Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 35

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Clarification and Amendment
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Risker in topic Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria (December 2009)
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129


Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines (December 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments14 people in discussion
Original discussion

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

Initiated by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected:

(all users have been notified)

Statement by Ncmvocalist

Background

A recent AE request was filed by Kaldari based on a ban that was imposed by Sandstein in June 2009 (on Alastair Haines), and which was supposed to last until June 2010. The ban on Alastair Haines was imposed in response to a separate AE request (that was filed by Kaldari in June). In June, Sandstein had invoked remedy 1 of the case which read "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for...up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions." Remedy 1 expired in September 2009. Tznkai held off enforcement due to uncertainty over whether sanctions imposed under standard ArbCom probation (or discretionary sanctions) were intended to outlive the the case remedies. Sandstein has since accepted that he regrettably did not take this expiry date into account when he specified 1 year in his ban, and Skomorokh has declined the AE request accordingly. The case log, which still specifies the ban, has not been amended. It is clear that our AE admins are clearly surrounded by an unfortunate dilemma, and uncertainty.

Request for clarification

Here's a scenario. The community imposes a standard probation for a period of time on a user or area. The user was page-banned for 3 months, 2 days before the probation was set to expire. Would it not be incredibly foolish to refuse to recognise the child sanction (page ban) 1 month down the track, because the mother sanction (probation) passed away 2 days after giving birth to the child sanction? Can ArbCom clarify what the problem is - are we not drafting things properly, or do inadequate guidelines (if any) exist regarding AE? Personally, I'm inclined to think it's the latter. This formal request for clarification was opened to assist future AE.

Request for amendment

In the meantime, I am concerned by the AE that led to this clarification. In addition to the probation, Alastair Haines was also "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page" in the case. This was the revert that unambiguously violated the page ban, and was obviously problematic. No accompanying discussion of the content reversion exists. At the AE request, Alastair Haines also asserted "I am very happy for this matter to come up, because it demonstrates how defamatory the ArbCom publication last year actually was. If discussion shows people think less of me because of that ArbCom publication, then it proves defamation has occurred." There are other problematic assertions he made there. I believe the relevant now-expired case remedies intended to address certain problems, and need to be re-enacted "indefinitely" rather than "for one year". Rather than subjecting the community to a number of issues, like wikilawyering, potential courtesy blanking issues, other issues the ArbCom case has already encountered, etc. etc., I am requesting ArbCom to nip it in the bud (perhaps using a motion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This case was primarily opened because Alastair Haines was relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions - based on the above, what has changed? He's now expecting me to declare myself (and has tried to make me out below) as 'involved' - but on the basis of what? A comment I made in November 2008 that was clearly marked as uninvolved? On a separate note, while users who file a request provide an appropriate (and civil) notification to the user mentioned because they are required to, would ArbCom class this as an appropriate way to respond to such a notification? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Alastair Haines, please cease in your repeated attempts to misrepresent my position. I am neither involved, nor am I disappointed by any of the outcomes ArbCom has delivered on this case so far - quite the contrary. I'm mystified that you really don't seem to be getting it: making foolish accusations only undermines the notion that your conduct has improved to a sufficient level that further or continued sanctions are unnecessary. For the record, I am a Hindu contributor, and have no objections to a review of my actions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth/NYB/bainer: Kaldari's comment appears to suggest that there are ongoing problems. We know and seem to agree that admins at AE (Sandstein in this case) should have the discretion to reset the sanctions. We can also agree that there was an inability of some sort (be it perceived or actual), despite what appears as a clear willingness to do so at the time. So should ArbCom remedy the inability by resetting the sanctions so they expire in June 2010? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I welcome and support Vassyana's proposal, and it is likely that this view of mine will not change as the problems that led to this point have been a long term issue that outlive any mitigating factors. That said, I do not object to Risker's proposal due to the current circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

It is good practice to provide all relevant links in any post to any forum. The relevant remedy is here (direct link because Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is, strangely, blanked); the AE threads are here (1 year topic ban imposed, June 2009) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alastair Haines (enforcement of topic ban declined, December 2009). I have no opinion beyond what is stated in the latter thread.  Sandstein  10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari

Alastair Haines has managed to be continually disruptive on Wikipedia for over a year now while evading or ignoring any effective remedies against him (apart from about 10 brief blocks). Each time, he has pleaded innocence and received undeserved allowances. I've tried numerous times to get relief through the proper channels, and each time, it ends up being nothing more than a brief respite, or in this last case, a complete waste of time. I would have filed a separate Rfa in the beginning, but I was encouraged to request relief through the existing Rfa (which was still in force at the time). If I attempted to create a new Rfa at this point, it would probably be rejected to due to the age of most of the evidence. Am I really left with no alternative than to start the process completely from scratch and act as if there is a clean slate? Such a scenario would be quite unfortunate, and IMO a reward for bad behavior. I am requesting the ArbCom review the actions of Alastair since the enactment of the original decision and if appropriate enact further sanctions via ArbCom motion rather than a completely new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments moved from arb's section
    • (Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but...) I think what we need (and what you are implying here) is some concept of probation, i.e. if an editor consistently fails to abide by the terms of their arbcom decision while it is in force, discretionary sanctions can be extended as appropriate without having to completely restart the process. Any uninvolved admin should be able to act as a "probation officer" through Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Otherwise we are creating a legal loophole, where editors who are under Arbcom restrictions have no incentive to abide by those decisions when the expiration dates are approaching, as any additional penalties will be null and void at the end of the deadline. And to answer your question, I would be happy with the existing topic ban if it can, in fact, be enforced until June 2010, otherwise I'll have to file a new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike that, Alastair needs to be indefinitely banned from patriarchy and gender-related articles. See his recent edits here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of patriarchy and adding massive amounts of POV material without any discussion), here (unilaterally restoring an article merged through AfD with no discussion), and here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of gender, removing information, and rearranging the article to support his POV). He is causing substantial disruption to these articles which he has been doing consistently since he joined Wikipedia. He is now also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages. Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • And just to top off the cake, he's now making thinly veiled legal threats (which he's been blocked for before).[1][2] Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Another example (from last week) of Alastair recreating an article deleted through AfD[3] and then attacking the admin who deleted it[4] ("a fragile ego", lacks the "confidence to be able to apologize", "obstructive and divisive"). Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alastair Haines

