Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Sorry to spread them round a bit - but another quick question
Sorry all, for popping small questions on the various talk pages of this case - I do hope I'm not overlooking a central point of discussion where some questions in general terms can be discussed, and have tried to ask questions at the appropriate forums.

I notice that Fred is listed as recused, whereas Jpgordon, and Morven are listed as active.

Jpgordon seems to have reviewed only the editing of this account, but judged it to be in violation of policy and supported an indefinite block.

Morven has also considered this matter, reviewing my contributions (and personality) in general terms, and judged them to be in violation of policy, and supported an indefinite block.

I am unsure as to the cultural norms surrounding recusal in Arb cases, but generally speaking, the issuing of a judgment prior to a case being heard is literally 'prejudicial' and is grounds for recusal.

Should I phrase this into a motion, or should it be discussed here (or elsewhere?) first? - many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You could phrase it as a motion. this may be the proper place. M er cury   23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest it be discussed here first. The issuing of judgment by arbitrators is not generally considered grounds for recusal.  Otherwise, arbitrators would have to refrain from community activity, lest they dabble in some area that later becomes an arbitration case.  But perhaps someone more familiar with the Arbitration process could post something more informative.  --Iamunknown 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The general precedent has been that each arbitrator decides for himself or herself whether he or she should recuse in a given case. (One arbitrator once made a motion for the recusal of another, but it did not gain support.) Assuming the committee adheres to this precedent, you can hope that the arbitrators concerned see the discussion here or elsewhere on the case pages, or I suppose you could post on their user talk pages with a quick link here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Brad - I actually turned this into a motion at the Workshop page - really just with the intention of clearly stating my perspective, and reasoning. I understand that largely, the onus is on the individual arbitrators to determine their position. Privatemusings (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that it is material any longer - but I copy below a comment from the other case raging as we speak which I agree with wholly;


