci’s e-mails caused him to change his mind about his initial proposal to sanction all three of us equally.

I consider this a problem for two reasons. First, even though EdJohnston is basically agreeing that it might have been a better idea for him to close the thread with no action in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence, he is not willing to do anything to reverse the fact that he’s created that impression. He’s unwilling to reverse the decision he made there, and he’s also unwilling to explain what caused his reversal of opinion about sanctioning all of us equally. And second, according to ] from a past arbitration case, EdJohnston has a responsibility to explain why he chose to sanction me without sanctioning Mathsci. EdJohnston has not explained this, despite my asking him about it several times in his user talk. According to this arbitration principle, if EdJohnston was not prepared to justify the reason for this decision in public, he should not have made it. (And as stated in the comment that I linked to, EdJohnston seems to agree that perhaps he should not have made this decision, but he’s still not willing to undo it.)

Can ArbCom clarify what’s the appropriate course of action here? This is the first time I’ve ever had an admin sanction me and then later express uncertainty over whether it might have been a better idea to take no action, while still being unwilling to reverse their decision. --] (]) 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by VsevolodKrolikov ===
I'd like the ban to include RfCs connected to the topic, broadly construed. I struggle to see how the involvement of any of these three editors at the RfC concerning ] is not going against the purpose of the topic ban. I also think that MathSci's repeated allegations that the RfC has been instigated by the other two need to stop. There is no evidence for this that I have seen, and it heightens tension when all the active editors in the area want WBB to do is ] the concerns of other editors, and not edit against consensus or be "bold" when it's really unwise to be. RfCs are not there to enforce sanctions, and we are not "reporting" WBB, but trying to bring him into a better mode of editing.] (]) 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
: '''Question for Shell Kinney''' You don't think the repeated allegations of meatpuppetry are at all problematic? The calling for an AE enforcement in what looks rather like a response to a genuine RfC, on fairly flimsy grounds? I have to disagree with you that his involvement has been entirely benign. I simply don't see the need for topic banned people to be involved in the RfC. RfCs don't hand out sanctions. They're meant to be attempts to sort out problems in an area without resort to sanctions. It shouldn't happen with topic banned editors snipping from the sidelines trying to influence how people edit in the topic.] (]) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
:: '''For Professor Marginalia''' I find your statement somewhat contradictory. You emphasise how MathSci has only been civil, yet you think the claims of Captain Occam instigating interference are not justified. Civil accusations are still accusations, and the way that they seemed to rope in more than just these two editors raised tensions. My own feeling getting involved in all of this is that far too many people were just too jumpy. What do we have? One uncivil editor who got blocked without any complaints, and another who has accepted - albeit grudgingly, that the RfC should come to an end - an RfC suggested by an admin. MathSci also endorsed the statement "This RfC seems to be ideologically motivated, I think you're hoping for ArbCom to overreact and hand out a topic ban. Do try proper dispute resolution rather than bringing out the big guns to get people banned", an aggressive, accusatory statement that certainly seemed unnecessary. (Remember, it was an admin who suggested RfC as the way forward in the dispute). MathSci of course wasn't the only endorser - the jumpiness seems more widespread than that. "Suspicion" has been used a few times here to imply guilt on the part of the suspected. There's communication going on off-wiki with arbcom that we're not all party too; dark hints about what might be found regarding meat puppetry also haven't helped. Having someone whose only role is to "sniff out socks and trolls" sounds all very nice. The thing is, even if there are no witches, having a witchfinder general around the place doesn't make for a happy community. ] (]) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tijfo098 ===
The constant stream of administrative complaints from topic banned users is a proxy way of influencing articles in this area. The single-purpose accounts is probably another. Presumably NYB & Shell intend to carve a "whistleblower" role for Mathsci, who will exclusively deal with filing administrative requests in this topic area from now on, in contrast to the other topic banned users who, by emerging AE consensus, aren't going to be allowed to do this anymore. ] (]) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
=== Statement by Timotheus Canens ===
I remain of the view that input by topic-banned editors in topic-related processes, including DR, is neither necessary or helpful in general, nor useful in this case. All it seems to accomplish is to encourage the topic-banned users to continue to snipe at each other and watch the topic area closely, personalizing the disputes further and fostering battleground behavior, instead of properly disengaging. The fact that no admin was inclined to address the bulk of Mathsci's most recent enforcement request before it was archived for the first time is telling. ] (]) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
:@Mathsci: In case it isn't clear: so far no one has purported to actually expand your topic ban. Admin comments at AE are not sanctions until and unless they are acted upon, by means of a notification on user talk, logging at the case page, and so on; and as long as ] has not been vacated, administrators have the remit to impose sanctions they deem necessary and appropriate. ] (]) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Professor marginalia ===
The ambiguities in arb comm's sanctions and/or advice only inspired Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin to explore all manner of alternatives to influence the articles *besides* directly editing them after their topic bans, including the one-sided schmoozing and prospecting for proxy edits on user talk pages. The both of them tune out what they don't want to hear, so hints and fuzzy lines merely open doors to crazy-making. For their own sakes they should be given bright white boundary lines.

