Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 5
1–2 4
3–4 3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Topic ban

1) All editors identified as participants in the mailing list are banned from editing any page related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, except for the pages of this case, pending the resolution of the case.

For the purpose of this injunction only, the following editors are deemed to be participants in the mailing list:

Clerks: Please ensure that all the users listed here are parties to the case and notified as soon as possible.
Done. Daniel (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Short term measure until we sort out the issues in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) And to be clear, any existing bans or restriction apply for editors already under these sanctions. This motion does not weaken those sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per FloNight. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Reconsidered this. Moved to oppose, with conditions. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Er. Oppose for similar reasons as Kirill on talk. I think injunction on spreading the list should have at least gone before this. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not clear that such an untargeted approach is warranted. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moving to oppose from support. This will give us more time to examine the evidence and decide what needs to be done here. However, if it emerges that any editors that this topic ban was proposed for have engaged in disruptive behaviour, and continued to engage in disruptive behaviour during the case, then that will likely be reflected in the final decision. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for now. There are general sanctions in place that can be activated on a situational basis, and I encourage administrators carrying out arbitration enforcement in this area to be acutely aware of this ongoing investigation, and for editors in this area to be constrained in their behaviour. Risker (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Risker. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per other opposers. Moreover, even if I agreed that such an injunction were warranted (or that such a restricter were appropriate as to one or more users as part of the final decision in the case), the scope of the proposed injunction is overbroad. There are plenty of articles extent and yet to be written "related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined," which do not implicate any of the disputes at issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per other opposers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not necessary as I assume many administrators and users have their eyes focused on what's happening on the topic area. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Russavia

2) Russavia (talk · contribs), who was blocked for disputing a topic ban imposed by Sandstein in language that was construed as constituting a legal threat, and who was unbanned solely to participate in this case, may freely edit other articles and pages but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban.

Support:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. During this case we need to sort out whether there was efforts to target him. While we are going it, modifying the editing restriction seems reasonable. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, all "no legal threats" blocks should be logged separately (or filtered from the block log using standard wording), to allow periodic review, as it is not clear to me whether that policy is being consistently enforced. Some admins block at the merest hint of legal language used that could conceivably chill a discussion, while others are less proactive. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Of more concern is that Sandstein says we have misinterpreted his original ban, and widened its scope. Retracting my support for now until this is reworded. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose:
  1. Oberturning a block or unblock conditions except to permit case participation would be inappropriate as a preliminary action. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm uncertain this is necessary as it presumes more than is currently in evidence, but it's harmless enough that I will not oppose. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Precatory language here is unnecessary, and I'm not comfortable finding it. He should be unblocked for the case, but there's no reason to elaborate on why he was blocked, much less mention the admin blocking him. Cool Hand Luke 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would consider supporting a differently-worded alternative that frees Russavia to edit more extensively. Risker (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Risker. I invite a proposal (including by Russavia himself, on the workshop) that would allow him to return to editing while avoid embroilment in the areas of active dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In most WP:NLT cases, a user gets unblocked once the perceived legal threat is withdrawn with an apology or a clarification —that the intention wasn't threatening legally— is provided. Whatever is the case here, this case is still at the community's hands unless the course of this case suggests otherwise. That said, I support the participation of Russavia in this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of private materials