 * Also, it's possible that two of the arbitrators working on this case had the opportunity to see Durova's evidence some time before it was acted upon, as members of this mailing list. Did they, in fact, read it? If so, I believe they should recuse. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's application to my case is, I hope, clear. Privatemusings (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement 2
What's RWI? 193.95.165.190 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Real world identity. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy
The last sentence of proposed principle 3 provides that "[s]ockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I can see arguments both for and against such a rule as a policy matter, but it appears to lay down a blanket rule not found in the current policy on sockpuppets and alternate accounts. Since the remainder of the paragraph restates familiar sockpuppet-principle language from several prior other cases, this potentially new and significant provision at the end might be widely overlooked. (For what it is worth, I will acknowledge that my attention was drawn to it by a post on an external site, although I do not agree with everything contained in that post.) I was interested in whether this is an interpretation of, or a deliberate extension of, the current policy. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is our interpretation of the spirit and intent of the policy (which, admittedly, may not be at all clear from the text as written at any particular point in time). Kirill 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit like banning off-line communication in that you can't really prevent it. It's also not entirely clear that preventing it would be a net gain. I've seen several uses of acknowledged completely non-disruptive socks for these purposes, and abusive sockpuppets can be and are banned anyway, so it's not sure that we're gaining anything by this. OTOH, I can imagine circumstances in which somebody playing devil's advocate in a discussion that they otherwise wouldn't want to be connect with would be useful. Zocky | picture popups 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The community tolerates sock accounts under limited circumstance but it mostly expects transparency. It is getting out of control, we think. People are less accountable for their remarks if they are no social consequences for making them. Too many of these accounts provide more heat than light. This seems to be an increasing problem that needs to be addressed. Because we have CU, we are more aware than most users about the problem. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They'll just use TOR, open proxies, or simply a throw-away dial up account, which we have absolutely no way of detecting. Policy discussions are about opinions and facts, not about social standings of individual editors, anyway. I don't really see how social consequences come into this at all. Zocky | picture popups 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That runs counter to "Comment on the content, not on the contributor"; it shouldn't matter who is saying something, but (and there was always going to be a "but") if speaking from behind a different mask encourages an editor to speak boldly then I suggest that there is a gain to allowing the ability to sockpuppet - not everyone is comfortable in commenting against prevailing attitudes under their known identity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't like this, and agree with Brad that this is a novelty. As a theoretical example, what if an editor here is an Iranian nuclear physicist, who for obvious reasons uses different accounts to work on articles related to Iran and nuclear physics? Why should he only be allowed to edit anywhere in WP space ("internal to the project") from his main account? The way this is written such an editor wouldn't even be able to file or respond to an ArbCom relating to the work of his alternate account without essentially outing himself. ArbCom really shouldn't be creating policy by fiat. -- Kendrick7talk 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If that ever happened, it would be easily addressed. A quick email would solve the problem.  What we have here (and in the Durova arbitration) are people walking along or in some case stepping way over the line between critique and trolling; why should some escape the opprobrium this draws by using sockpuppets while others such as Giano are prepared to stand up and be counted, even when badly out of line? Guy (Help!) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right: a quick email that would only be shared with a few dozen people, maybe even a couple undercover intelligence agents, and posted on WP:AN a week later anyway? I don't think so. You make a good point that the legitimate use of alternate accounts is the rare bird, but I believe such a use exists, as apparently does the community, and I don't see any wisdom in banning such accounts from project space. -- Kendrick7talk 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some of the examples are getting a bit out of hand. Iranian nuclear physicists? Undercover intelligence agents? I don't think anyone would argue that these are extremely rare cases, at best. You're correct that legitimate use of alternate accounts is the rare exception, not the rule. Exceptions should be handled on a case-by-case basis, by privately contacting ArbCom. The general policy, which applies to everyone that isn't granted an exception by ArbCom, is that only the main account can edit project space. The sockpuppet policy shouldn't contain loopholes to deal with one-off situations such as Jason Bourne wanting to edit WP:NOR with his alternate account. ;) Chaz Beckett 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not, in fact, "the general policy" as far as I can tell. ArbCom should not be creating de facto policy without the input of the community. -- Kendrick7talk 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCo simply made a much needed clarification of the general sockpuppet policy of "One editor, one account". Extraordinary situations such the Iranian nuclear physicist in your example can and should be dealt with by the ArbCom. Chaz Beckett 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, after working in accordance with the rules for over a year, my situation (which is clearly laid out starting directly under the heading Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry) now requires ArbCom approval, and I technically shouldn't even be putting this question here? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'd suggest asking the ArbCom. I'm not going to attempt to judge your specific case, but I can see an argument for ArbCom permitting certain alternate accounts to edit project pages related to specific articles. These might include a Wikiproject or an AfD, but wouldn't include more general pages such WP:V or WP:NOR. An arbitrator would probably be able to give a more definite answer. Chaz Beckett 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Right. Trans-gendered Iranian physicists are completely screwed. I'm unsure to the extend to which ArbCom members are already kingmakers, but I don't like the idea of them expanding their own powers this way either. -- Kendrick7talk 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would like to explain to me why I've just been told that I'm a 2nd class citizen at wikipedia? I had every intention of taking this account, not my real name account, to RfA in the future. Obviously, that cannot happen under the policy change that is proposed.

I'd like to point out that I believe that the wording here is being mis-labelled a clarification when, IMO, it is in fact implementing a significant change of policy that has already completely failed to get anything even approaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. The absolute minimum that I believe needs to be done to address this is to extend the final sentence of proposed principle 3 to read Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates, unless that account has specific approval from ArbCom. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This was a (successful) attempt to push through by central edict a policy that failed to reach consensus, and for good reason. For example, take the person who has a main account closely tied to their identity and an alternate account for LGBT-related edits.


 * For a start, the new policy would prohibit them from (under their account for LGBT-related edits) arguing against changes so the sockpuppetry policy using their situation as an example. Basically, it hamstrings the ability of people who have good reason to use multiple accounts to make arguments against changes to the sockpuppetry policy that would negatively affect them, including arguing against this backdoor change. Catch-22, anyone?


 * The broader "discussions internal to the project" clause would also severly affect the ability of users of the long-running allowed types of alternate accounts to take meaningful part in Wikipedia, depending on how it's implemented. For example, disallowing discussion on Talk pages would render them utterly unable to do meaningful work; on user talk pages, AN/I or AfD very nearly so. - makomk (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy as written would permit the use of the alternate account you describe above, so there would be no need to advocate changes to the policy under that account anyway. We've seen one or two hypothetical examples where this might by some stretch of the imagination be a problem, and rather more concrete examples of deliberate provocation under sockpuppet accounts to avoid accountability. There is a pretty strong presumption of one editor, one account; if you don't feel comfortable advocating a policy position using your main account, not doing it is always an option.  Guy (Help!) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record
I am dismayed that the case has proceeded to a motion to close with no open analysis or discussion of the following;
 * I received no block warning, ever.
 * No discussions were ever attempted with me by any of the blocking admin.s or block reviewers - indeed they were actively rejected.
 * No dispute resolution was pursued by any editor expect me (who has left polite notes, which have been ignored, on many user talk pages)
 * Guy distributed material a month ago to editors including those who reviewed my block, and are now voting in this case - no-one other than I seems to see a problem with the lack of open disclosure on this point.
 * There has been no open discussion (not even open rejection) of any of my assertions - or those of the uninvolved editors who posted to the various arb pages.