So far I am impressed by the conduct of all parties.
Firstly, I am impressed by the original ArbCom that did a very good best in a situation fraught with strongly expressed emotions and generally more heat than light.
I am even more impressed by the amendment that provided me with relief from one of the original baiters.
Finally, I was impressed by the "strange blanking" that was so courteous.
Sandstein was right to act as he did on the basis of what he could see. He acted quickly at the time, but so did I, I was getting married the following week.
Kaldari is certainly not wrong here, either, on the basis of what he can see.
If nothing is done here, Kaldari and I are going to have some rather difficult talking to do together and who knows how that will go. But isn't that the normal hard work of Wiki?
NCM, you seem to have lasting suspicions regarding my editing.
Perhaps you can see things I cannot see. Please come to my talk page, as you have in the past, and talk with me about them one-to-one. You are actually an involved party by virtue of some previous events. Email me if this issue is really worth your time.
Sandstein and Tznkai have been particularly gracious here.
But I am very willing to answer to anyone who has doubts about my responsible editing.
Is this the most helpful forum, though? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
PS I've just read Sandstein's comments, and I'm confirmed in my opinion that there is no longer any issue here. I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all.
In the interests of ongoing harmony, I'm willing for my comments re Kaldari to be buried where no one need read them. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I think Tznkai is wise to point out that AE is not a forum for expanding or reducing the original ArbCom.
Review of original AC
If AC, nonetheless, thinks it good to review the past, I have this to say.
NCM participated in discussion related to that AC, and is no doubt disappointed that it upheld my complaints about two adminstrators and multiple baiters. I, on the other hand, am obviously disappointed that it also found faults with me that I (and others) continue to think are unsustainable. AC awarded me with restrictions; the community awarded me with two barnstars! ("Defender of the Wiki" and "Civility") Hindu and Jain contributors insisted I not be restricted from religion articles. Is that a sign of a difficult editor? Or rather a sign of a neutral team-player?
Actually, I would love the whole case to be reviewed, because current discussion shows that it's high time I was exonerated completely, and that others got their trouting. But I'm not vain enough to think I'm that important, and not vindictive enough to want to see anyone trouted.
So, I'm certainly willing for us to review that ArbCom; but, if we do, the first points of business should be addressing the behaviour of administrators and baiters who were not explicitly considered at that time, contra Brad's criterion for taking on the case in the first place ("behaviour of all to be considered"). Observe the embarassing oversight regarding mediators and Abtract, and those were not the only obvious oversights, as several 3rd party posters evidence. Indeed, my own actions should be reconsidered also; and, as I have said, exoneration should be one of the possible outcomes. NCM also is actually one of the minor involved parties whose actions need to be explicitly reviewed if we conduct such a review.
However, because there are no outstanding restrictions on my account, I'm happy to let the whole thing slide. Internet communication is imperfect and I'm happy to write things off to that.
Addressing the current content issue
If the past is not reviewed, what about the future?
It is currently proposed that a topic ban be placed on my account. I don't wish to forestall further discussion of that option; but if it is enacted, I will almost certainly oppose it, in a wide range of forums until all past, as well as present, issues are resolved as thoroughly as possible. I have been adopting the low-profile response to very rude treatment for some time. Eventually one must indicate one is not a doormat.
Continued harassment of my account on the basis of presumed past indiscretions on my part is something of a concern to me. Especially when, in the current case, Kaldari is deliberately edit warring over reliably sourced material that many, many third parties have expressed a desire to see in article space. He is a late-comer to the content discussion and has appealed to process rather than sources to suppress information which he knows is recognised by the community as important, as well as by tons of reliable secondary material too.
But what's the real issue here? A brute fact like the universality of patriarchy is as unpopular with everyone as it is accepted by the more than 30,000 reliable sources (possibly most of them feminist, granted) regarding it, that were presented in a deletion discussion. It is simply unfair to pour scorn on a Wikipedian brave enough to cop the understandable flak for posting such an unpopular fact.
If any further discussion regarding my suitability to edit in that subject area is considered necessary, that's fine, but it needs to explicitly deal with the content issue at least indirectly. What impact does restricting Alastair lead to? It leads to erosion of reliably sourced material. How much drama is there when he operates without restrictions? Well, actually, there is little or no evidence of much drama at all. All blocks on Alastair's account bar one have been appeals to the AC restrictions, all bypassed content issues, and the grounds for the first have been overturned by subsequent events. Indeed, the blocks, on investigation will prove to be groundless, and they compromised reliable sources Alastair had been defending. Most on topics unrelated to patriarchy. (The Oxford Dictionary and Bible at other articles were two classic examples.)
In fact, the patriarchy article currently admits the universality of patriarchy, but attributes the discovery of that fact to feminism. That, of course, placates some readers, but does not reflect the history of the literature. Anthropology establishes the universality of patriarchy. The most prominent secondary source that synthesizes the anthropology, and the one attributed with doing so by the other secondary and tertiary literature is, very (in-)famously indeed, Steven Goldberg.
All this is covered in talk page and deletion discussions and is well known in the community now. However, it doesn't stop Kaldari from edit warring about it, challenging consensus and bypassing discussion, creating drama by bringing things here.
If we are to consider the future, what is good for content and harmony, Kaldari needs to be co-defendant. No priveleges for administrators. No priveleges for content area experts like myself either.
But why discuss it here? There are other forums specifically designed for it. AC has other pressing business. Kaldari saw a chance offered by AC restriction placed on me and he took it. Wouldn't you if you shared his personal convictions? But now those restrictions are past, there is a level playing field. Frankly, I think there will be less drama now, because people like Kaldari will not be able to bypass consensus building by wikilaywering, threatening (and acting) to attack me, rather than interact with my content-related actions and talk page comments.
Much of this is in answer to Tznkai's questions. My priorities are listed on my user page. The biology of gender is indeed one of my priorities, partly because documenting reliably sourced material stops people endlessly squabbling with one another rather than finding sources that are abundant, even online. (Singular they had editors going bouts with each other until I provided the linguistics they needed to settle the dispute.) I claim that "knowledge ends prejudice". Facts often show that opposing parties are both right and both wrong, since they've been overlooking reliable empirical evidence. Give people the facts and they stop fighting. Patriarchy is universal. So put the beast to death! But how do we know it is universal? By the hard work of women and men who did field studies in 3,000 societies in the early 20th century. Feminism is a superb and reliable source for exposing patriarchy in contemporary society. But can you find this information at Wiki? Only if you go back into the edit history. Why? Because Kaldari doesn't want you to know.
As scandalous or laughable as I think the Wiki community and beyond would find that. It might surprise people to know that I'm sophistated enough not to let such things change my priorities too much. The New Testament is much more important than the Wikpedia feminist task force censoring information. I'm not going to let people like Kaldari force me to make their agenda my number one concern. Mind you, I don't want him to keep getting away with it either. Were others taking action, I would relish the opportunity to wash my hands of it.
Stablizing some content is a long process, the longer the better, but making bids to silence reliable content providers is not the way to let that process work itself out. It is not me who is provoking drama, sources I provide perhaps, processes that do their best but remain imperfect perhaps. Can the blame-game stop soon, please.
Obviously I wouldn't like a topic ban, but it's not because I'm some one-track-minded POV pusher*, it's because reliable sources stabilize content and promote harmony, even when people don't like them. It's also because if AC here and now impose such a ban, it implies they believe I'm less than the reliable content editor I am known to be. It will be because they have been misled, and it will mislead others. Because it concerns my public reputation, I will, as I said, need to address that.
Although I trust no new restriction will be applied. If such is the considered wisdom of people here, please ensure you apply every due diligence, because the implications of such a decision are profound, and will, this time, be subject to intensive scrutiny.
Content and behaviour are not always easily separated. There is so much content related material underlying allegations against me, that although I don't have the experience to understand all ACs concerns, I understand enough to have refrained from appealing to it myself to solve content issues. I can only urge you to avoid getting entangled in content you are simply not expected by those who appointed you to have to deal with. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Footnote: observe that at the original AC the only voices against me were people who were found to be wrong on various points and had specific ideological commitments, yet voices endorsing me came from all sorts of subject areas and ideological backgrounds. I do not work alone. I do not work for myself. I love this project. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll add this while retaining the previous post which answers questions posed by Tznkai. I've just discovered that User:Crusio is the editor-in-chief of Genes, Brain and Behavior. What that means is I don't need to "keep Kaldari honest" when it comes to deleting information regarding the biology of gender. For example, quite independently of me, Crusio has recently sourced a stub Brain Gender I put up some time ago, and restored after a speedy. Biology of gender material frequently gets rough treatment. But there's people much better qualified than me to handle it. Kaldari may have us believe Goldberg's explanation of patriachy can be dismissed as rejected by "most sociologists", but it is right in line with contemporary research. Knowing of an editor better qualified than me to handle content in the area, means I have a way to refer edits I think to be in error to a third party specifically equipped to deal with the content issue.
If the issue is ongoing disharmony, as I think it should be, we have a low-key remedy in at least one reliable point of contact.
If the issue is specifically trying to flag some fault in me. That's quite another thing indeed. Whatever it would be, would need to be something that could be demonstrated had been discussed informally with me on my talk page prior to any escalation.
I need to return to real life work. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I have no opinion on Alastair Haines, Kaladari, or the case that led to this point, but my view point on the AE process is simple: enforcing administrators are not in the business of litigation, and they are not in the business of extending, shrinking or overturning Arbitration cases. A good enforcing admin will look beyond what information is given, but they are not obligated to have a omniscient wisdom and clairvoyance as to history, extenuating circumstances and various twists and turns. It is the participating parties who must make what they want, and why we should listen to them, clear.