3) Private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved should not be circulated or otherwise passed along without the permission of the authors. This includes, but is not limited to, public posting of links to such information and any attempts at outing. Engaging in such activity will be treated as disruption and harming editor privacy. Any evidence containing identifying information or other sensitive information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. Consistent with the case directives. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overbroadly written, but this is important. Cool Hand Luke 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Luke. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (second choice Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Supporting my own proposal. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree that we want to stop disruption from passing around the private discussions, but as part of the dispute resolution process some the material will need to be circulated between people that are not the authors. And this wording does not make adequate allowances for the usual passing of material that happens between people that join small email discussion lists. I think that the wording in the motion to open the case cover the situation adequately. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that any persons not the authors of the emails (or recipients of them already as list members) will need to have any of the material shown to them for the purposes of this case, but that issue could be handled as it arises. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I agree that we should provide guidance in this area, but waiting to see if FloNight can develop a more nuanced wording that might achieve unanimous support. In the meantime, editors should respect the urgings and instructions contained in my motion to open the case as if they were in the nature of an injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support alternative motion if it relieves concerns. Vassyana (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) Private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved should not be circulated or otherwise passed along without the permission of the authors. This includes, but is not limited to, public posting of links to such information and any attempts at outing. Engaging in such activity will be treated as disruption and harming editor privacy. In cases where participants may need to discuss evidence within the pages of the case, a reference of the format of [20090101-0000] may be acceptable and sufficient. Any evidence containing identifying information or other sensitive information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. I believe this addresses part of FloNight's and many other people's concerns. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice, if this relieves concerns about gaming the injunction. Vassyana (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice, since this addresses concerns and retains the desirable property of not needlessly disseminating private information. — Coren (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support both versions. Appreciate FloNight's concerns, but what we need to do in such cases is instruct the case clerk on how to enforce this injunction. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This is better. My aim is for the involved parties to be able to participate in the case without the fear of being blocked. They may need to receive and discuss the relevant emails that are linked to on site policy violations. That may mean that people are going to share the evidence among themselves in order to draft the proposals. I don't want the people that are participating in the case to be accused of outing or violating someone's privacy if they are making a good faith effort to participate in the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My aim is for the involved parties to be able to participate in the case without the fear of being blocked. If they follow the above directions there would be no sanction. More on this below.
    That may mean that people are going to share the evidence among themselves in order to draft the proposals. Why would people need to share evidence if all participants would (or already are) have access to the files? The [20090101-0000] format can fairly do the job.
    Let me give everyone an example here. Let's suppose that someone wants to show ArbCom an evidence of violating [wp:some policy]. A reference to an e-mail [20090101-0000] showing a co-ordinating effort to violate that policy would be sufficient. Since ArbCom has already a copy of that file then it becomes easy for it to verify the claim.
    Please note that the above alternative takes into consideration both the mailing list participants (privacy) and the case participants' concerns (not fearing a sanction). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still think that our wording is confusing for the admin that may handle reports of violations of the motion. Now on the case pages, some members of the email list are giving any one that looks at the emails a hard time. I want to make sure that this doesn't escalate into a block for a person that is working on the case but not a member of the email list. I don't want the people that have a stake in the outcome to be accused of sharing the information because it is obvious that they are discussing the emails with other Wikipedia users but did not have direct access to the emails. So, I want to de-emphasize that sharing the information is disruption and potentially could result in a block. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be glad to have a more helpful wording. Otherwise, the only other alternative is to forbid anyone from investigating the matter except ArbCom. That would make sense since ArbCom is actually busy investigating anyway; so why have non-ArbCom members repeat the same job? Unless people (people that have a stake in the outcome as you put it) don't trust ArbCom with that I really see it as the only viable approach and solution. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the emails are very easily to obtain, then we are going to have loads of people looking at the stuff we propose and compare it to the emails. So, and some of them are going to be making comments on site or email. I want to make sure that we don't stifle the helpful stuff or cause the person to get block by an admin that is aggressively endorsing the motion. That is the reason that I'm satisfied with stopping the deliberate outing and provocation (both off and on site) but think that some allowance for sharing of the emails for case work by other editors is okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative and inflammatory comments

4) Inflammatory comments and speculative musings about user identities, as well as related postings, cause drama and disruption. Editors are reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Supporting my own proposal. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Restatement and extension of instructions already contained in my motion opening the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Consensus

1) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would qualify with "never say never"; there may be isolated circumstances involving issues such as editor privacy where off-wiki consultation and consensus does guide on-wiki behavior. But the proposed principle addresses the vast majority of instances, particularly where the issue is article content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Participation