I suppose I should just let you get on with the business of eating yourself alive on other cases, but I am saddened at the treatment I have received, and hope for reform, as well as personal rehabilitation.

Not one of you, with the significant exception of Steve Dunlop, has directly engaged me in any public or private discussion, and I think that speaks volumes as to the nature of this process.

I will obey every aspect of your decision, but I do not respect it.

Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't warn you because you already had another account you could use. I'm guessing Mercury didn't because (a) you were already aware of the problems with what you were writing and (b) when careless handling of litigious subjects is involved, a preventive block is the smart move, as it stops the editor form digging the hole any deeper. Unblocks are always an option if there is a credible indication that the problem will not resume. What does trouble me, though, is that you have yet to indicate any degree of acceptance that you have done anything wrong at all.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Or have I missed it?  Maybe you could point to where you indicate that you understand what the problem was and accept that your behaviour was outside of acceptable boundaries. That might have an influence on the proposal for a 90 day ban. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will go out on a limb. See my workshop proposal.  N at han    15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from pointing out that I had publicly committed to using only one account prior to Mercury's block, and that a suggestion (not just from me, but from NewyorkBrad also) that I be restricted to not editing BLPs was roundly ignored, the following comments cast further light on my feelings; Privatemusings (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather feel events are overtaking us, Gentlemen. I'd vastly prefer even 'involuntary' mentorship to the 90 day ban (not quite sure of the intention of that adjective - do you mean that you don't want to, but you will if asked? - sorry to be a bit of a downer, but that's not really likely to be the best ever basis for mentoring, still, I'll give it a go!)

Per Guy - I do feel that the worst aspects of my editing have been highlighted through your 'Jonathan King' diff.s - and many of the points you make are valid, but I'm afraid I feel you make them out of context. I am proud that as we speak, the last edit to that article was an editor ('Ooopsie Poopsie') whom I had been in fairly heated disagreement with, reverting the article to 'my' version - I take this to be a sign of a healthy consensus.

Please do also consider the current state of both the Robert Black page, and the Giovanni di Stefano page (particularly the talk page), where suggestions far less suited to compromise are now being openly discussed - you are right that I do not understand why these are acceptable, and my contributions so dangerous as to warrant page deletion, and an indef block.

Your logic re:warnings seems to assert that my circumstance is acceptable - that an editor should be indefinitely blocked, before Arb com, without ever having received any administrative warning. In my view, that's just wrong.

I understand that my use of multiple accounts has been problematic - it's my belief that the blocking over this point is more along the lines of "look at this - he can't be here to help" rather than "look at the damage he's caused" - because I do have trouble seeing how the punishment fits the crime. Further - to include accounts created with entirely clear intent, and absolutely no potential for harm strikes me as unjust. (thepmaccount, BigOleBarry)

Throughout this process, I feel my thoughts have been roundly ignored, and the only overtures have been "don't put that in that section" or "this is in the wrong place" - I think there have been one brief exchange with Mackensen, but to be honest I really did expect a lot more.

That you see nothing wrong with the fact that you distributed material to editors a month ago, who then took actions on wiki such as reviewing my block, blocking me again, and voting in the Arb case, really really concerns me.