On the matter of the relevant provision, time limited discretionary sanction remedies need to be better drafted to ensure whatever discretionary sanctions are imposed are either limited by the time sanction, or not. I've given it a shot. My instinct is with Sandstein, that discretionary sanctions should not live past their host remedy.

As a final thought, again professing ignorance and ambivalence to the case at hand, Arbitration remedies like this seem to be running under the assumption that a sanctioned editor is mucking up the article creation process, and not trying to, but it can also make them vulnerable to baiting and someone using enforcement as leverage for a content position, again, without really trying to. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but I operate under the assumption that ArbCom was aware of this danger, and thought it was worth the risk. I try to keep an eye out for manipulation of the process anyway, and I presume my fellow patrolling admins do as well.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

It appears I neglected the word "not" in my statement above, which is embarrassing, but I'm going to qualify it anyway in a moment.

When ArbCom puts a time limit on a remedy, it seems to be telling enforcing administrators that it only believes the remedy needs to last for a certain time, or that ArbCom wants an opportunity to review it. The use of administrator discretion to extend a remedy past that time, or exercising discretion to extend remedies (somewhat like wishing for more wishes) seems contrary to the intent and the purpose of a time limit. Blocking in general is supposedly actually controlled by the enforcement provision, in this case up to a month, all of which seem to be signals against a year long ban. That said, I'm hardly going to argue against administrator discretion and flexibility, so maybe the rule of thumb is that a discretionary sanction should live past its host remedy, but not live longer.--Tznkai (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

I think it's okay to review this, however, I don't think any sanction that was initiated at the time was wrong to begin with (in real-life a law that becomes ineffective do not retroactively apply to old situations.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - I would normally say that imposing a block/topic ban that greatly exceeds the expiration date of the original sanctions should be avoided, but I suspect it is not that uncommon, actually. A good example is the escalating series of blocks that end in a year-long block in some cases (such year-long blocks would normally exceed the expiration date of the original sanction). There are also cases where editors have ended up indefinitely blocked following arbitration enforcement, and that remains long after the original case sanctions have expired. What is needed, I think, is for such sanctions to be reset. When Sandstein imposed the patriarchy topic ban in June 2009, he should have been able to reset the original sanctions to expire one year from that June 2009 date. This sort of resetting of sanctions is commonly seen when people evade a block. This would resolve the "remedy outliving the original sanction" issue, but would raise other issues as well. My view is that admins enforcing an arbitration ruling should have the discretion to reset the original sanctions.

    As for the specifics of this incident: (1) The case blanking was a courtesy (to respond to Sandstein's comment); (2) Alastair Haines should have at the very least asked for clarification on what the status of his topic ban was before his edits to articles in the Patriarchy topic; (3) Alastair Haines has said "I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all." - I have three questions here: (a) What is your priority at Wiki? (b) Where has discussion reached fever-pitch (not a good thing)? (c) Do others agree with what Alastair Haines has said here? But other than that, if Alastair Haines is willing to abide by the topic ban until it expires in June 2010, and Kaldari is happy with the original arbitration enforcement that led to that topic ban for Alastair Haines (and does not want to raise further issues), and future infractions of that topic ban are sanctioned as needed, then we are done here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • My initial reactions here are the same as Carcharoth's. Awaiting responses to his questions and observations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Where a remedy incorporates the ability for what might be termed delegated remedies to be implemented (as is the case here, or with discretionary sanctions remedies, for example), it would deprive the remedy of much of its meaning to interpret its time limit as automatically providing a time limit for delegated remedies applied under it. Of course, new delegated remedies can't be instituted beyond the time limit, but that shouldn't prevent ones instituted within the time limit from having all the necessary scope to be effective. In this case, the indefinite page ban as originally proposed in the arbitration enforcement thread would have been excessive and not supportable by the remedy. A year is a long term, but not excessive given community and arbitration standards on the subject of page bans. Thus, I think this page ban can stand. In the future I think we ought to be as specific about length of delegated remedies as we are about the length of blocks used to enforce remedies in order to avoid confusion in this area. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt in my mind that a sanction imposed as a consequence of an open-ended remedy can extend past the originally enabling remedy unless it was otherwise specified. The Committee imposes such remedies without the expectation that its expiration becomes a date for hostilities to resume. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I should add that I find, as a rule, that imposition of topic bans by administrators to be one of the more measured responses to disruption — even in the cases where they were not specifically shored up by a specific arbitration remedy (though, arguably, the bar to impose them is lower when such a remedy is present). — Coren (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification. The expiration date of probations, discretionary sanction remedies, and related sanctions are the date when administrators can no longer impose measures under those sanctions. They are in no way a time limit on any restrictions or other measures imposed under those conditions. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Amendment request. I am very receptive to the amendment request. Alistair Haines continues to engage in several problematic patterns of behavior. Personal attacks and bad faith assumptions are ongoing. There is a continued denial of wrongdoing and tu quoque arguments. He continues to disregard community feedback regarding due weight, original research, and POV forking. He rejects the results of community consensus and processes. The restoration of the universality of patriarchy article is a very good illustration of these two previous points. Some of the principal signs of disruptive editing listed in the eponymous policy describe this situation. Currently I am considering an indefinite general conduct probation with discretionary sanctions. (This example is exactly the text I would use, except for the name of the editor.) I will wait for responses from the commenting editors and other arbitrators before moving to propose any measure. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Risker. Archive this and revisit the matter at a later time. Vassyana (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria (December 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments17 people in discussion
Original discussion

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

Initiated by Canadian Monkey (talk) at 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Statement by your Canadian Monkey

Can topic-banned users, who have been “prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project” participate in AfD discussions related to articles that fall within the scope of the topic ban?

Background

Earlier this year, as an outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria , I, along with 7 other editors, were topic banned from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Two of the topic-banned editors have been actively participating in an AfD discussion regarding Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist whose notability arises from his writing on the I-P conflict, as is stated in the first two sentences of the lead of his article. Several other participants in the AfD have expressed concerns that this violates the topic ban. ([8]; [9]), and have removed the banned users’ comments from the AfD ([10]; [11]; [12]). These comments were re-inserted into the AfD, one of these re-insertions being done by User:Nableezy, who is himself subject to a similar topic ban, arising from a different Arbitration Enforcement ([13].

Clarification requested

The editors themselves have acknowledged that their participation is questionable (e.g: User:Nickhh: “I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about” ([14]; User:Nishidani: “Yes, technically we should keep out of it.” ([15]), so a clarification seems to be in order.

Reply to Nableezy

I don't know if this is a violation of the topic ban - this is why I am asking for clarification here, rather than for enforcement at AE. Since this topic ban affects me, I'd be happy to know the answer - perhaps I've been foolishly avoiding contentious AfDs in the I-P area, when in fact I am free to participate.
As regards your own topic ban, the update you linked to clearly states "Nableezy banned for 2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages" - I don't think an AfD project page is an "article talk page" - but perhaps I'm wrong, and a clarification with regards to this would be good, too.

Statement by Nableezy

If CM or any other user feels it is a violation of the topic ban the proper venue for that complaint is WP:AE. That is all that I asked those who were taking it upon themselves to make that determination to do instead of remove other peoples comments. Those removals also left the replies to the comments, making parts of the page completely unintelligible. And CM, you may want to look at this regarding my being subject to a similar topic ban.

Reply to the reply. I look at the AfD as an extension of the talk page, but if I am mistaken I wont participate further. But my point on AE is not that AfDs dont apply to your, and Nick and Nishi's, topic bans (they clearly do), but whether or not this specific AfD is within the topic ban should be taken up there. Whether or not a BLP of an author who writes about the conflict is a part of the conflict is something that should be taken up at AE in my opinion.