2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Support:
  1. This is why it is important to widely publicize important discussions so that the sample of editors participating can be as representative as possible. While it's generally not practical to attempt to solicit the entire editing population, willfully attempting to skew who participates is a very disruptive act. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I note that in general, we do not always distinguish clearly enough between what constitutes desirable publicizing of important discussions and what is deprecated as impermissible "canvassing" of participation in such discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. An important principle, but which here seems to refer mainly to off-wiki publicising and canvassing. As far as on-wiki notices go, the two relevant guidelines/information pages are: Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. I believe those two pages address the concerns raised by Brad. The former has existed since October 2006, while the latter has existed since April 2009 (I wrote the initial draft), and arose from various discussions as detailed here. Although I don't say it there, one of those places I discussed it late on during 2008 was on Brad's talk page here! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus in internal processes

3) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Support:
  1. For instance, and possibly most important, the possibility that an editor be driven off and lost to the community because of an improper consensus led to their alienation warrants close scrutiny of such discussions. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Though I will note that a simple requirement for people participating in such discussions to identify what their background is, whether they had been involved in prior discussions, and how they became aware of the current discussion, would help. People who failed to provide such information could, in extreme cases, have their opinions discounted. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Canvassing

4) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Support:
  1. Proposal 7 below goes into the specific case of meatpuppetry, but even a call to participation can be highly disruptive when done in secret in a venue known to be supportive of the point of view to "defend". — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although it is not always easy to distinguish between the two motives, and indeed they can reasonably be present at the same time. If I invite Editor A's attention to a discussion because I know he is a regular contributor to the topic area and will be interested and have useful points to make, but I know or suspect how Editor A is going to feel about the matter and I agree with his or her position, am I trying to improve the discussion or to influence the outcome? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Inviting other editors to a discussion can be done if the notices left are neutrally worded, if the notices are delivered to a broad cross-section of the editing community, and a note is made indicating where such notices were left. The latter is needed to assess whether some venues were omitted from the notification list, and what effect that might have had. The other important thing is for editors arriving at a discussion to disclose how they were notified of it. e.g. "I was left a talk page notice", or "I read about this in my national newspaper", or "I read about this in an online political forum", or "I have this page on my watchlist", or "I saw the notice left at the village pump", or "I saw the notice left at this WikiProject". The only way to counter secret canvassing, in my opinion, is to increase the amount of publicising of a discussion (to draw in genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians that bring fresh opinions to a discussion), or to spot obvious trends if a bloc opinion/vote is gravitating to the discussion, and whether they are giving independent and nuanced, or the same repetitive opinion. Those assessing or moderating the discussion should be alert to, and spot such things. It's not easy, but then no-one ever said it would be. The other key is to ensure the atmosphere is welcoming. If previously uninvolved people look at a discussion and see arguing and insults being thrown around, they are more likely than not to go and find something else to do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Should be accepted without saying. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gaming the system

6) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.

Support:
  1. So-called baiting is an egregious violation of this principle, for instance, because it seeks to misuse our behavioral rules designed to protect our collegiate atmosphere into getting rid of "opponents". While it's arguable that the victim should have avoided taking the bait, that does not diminish the responsibility of those who did the baiting. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Coren. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Meatpuppetry

7) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Support:
  1. This is even more the case when the requests are done off-wiki (or in secret) because it evades scrutiny. Requesting that someone else continues a revert war to avoid running afoul of WP:3RR is still clear edit-warring. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With potentially isolated exceptions per my comment on 1. (I personally dislike the pejorative term "meatpuppetry," and would prefer language such as that I used in the C68-FM-SV decision, but I won't oppose on a semantic basis.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting that noticeboard solicitation is generally the proper way to go about such things, in contrast to the wrong way. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are times when you need to hand something off to someone else, but as long as that is done transparently, that is not a problem. It is the secrecy and lack of disclosure that subverts the process here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Presumption of coordination

8) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:
  1. I will probably propose a remedy going along those lines for any article under discretionary sanctions, for instance. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'could' helps here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Casliber. The guiding rule is not that anyone's contribution is to be ignored, but that the surrounding circumstances showing that some voices are not independent should be taken into account. The difficulty sometimes encountered in making these calls is one reason that "consensus" can be such an elusive concept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In strong agreement with NYB. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Repeating my comment from principle 4: "[Those assessing or moderating such discussions need to] spot obvious trends if a bloc opinion/vote is gravitating to the discussion, and whether [those participating] are giving independent and nuanced, or the same repetitive opinion. [...] It's not easy, but then no-one ever said it would be. The other key is to ensure the atmosphere is welcoming. If previously uninvolved people look at a discussion and see arguing and insults being thrown around, they are more likely than not to go and find something else to do." Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Off-wiki communication

9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Support:
  1. Secret coordination would, in fact, generally tend to make on-wiki misbehavior worse because it can evade scrutiny longer this way and thus be disruptive over a long period of time before it is detected. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Key point!! FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Compare our comments about "block-shopping on IRC" in the Eastern European disputes 2 case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with FloNight. This is a key point. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Exclusion of evidence

10) Evidence that has been obtained through unethical or illegal means cannot be used or examined by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Proposed by some of the participants, with the rationale that doing otherwise may encourage illegal or unethical behavior. I've already given a detailed rationale elsewhere why I don't think that having an exclusionary rule is necessary; but it's worth pointing out that it may in fact be harmful: given that no member of the Wikipedia community has any authority to compel production of evidence during an investigation (including ArbCom itself), having such a rule would encourage increased secrecy and covert misbehavior. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that this proposal is too sweeping and that we should not adopt it. However, I don't think we can stop just with rejecting this wording, lest we risk being seen as oblivious or indifferent to the complex issues that could be presented by this type of scenario, one which some editors have suggested (though others sharply dispute) may be present in this case. I will seek to formulate and post over the weekend a wording that does reflect our views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Awaiting Newyorkbrad's alternative. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Awaiting Newyorkbrad's alternative. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too short and oversimplifies the issues here. Alternative needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Because of the unusual nature of the evidence in this case, much of the references are in the form [YYYYMMDD-HHMM], corresponding to specific emails in the so-called "Wikipediametrics" mailing list archives.

Mailing list sent to Committee

1) On or around September 21, 2009, the Arbitration Committee received email from three distinct editors forwarding a link to what was reported to be an archival copy of a mailing list on which disruption of the encyclopedia was discussed by its members. That link was sent to at least eight editors via the Wikipedia "mail this user" function.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Authenticity of archive

2) Given the gravity of the allegations, the mailing list archive was examined in depth by members of the Committee. It appears authentic, and covers the period from Jan 2, 2009 to Sept 15, 2009. There are no technical inconsistencies, nor any indication that any part of it has been tampered with. While there is no reliable method to determine that it is complete, no significant gaps are evident over the covered period.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reviewing what other arbitrators have reported, I agree with this finding. Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Computer trespass

3) The mailing list has been emailed via a user account whose password was freely shared between members of the list. The committee finds that the hypothesis that one of the members of the list willingly mailed their own copies of the emails via that shared account to be the most credible, and has received no evidence that any computer trespass ("hacking") has taken place.

Support:
  1. Although ultimately immaterial to the rest of the decision, this guided our willingness to examine and use the list. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Coren. This is the most probable scenario based on our review of the matter. The wording is appropriately qualified. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given the confirmation of the password sharing, this is indeed the most credible scenario. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

List membership

4) The members of the mailing list are Wikipedia editors, all of whom are directly or indirectly involved in the Eastern European topic area. The following Wikipedia users have posted to that list: Alexia Death, Biophys, Biruitorul, Digwuren, Dc76, jacurek, Martintg, Miacek, Molobo, Hillock65, Ostap R, Vecrumba, Piotrus, Tymek, Radeksz, poeticbent, and Sander Säde. No other editor has posted to the mailing list during the period covered by the archive.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am a bit wary of the guilt by association potential, but this is a clear fact. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Accurate listing, but noting that the levels of activity varied, and levels of reading of the mailing list cannot be ascertained. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Unrelated contents