I will take any sanction on the chin, and continue to calmly raise my concerns where I am permitted to. I believe these issues will require resolution (and I speak in general terms - I do recognise that my case is a very teeny tiny small deal) sooner rather than later. Privatemusings (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with PM - I am pretty sure that if I didn't do everything by the book I would have an insiders view of ArbCom or at least an RfA or two, but it seems that some admins need not apply themselves to the strictest interpretation of the rules - which is at odds with the sentiment that sysops should conduct themselves at the best possible standards of Wikipedia. Transparency, indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See, the problem is this. PM has been told time and again that the problem was primarily his edits to Giovanni di Stefano.  But he keeps saying he was not abusing multiple accounts by then, as if that somehow excuses it.  Wrong.  PM has consistently refused to accept that he did anything wrong.  And that's why he's going down.  And he continues to misrepresent matters.  I have not voted in this case, for example, as I have no vote.
 * Editors are blocked without warning all the time - blocks exist to prevent problems, and if the problem is serious enough a block is required immediately. Most of these are entirely uncontroversial.  Those editors who wish to, are free to discuss the block with the blocking admin.  In such cases an undertaking not to repeat the problem is usually sufficient.  Wikipedia is nto the wild west, nor is it legalistic, it is a project run by volunteers doing their best.  As long as everybody is prepared to take responsibility for what they do, right or wrong, things usually work out in the end.  Here, PM has consistently failed to accept that he did anything wrong, and that's the problem. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am truly relieved to see Guy state so clearly that the problem is my edits to Giovanni di Stefano - although I dispute that I have been told time and time again (where? on the article talk page? on my talk page? in the arb case? - all I see are three diff.s with assertions which I have challenged, and received no response).
 * How many edits have I made to the Giovanni article? Certainly I've made far more to the talk page - trying to promote useful discussion. As we speak, the material which I was more than happy to discuss in abstract terms is sitting right there, in my view even more aggressively, being discussed by editors.
 * I am fully aware that Giovanni is a very sensitive subject, I have been in extensive off-wiki communications about the article for quite some time, and have always tried to tread very very carefully.
 * I have faith that consensus will emerge at that article, and that the consensus version will likely contain wording far stronger than the gentle proposals I had made in order to attempt to facilitate discussion.
 * Further, given that I have asked since prior to this entire arbitration to have my editing privileges restored, with a commitment to use a single account, and not edit BLPs until the matter of how I may be permitted to help source difficult material, how is any further block anything other than punitive? Please note that throughout a quite ridiculously unbalanced process (three indef. blocks, reviewed by sitting arbs, (private) material distributed to admins and arbs who act without disclosure etc. etc.) no one has made a single assertion that I have ever even contravened an administrator's request!
 * I have stated clearly that I will take the sanctions on the chin, and continue to calmly point out what I see as hypocrisy, and systemic bias in 'dispute resolution'. (can't help a final thought - I believe Giano is currently being 'reminded' that he should follow dispute resolution - can any edit who took administrative action in my case honestly say that they don't also deserve such a prod?).
 * Toodle pip, Privatemusings (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are a great one for selective interpretation, aren't you? That's why you got blocked without a warning, but your sockpuppetry was "well outside of community norms". Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes between editors; what you were doing was disruptive and abusive.  That does not need dispute resolution, it needs stopping. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am indefinitely blocked across all accounts. "That does not need dispute resolution". ? Privatemusings 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu are blocked because you abused multiple accounts and made inappropriate edits to contentious biographies. That is not an editing dispute of the type resolved through dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The call of disruption does not go to a party to a dispute - that is the job of uninvolved admins or through RfC or through dispute resolution. Again, I would point out that the block you levied was overturned by consensus - you are edit warring with an allowed process - and that the block summary by Mercury 'specifically' noted sockpuppetry. I am unable to convince the Arbs that the only block that needs reviewing is Mercurys, the two previous being overturned by a lack of consensus for the action (status quo), and that the question of appropriate discussion or warning should be considered. I suggest that your continued attempts to justify your block is not germane. There you go - you say your block was correct in that disruption was sufficient not to require warnings, and I counter by saying that you were involved in that dispute and acted improperly by your actions, and in consideration of that the block did not achieve consensus. As I say, ArbCom aren't interested in reviewing my concerns so this is simply a matter of record. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no - I blocked one account with an explicit statement that the other account was not blocked; consensus was to block the other instead and I am OK with that. Consensus was very solidly behind one account for this editor, and consensus is solidly for that same conclusion in the arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I concede the blocking of one account - albeit the then active one - but not Purples. My recollection of the debate was that PM agreed to limit activity to one account, which had consensus, and not the block (which was already overturned as excessive) but that was left on the table. My other points remain. Salut! LessHeard vanU 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