Cptnono, the edits to the file had nothing to do with the conflict. When a file is listed as an orphaned fair use image it is deleted after 7 days. The images, at the time of my edit, were not orphaned fair use images (one is now). Besides that, they were listed as orphaned as fair use images by a sockpuppet of the banned User:NoCal100 (User:Millmoss). But my edits to the files had nothing to do with conflict, I did not change the description or add the image to any article. This petty game of trying to catch me on something is getting tiresome, would you mind finding a new hobby? If you feel my edits to those images violated my topic ban, which had nothing to do with Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about, WP:AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, not one thing in them relates to the Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about. If you feel the edits listed were a violation of my topic ban go to WP:AE, you dont need a request for clarification for that, much less one on an unrelated case. nableezy - 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that CM has himself "likely" commented in the AfD in question and was one of the users who removed the comments by Nick and Nishidani ([16]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Hicks The III) nableezy - 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I apologize to both Arbcom, and whoever found my remark there objectionable. I allowed my spontaneous disconcertion at what was happening (a perfectable reasonable page on a perfectly notable journalist and author being pushed for deletion on no other grounds than a patently political WP:IDONTLIKEIT sense one might get away with wiping Cook out, and, with the vote at 4-2 in favour of deletion, I dropped my comment, and I think most, Canadian Monkey and arbitrators, would be right in saying I am in breach of a sanction, though certainly my remark is not characteristic of a member of a 'gang of bullies' as Gilabrand suggested. If you think my ban should extend beyond the I/P area, to elsewhere, I won't object. Indeed, it would be logical, though I must confess I haven't examined this thread, or the fine print of the decision to see if there is wriggle room to sneak out of this lapse and its consequences. I admit I felt strongly, once the edit went up, that, though rational and eminently appropriate to the aims of the encyclopedia, that I was in breach, and should have shut up.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I should add that admitting my own culpability should in no way reflect on Nickhh's position, who is under the same ban. For the simple reason that he sees this differently, being an editor who has an intense interest in the area of journalism, and Jonathan Cook belongs professionally to that generic category, as his record shows. My interest, instead, was in the I/P area, from which I was banned.
I would note for the record, as I have on my page, however, that something good has come out of my infraction since, thanks to Mackan, it brought to light something former I/P editors had a good deal of implicit empirical knowledge of, but which, since it was intuitive, could not be documented for the Arbcom Committee. The Arbcom Committee could have had no knowledge or awareness of the fact that User:NoCal100, and User:Canadian Monkey were the one person (and they could not know, as I think it was generally understood by I/P editors on my 'side') that User:Tundrabuggy, who participated in the debate, on many of those pages, and regarded himself as 'involved' but was not included in the indictment, employed sockpuppetry while editing, stalking and targeting for AN/I reports several of the I/P editors who were subsequently perma-banned. In the Arbcom Decision, retrospectively, it now turns out that 5 experienced editors (6, if you include NoCal100/Canadian Monkey/Tundrabuggy's successful attack triangulation to get User:Ashley kennedy3 banned several times, and finally for a year)who were classified as working to ensure that the Palestinian side of the issues was duly represented, were taken out, while Jayjg and one other editor were removed from the side engaged in ensuring that one of many Israeli perspectives was defended. Over that period therefore, at least 6 serious editors were removed, in good part because of a conflict with just two editors, with numerous sockpuppets, who all used sockpuppetry to harass them, or belabour articles where they edited with tendentious interventions, at the expense of one known, experienced editor on the other side(User:Jayjg). That imbalance is striking. I note this not as a pro-memoriam for review or revocation, but simply to underline how little of what was really going on actually could be noted, given the rules of evidence. If therefore my infraction, on being reported by a sockpuppet (who hasn't even deigned to defend himself), has contributed to bringing this to air, then I'm quite happy to wear the consequences. Rules are rules, and I broke one, and have no right to complain. Indeed, the infraction has inadvertently cleaned up another of the many zones of obscurity that hover over much of the historic I/P area, and in that sense, was functional to the aim of this encyclopedia, that of ensuring quality, and not trash articles made up of compromises by serious editors with the unending sockpuppets and political manipulators who are naturally attracted to it. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, this is getting out of hand. What began as as a patently obvious attempt to wipe out an article on a professional journalist made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes, and I made a comment, when the voting indicated that this dodge might succeed without anyone noticing. Unlike Nickhh, who is passionate about all journalistic issues, I thought this a sign of manipulative behaviour in the I/P area. When my behaviour was in turn denounced, I fully admitted my fault, or lapse, or breach of the protocol governing my ban, apologized, and expressed my readiness to suffer any further sanction an arbiter might wish to impose on me for my egregious lapse.
I expressed my guilt and readiness to be punished almost a week ago. In the meantime, the community has by a very strong 'keep vote' underlined the spuriousness of the original proposal (made by someone who should have known better since he was subject to review in the original Arbcom case), which was deeply ill-advised (2) various editors have shifted the goalposts, trying now to get Nableezy indicted as well, more or less over a dispute on whether what I and Nickhh wrote should or should not be kept on the page. It was this malady, of obsessively having recourse to AfD's, AN/I, AE etc.etc., endlessly to create trouble for serious editorial work on articles that led to the Arbcom case, and it is now being revived, using the Arbcom judgement only to worsen conditions in here for dedicated I/P editors. Nableezy's only crime over the last week has been that of helping me with his technical gifts, and some additional research, in creating a new article for Wikipedia (Franz Baermann Steiner), and if this is to be taken as guilt by association, and reason to go after him as well, then we have lost focus, in the intricate weave of rules and wikilawyering, that the goal is to work on articles, not on other people.
It's like watching a cancer metastasize. I apologized a week back, I've waited to be banned from all wiki articles since then. I suggest the way to stop this bickering is to act immediately and extend my perma-ban. Otherwise, my own lapse, and the niceties of where it may be shifted, who may shift it onto what page, will be manipulated to take out one more extremely good conscientious editor who is not responsible for my original sin.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