5) Most of the mailing list traffic is not material to this case. It consists primarily of friendly banter and discussion such as would normally be found on users' talk pages, or of discussion unrelated to Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. As expected on a primarily social mailing list. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Materially true, except that I would not agree with the broad characterization of "as would normally be found on users' talk pages". Though the general gist holds true, I believe it would be inaccurate to characterize much of it as typical talk page discussion. A portion of it would certainly not be posted on user talk pages without ado. However, I do agree it was largely typical Wikipedia-related discussions. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs reworded per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper coordination

6) Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

The members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fixed the sense of the reference to Western point of view; I rewrote that statement so often it ended up saying the opposite of what it meant) — Coren (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good faith

7) There is every indication that the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Wikipedia, with some members going so far as to suspect involvement by the Russian government.

Support:
  1. However misguided. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I added "with some members" as the extreme was certainly not universal, with others members disputing the extreme assertion. Revert if that is a problem and we'll discuss it. Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Piotrus

List secrecy

8) Piotrus (talk · contribs) was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of administrative tools in dispute

9) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list was involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view. [20090916-0602][20090915-0610][1]

Support:
  1. There was also some bullying using his status. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

10) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090206-2304][20090206-2304][20090216-0055]

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Digwuren

Mailing list infrastructure

11) The mailing list uses infrastructure hosted by Digwuren (talk · contribs), and has most likely been set up by him.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

12) Digwuren (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090205-1811][20090209-1435][20090816-0919]

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tymek

Account sharing

13) Tymek (talk · contribs) has willingly shared the password to his account, offering its use to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

14) Martintg (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090404-0554][20090615-0607][20090818-0353]

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Occasional disruption

15) Many of the members of the mailing list not otherwise mentioned in these findings have occasionally participated in improper coordination of on-wiki actions, performed reverts at the behest of other editors, or gave advice on how to game the system.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Piotrus desysopped

1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is desysopped for using the administrative tools in content disputes. He may regain adminship by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support:
  1. Use of administrative tools in order to "win" content disputes cannot be ignored. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Piotrus banned

2) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Piotrus topic banned

3) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Digwuren banned

4) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Digwuren topic banned

5) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Martintg banned

6) Martintg (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Martintg topic banned

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tymek admonished

8) Tymek (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and to not allow another person to use it under any circumstance.

Support:
  1. In particular, I would expect Tymek to make certain he changes his password immediately. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In conjunction to 8.1, we can not tolerate account sharing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tymek banned for three months

8.1) Tymek (talk · contribs)

Support:
  1. In conjunction with 8, we can not tolerate this sort of account sharing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Amnesty

9) All the participants to the mailing list not otherwise sanctioned in this decision are granted amnesty for past behavior stemming from their participation.

Support:
  1. Most of the participants were in good faith and, while occasionally misbehaving, would be better off returning to normal editing. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Participants admonished

10) All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public.

Support:
  1. I would recommend stepping away from the mailing list entirely and shutting it down. There is great danger in any echo box. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors reminded

11) All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

Support:
  1. It's unlikely that this list is the only one that exists, participants in other lists need to examine carefully whether their participation in them compromises the editorial process. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Community encouraged

12) The community is encouraged to review the consensus leading to any active sanctions (such as blocks and topic bans) of editors that arose as a result of disputes in the topic area of Eastern Europe. In particular, blocked editors should generally be unblocked on good faith unless a new consensus forms that the block was correct on its face.

Support:
  1. I would recommend extending this courtesy to most editors involved in the past year. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass
{Passing principles}
{Passing findings}
{Passing remedies}
{Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which do not pass
{Passing principles}
{Passing findings}
{Passing remedies}
{Passing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
Oppose
Comment


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&oldid=322216927

Leave a Reply