← Well, I don't know. You say your other points are valid, but ArbCom have looked at the whole thing in some detail and have chosen not to propose any remedies with respect to Mercury's or my conduct. I think this is because fundamentally we were right: PM has several problems, including a lack of sensitivity in editing sensitive subjects, abuse of multiple accounts, a lack of self-criticism and a tenacity when challenged that is vexatious. Maybe he will reform when the whole thing is over. I hope so. I don't think he's evil. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see I'm not evil! With respect, I'm afraid that I think the process in my case has been flawed (no surprises for guessing that this is my view!) - the fact that arb.s acted in my case prior to its opening, and saw no reason to recuse is problematic for me. The fact that Guy shared information with arbs prior to my first block is problematic to me. With regard to displaying a lack of sensitivity, I simply point to the article pages involved as they now stand. I have always been tenacious, particularly when those clearly 'in power' appeal to their authority rather than to reason. Bear in mind that Guy has consistently rebuffed attempts to have a quiet word, and denied that any dispute resolution is worth pursuing in this case.
 * Hey ho, I'll take it on the chin though - and don't intend to go anywhere, just to calmly continue to raise my concerns where permitted. The rather active back channels buzzing at the moment indicate to me that reform may be on the way..... Privatemusings 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be useful for the ArbCom to go ahead and explain in some detail what exactly was inappropriate about PM's edits to the BLP article. I trust the ArbCom's judgment but the finding might be seen as vague, and obviously PM isn't going to see Guy as a messenger of truth because of past history. -- Kendrick7talk 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from (uninvolved) Snickersnee
Hello, I hope I'm putting this in the right spot. I have just looked at this case, and am experiencing a failure to understand. To sum up my obviously flawed analysis:


 * PM bad because: SOCK
 * Nothing shown here says it's bad to have a sock, not even that dubious "nutshell" cited by JzG. PM appears to have been using socks precisely within the intent of the stated exceptions, violating no policy.
 * Also, this sock had already outed itself.


 * PM bad because: BADHAND
 * Only if you are certain that the weak examples of "disruption" are somehow sufficient to ignore WP:AGF. I didn't follow every link - can someone point me to one significant example that doesn't torture the definition?
 * If you read the referred policy re. "bad hands", it pretty much requires you to assume bad faith and accuse the sockholder of being a troll. PM conceded that he was using socks to avoid the inevitable stink of heated issues following him home, which is also his defense.


 * SOCK good because: contentious articles taint user interactions.
 * Everyone seems to agree on this one, yet you continue to have this discussion.

And even if all the above is mistaken, others have already given evidence that the community had considered these issues and reached an agreement with PM, after which this was the only active account. So whatever you're sanctioning now, I don't see how any version of sock policy can legitimately apply. At the end of his evidence, which is all about socks, Guy says the final ban wasn't about socks at all but about "poorly sourced and problematic edits". So why throw up a sockscreen? Aren't you really accusing him of something resembling vandalism, or malicious trolling? I haven't seen evidence of that. Certainly none so outrageous that it justified overriding both consensus and good faith, and then twisting together two separate policies as a remedy to a problem that didn't exist anymore, if it ever had. How come I see AGF used as a club and a shield, but almost never a mirror?

I haven't read previous case material, and shouldn't need to - if you can't explain it here, you can't do it anywhere. The first person (other than PM) that can provide ONE rationale which reconciles ALL the points above gets a cookie. You cannot use the terms "drama" or "disruptive" unless you also point to an example and the applicable policy. Anyone unable to do so should go to bed without dinner. Alone.

Additionally: no one here denies PM's claim that JzG/Guy violated the trust of an EXPRESSLY PRIVATE (unlike GIANO v DUROVA) email from PM, involving some now judging this case (just like GIANO v DUROVA). So far, there seems to be no question of any rebuke to JzG for doing this, even though I see the same cast of arbitrators (as in GIANO v DUROVA. Does stare decisis have a wikified policy analogue, or not? If the same principles apply, shouldn't Guy's actions also be subject to this arbitration, as with Giano? If Guy disclosed explicitly private personal correspondence to share evidence which he himself has now concluded is NOT relevant to a poorly justified final block, how is this more ethical than Giano disclosing arguably implicitly private correspondence, sent to a mailing list, which was entirely relevant to the mistaken blocking of an innocent person?

Perhaps arbitrators have not had sufficient time to consider these questions. Please consider this as a respectful request that they do so, and provide some explanation of their decision. Thank you. sNkrSnee | ¿qué?  08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(copied from a dusty talk page where it probably wouldn't be noticed (except by me!) - hear hear.) Privatemusings 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)