As noted on my own talk page, of course this does run close to the ban. However, I did not "vote" on the AfD, and I did not discuss his politics in my comments. I simply observed that there were other journalists of far less notability and who have not made such serious contributions to the journalistic record who have pages, and that - as a journalist - he would seem to pass the inclusion threshold. I also said that the AfD should avoid the politics, and left a note on the WP:JOURNALISM project page asking for outside input, in a bid to steer the discussion down that road. Overall, that seemed to be a constructive contribution. My interest on WP (and my fairly sporadic edit count) has always been far more about media issues, general politics and other topics than it ever has been about I-P issues per se. Sometimes these overlap, and there are borderline areas in relation to the - totally bizarre, but that's another matter - topic ban. I acknowledge this is one of those. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what clarification is being requested, and whether the litigant is actually after some form of punishment or enforcement. And I note from their own submission that editors were deleting comments from the AfD page - personally I'm far more concerned about that, about politically motivated deletion drives and about the risk that if it survives, the Jonathan Cook page will now become a magnet for BLP-violating contributions from those who dislike what he writes. Perhaps fortunately, I'm not allowed to get entangled in any of those issues in any substantive way of course. That at least, we can be clear about. --Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ps: in response to Vassyana below, I don't think anyone's claiming that relevant AfD pages - in principle - are not covered by the topic ban as worded. I'm certainly not, and agree that they pretty clearly would be. The point is more about whether making a general comment about journalistic notability in an AfD debate about one journalist's page is indeed a breach of a ban that stops editors discussing I-P issues. Also note that Nableezy's situation is different from that pertaining to me and Nishidani, as he has explained. I would add as well that brief humourous notes on friendly user talk pages surely do not need to be policed with quite the same rigour as a substantive intervention on article pages. Nor, as far as I am aware, are they usually. We're all muddling through here in an online environment, not building a correctional facility

Curious as to where this lies in the grand scheme of things. In case there's any confusion, this was the opening sentence, prior to deletion - Many Islamic Terrorism Organizations have tried to justify why Terrorism is allowed in Islam in their view. Organizations such as Hamas, and Al Qaeda have done so using verses of the Quran and their Interpretations of the Hadith. Maybe a good call, who knows. But that's not the point of course. --Nickhh (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

From Cptnono

I think clarification is definetely needed. In Nableezy's case, he edited files within the topic here and here. These were helpful edits and they were not contentious. He also edited user talk pages in discussions of the topic. These reverts (here and here) could be a concern but they also could just be considered keeping an eye out. The decision was "all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas". Was the intent of the decision to prevent edits to the articles and their talk pages and not files or discussion on the topic in general? Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread my comments, Nableezy.Cptnono (talk)
I didn't say it was. I seconded clarification on your Arbcom case that another editor brought up. I said your edits to the file were not contentious. I'm on the fence about your reverts. Stop knee-jerking and relax. I'm not out to get you or hurt your feelings.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Tarc

Hrm. As similar questions were raised back in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46#Jayjg about MM coming off a 6-month absence to "get Jay", it is worth noting that Canadian Monkey here is back from an absence of the same time frame to file this? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

A clarification may be appropriate, since there appears to be more pushing at the boundries of this decision than in most cases, partly because of the large number of interested editors who arrive at enforcement discussions and obscure what is generally done.

If there is a clarification, however, I would like to raise two more points:

  1. Does the topic ban prevent one editor under the ban from reporting another editor under the ban for a violation at WP:AE?
  2. Does the ban cover edits to articles which are not directly related to the IP conflict (such as one on Jonathan Cook), but where the edits change material relating to the IP conflict?

One enforcement discussion, here, addressed both of these issues, with confusion about whether this edit would violate the topic ban. The point has been raised since, with what seems to be ongoing confusion. I have some concerns about the ban, but I think that certainly the boundries should be as clear as possible so that everyone can understand the scope. Mackan79 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, NoCal100 and apparent sock puppetry

I have just filed a report here regarding apparent sock puppetry relating to this arbitration case. A checkuser has been run and found it "likely" that NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey (both having been sanctioned in this case) are both the same editor as User:Mr. Hicks The III, an account that has recently been attempting to enforce this remedy. User:NoCal100 has already been banned for socking that preceded this case. This may be separate from whether a clarification is needed, or perhaps it is relevant, but it does seem that more eyes will be needed to sort all of this. Mackan79 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

A few minor remarks. Regarding Mackan79's remark, Jayjg's edit to the section on anti-semitism in the Unification Church is not comparable to editing Jonathan Cook. In the Unification case, the section is primarily about remarks made claiming that the Holocaust was retribution to the Jews crucifying Jesus. Completely separate. Indeed, everyone seems to agree that the insertion of Israel related material in that article was utterly irrelevant. It seems unreasonable that the addition of marginally related material that probably should not be in an article would somehow add the article to the I-P umbrella. Worse, if so, does the article permanently go under it? Does it only stay as long as the material stays? This way lies madness.

Cook on the other hand is a journalist who primarily reports on Middle-Eastern issues. He has multiple books about the I-P conflict and related issues. His most recent book is "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair." I'm thus puzzled by Mackan's characterization as Jonathan Cook as being an article "not directly related to the IP conflict".

The next issue then is whether edits to AfDs should be included in the ban. That seems to me to be pretty obviously yes as a matter both of how the ban is worded and what the ban was trying to solve. Many of the most serious problems on I-P articles have been in AfDs. So yes, it seems pretty clear that the AfDs should be included in the ban (and for that matter, *fDs in general). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche

As to nableezy:

  1. He suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to talk pages. However ...
  2. An AfD is clearly not a talk page. When one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
  3. As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
  4. Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
  5. He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 (and not on November 3, the day it was handed down), and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
  6. But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.
  7. nableezy had indicated on my talk page that this "request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban." As he was a named party, and his ban discused here, it would be helpful if arbs were to indicate (if it is the case) that it does apply to his ban as well.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nishidani:

  1. He refers above to the two comments he left at the AfD as a "spontaneous disconcertion", and says the AfD "made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes". But that fails to explain why he left his two comments--made 12 hours after the AfD opened--up for the next 7 days. Only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed (w/the accurate edit summary: "Striking out comment written in breach of my ban, as indeed I should have when this was first complained of"). For me, that clearly takes this out of the category of a crime of passion, and places it in the category of a willful flouting of his ban with intent to influence the AfD.
  2. I don't know how he became aware of this AfD, but whether it is because he is watching for AfDs in the I/P area or is in contact with other editors with that interest, it may perhaps be more prudent for him to desist while his ban is in place.
  3. My view is that at the beginning of the AfD the article did not have sufficient RS support to be a Keep. Additional RS support was surfaced in the middle of the AfD, and I changed my vote to Keep. But Nishidani's suggestion that this was an unreasonable nomination is wrong IMHO.
  4. Nishidani says the reason he weighed in was because the vote at the time was "in favour of deletion". That reflects a desire on his part to influence the outcome of the AfD, which--mildly speaking--he was not allowed to do.
  5. I would think his ban should be extended not in scope, but in time.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nickhh:

  1. I also don't know how he became aware of this, but the same suggestion that he try to avoid whatever prompted his ban violation in this instance apply.
  2. He started off the first of his three comments at the AfD by saying "I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here". I didn't know about his ban at the time. But I am surprised that he would have had any doubt as to whether he could say anything at the AfD. Given Nishidani's express motives, and the fact that the two of them violated their bans in quick succession, legitimate concerns as to Nickhh's motives may perhaps be reasonable.
  3. Nickhh left his AfD comments up for the entire course of the AfD, never striking them out.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Enforcement of arbitration is handled here and sockpuppets are handled here. You will find this is not merely bureaucratic shuffle, but non overlapping specialties.

Also, seriously? Topic bans means write about something else. Not some thing the same, but different. --Tznkai (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Short reply to CM's question: No. More complete reply: AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". Even less broadly worded topic bans are treated in a broad fashion. If ArbCom or the community says that an editor is prohibited from editing or discussing certain articles or topics, that editors should not edit or discuss those topics. Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. I, individually, consider shifting discussion to another venue as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language. Vassyana (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop. Vassyana (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Vassyana. When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area and develop interests in other areas, and demonstrate that they can edit other areas without similar problems arising. At that point, it may sometimes be possible to relax the original restrictions given the good behaviour in other areas. If, on the other hand, an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced, and if the sanctions are reviewed, this inability to stay away would be taken into account. The normal response would be to either extend the topic ban (if it is not already indefinite), or to move on to harsher sanctions. In essence, an inability to disengage from and move away from a topic area is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, of being too invested in a topic area to edit neutrally, and (in some cases) or becoming a single-purpose account. To be charitable, it may also simply indicate a lack of self-control (if that is the case, a prompt apology and genuine contrition and recognition that someone has lapsed briefly, might be accepted, but not in all cases). AfD discussions are, in my view, part of broadly construed topic bans. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_35&oldid=1137490379"