Mathsci's continued involvement seems to have limited itself to sniffing out socks and trolls, which have been springing up like mushrooms. It's a delicate balance - between ] and ]. But he's not shooting wildly - his targets (rightly or wrongly) fit the profile of socks (new and sleepers) - and he's got a lot of company sharing his suspicions. I'm suspicious too--we're seeing a rash of newly hatched newbies who are just way too comfortable with wp, with policy, editing tools, userboxes, with template and article creation, with subscription only access to professional journals used in references, and several (most bizarrely) adopting a peculiarly skewed interest in the tedious arbitration conducted months before they registered. Off-site recruitment was an objection raised against some of the now topic banned users during the arbitration. Despite sharing some of his suspicions, I myself wouldn't go so far as Mathsci to blame Captain Occam of instigating here. Yes, there is a history, a pattern, but for me I know that the editing of articles with kinds of back-page baggage as these involved articles have inherited can get derailed by juvenile hijinks and intrigues pointing in any number of directions, always at the expense of those focused on the "substance" in disputes.

With that said, I really don't see that mathsci's involvement has been disruptive. He's been civil-magnanimous even. I generally try to "tune out" or ] those I suspect of being trolls, socks or proxies--but I realize they are disruptive and somebody needs to meet them head on. Since the accusations against him he acknowledged when he voluntarily imposed (later ratified by arb comm) his own topic ban narrowly focused on incivility, I again come back to--I don't see where he's being uncivil. In other words, I think the disruptions were already there--Mathsci's involvement simply forced attention on them via the dispute channel or WP styled "chain of command". ] (]) 08:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:Answer to VsevolodKrolikov: Let me clarify that I '''''do''''' think Captain Occam has instigated interference--but I can't say he's the mastermind responsible for socks and meatpuppets. And I disagree that Mathsci's accusations have "roped" anybody here-others have been posting these allegations weeks before he weighed in. WBB inherited three newly registered antagonists and a fourth whose account was inactive for years '''at the exact moment''' his old one, Ferahgo the Assassin, is delivered a topic ban. Just one week after benign disagreement between the two following his first and (at the time) only edit to a race/intelligence related article and Sightwatcher is backing Ferahgo against WBB over on AE. There's no "witch hunt" here. ] (]) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
Please see of a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Wider topic bans were imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. For convenience the Sanction portion of the AE is reproduced in the box below:
{{hat|1=Sanction per the recent AE request}}
=====Sanction=====
:;Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence:
:*] and ] are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.

:;The following is advice, and it is not compulsory:
:*Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table.

:*] is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I).

:*Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I.

:;No action taken regarding David.Kane et al:
:*David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban.
:*Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry.
{{hab}}
This thread was closed with no sanctions on Mathsci. Obviously Arbcom can make a decision to lift Mathsci's ban if they want to. The AE request mentioned the behavior of two new editors who have recently become active on R&I, and might possibly be socks:
*{{userlinks|Woodsrock}} and
*{{userlinks|SightWatcher}}
Woodsrock has made some personal attacks, and was notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions by MastCell on 22 November. He has not edited Misplaced Pages since then. SightWatcher seems to be more of a good-faith editor, and I don't see any misbehavior yet that would justify notification under the R&I sanctions. ] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:I personally believe that, with the closing of the AE request without any change in the scope of Mathsci's topic ban, the main reason for Mathsci to seek a clarification here has gone away. My own opinion is that the strengthened sanction on Captain Occam and Ferahgo will help to reduce the unneeded process activity around Race and intelligence. The closure of the AE request does reflect a lesser concern about Mathsci's process activities around R&I (and those of ]) than those of the two others. I can think of some reasons why Arbcom might want to continue their review of Mathsci's clarification request anyway:
#If they believe it is time to lift Mathsci's topic ban, as suggested by one arb.
#If they think that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry around Race and intelligence are significant and require their attention. If so, then the need to handle confidential information might be a reason for the further study to take place within Arbcom rather than at AE. This clarification request could serve as a dialog to receive input from the community regarding possible violations of ]. At present we know little (except for what Mathsci has said in various requests) about the status of Arbcom's review of the possible meatpuppetry. We have heard that a checkuser was run, presumably at the request of the arbs and not per SPI, regarding Woodsrock and SightWatcher. I asked this question of Captain Occam on my user talk: ''"I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically"''. He replied that . This does suggest that at least some of the arbs may be interested in pursuing this question. ] (]) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
I find the extent of alleged private e-mailing in this case to be disturbing. Although I expect it does not breach the rules, it gives the impression, true or false, of backstairs cronyism. Disciplinary matters of this nature should be conducted in a completely transparent manner. ] (]) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Awaiting statements. I am specifically open to the possibility of lifting Mathsci's topic-ban at this time, to avoid disputes about its precise borders, given his statement that in any event he does not intend to return to editing the articles themselves. It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed. ] (]) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
*Waiting for additional statements here, but I don't believe Mathsci's participation in process areas for this topic has been disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
*Willing to lift the topic ban, given Mathsci's voluntary withdrawal of editing articles in the topic area. ] (]) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
* I am also open to the idea of removing Mathsci's restriction if he so wishes. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
*Recused on this case. ] (]) 05:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

===Motion (WP:ARBR&I)===

;Proposed : That Remedy 6 ("]") of the ] is terminated, effective immediately.
:''There are 10 active arbitrators, 1 of whom is recused, so the majority to pass is 5.''

;Support
:#&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:#&mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:# ] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:# ] (]) 04:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

;Oppose
:#

;Abstain
:#

----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: