Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Speedy Resolution

I would like Arb.s to consider whether after 48hrs or so, any substantial evidence of any activity whatsoever has been brought forward to warrant a block.

Given (my analysis of) the nature of the current evidence submitted, and no indication that any new material could be forthcoming, I'd like to restate my only desired outcome; That I be allowed to return to editing immediately, obeying all policies and guidelines.

Many thanks for this consideration, Privatemusings (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A genuine request. Many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disclosure

My initial indefinite block was issued by JzG, who stated that he had discussed both my privately submitted personal information, and my editing habits generally with a group of editors. Aside from my assertion that this is unethical behaviour, please could the Arb.s ask Guy to confirm who the 'small group of trusted admin.s' he discussed my case with are. In particular I am concerned that;

• These admin.s may have subsequently blocked me, or reviewed a block without disclosing their receipt of private material related to the first block
• These admin.s may have commented substantially on this case, again without disclosing the private material circulated previously.

These concerns are particularly strengthened by the case of User:!!, and the material here.

I would also believe it to be very important to disclose if any recipients of the material composed by Durova have commented on my case, for the same reasons.

In the original AN/I Thread concerning my indefinite block, Guy mentions; "The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators" (Diff here).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here, but perhaps there is some evidence to the assertions of what the admins may have done? Mercury 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really just saying that if folk (such as yourself) had received, and probably discussed, material about me before their on-wiki actions (in your case, blocking me indefinitely) then that really should be disclosed. It's kinda dishonest not to, you know. Privatemusings (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion below. Privatemusings (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Further - this motion has now been table for quite a while, with no response other than Mercury's above. I am particularly concerned that voting has now begun, and we have on the table an assertion from Guy that he notified 'at least three arbitrators' before issuing my indefinite block, yet no arbitrators have disclosed this. It's a horrible feeling to feel that editors of any status are 'out to get you' - so please please please, aside from the clear moral and ethical burden to disclose, just clear this up for my sake as a human. Please be open. Privatemusings (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A request for 'bail' / restricted privilege restored

I'd like to reiterate that my goal in this process is simply to be unblocked, and to be allowed to continue editing. Matters may take rather a while to plow through, and I remain unable to edit in the ways I actually quite enjoy in the mean time.

I wonder if it might be possible to ask the Arb.s if I can resume editing immediately with any or all of the following caveats;

• Only with permission to edit Socrates (because I've got some notes, and suggestions that I had planned on submitting before the discussion moves on too far)
• Only in cleanup work - with the proviso that I'd immediately stop should any editor believe my work to require discussion (this is adapted slightly from a suggestion from my blocking admin, see my talk page for the examples)
• To not edit any 'BLP' related articles
• Any other caveat required by any Arb

My feeling is that this is a request for 'bail' - I hope the evidence submitted so far warrants such an application. Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Further : My concerns that this case may bloat, and that the likely timescale of proceedings may warrant the above motion to be considered has been somewhat heightened by this and this instruction to editors and admin.s to bring comment on JzG's behaviour to this forum (although perhaps not this case). This is the motivation behind this section of evidence.

I suppose I would assert that if it's likely to take more than a couple of weeks to get to the bottom of this, then there is really no harm in at least considering the above. Many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

We'll keep this possibility in mind; but I, at least, hope to move this case through to a conclusion fairly rapidly. Kirill 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This idea is partly inspired by these words of NewYorkBrad's in the most recent AN thread;

How would the community react to a proposal to unblock Privatemusings based on assurances that he would (1) edit from a single account, and (2) refrain from editing BLP's. I believe this would address both of the reasons for a block that are perceived as currently germane. - from the most recent AN thread on the matter. Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Private musings. I have unblocked PM only for the arbitration case, and nothing else. The understanding that I have with PM is that he will not edit anything else. I will not support unblocking until such time as this concludes and urge the arbitrators not to allow this. Mercury 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A discussion of recusal

I notice that Fred is listed as recused, whereas Jpgordon, and Morven are listed as active. I would like some discussion of the following points;

Jpgordon ([1]) has previously made a judgement in this case. He seems to have reviewed only the editing of this account, but judged it to be in violation of policy and supported an indefinite block.

Morven ([2]) has also previously made a judgment in this case, reviewing my contributions (and personality) in general terms, and judged them to be in violation of policy, and supported an indefinite block. This post is probably also relevant, I did receive an email thanking me for the note, but no approach on my talk page, nor discussion of any sort, prior to the confirmation of the indefinite block.

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

many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Further - from the original AN/I Thread concerning my indefinite block; "The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators" - Guy. Diff here.

It's a little unsettling to have remember, and bring into the open, things like this oneself - and really does strengthen the call for my motion for disclose above. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was copied from the discussion page of the 'final decision', I hope this is the better suited venue. thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Presumably, Jpgordon would now appreciate that this is now your sole account, though I disagree with his judgment there when not lifting your first indef block, as, ultimately, did the community. If ever there was a policy issue which called out for the legitimate use of a secondary account, this has to be it. If someone can point me to a policy debate involving more bad blood, even back in the day, I'd be curious to know about it. Is it possible anyone on the arbitration committee, with the countless cases spawned over this policy debate, are somehow unaware of the bad blood here?
Morven's conclusion, in refusing to lift your third block, seems to be much more prejudicial, in writing that "you've continued to mess with Giovanni di Stefano after being warned not to." I'm not clear on the extent of those warnings; I had understood that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If WP:OFFICE failed to do their jobs by keeping the article indefinitely protected, and the subject of the article failed to get any of a number of reliable sources to print retractions of certain alleged facts, it's not in anyway your fault for believing what those sources wrote and attempting to improve the article for the benefit of our readers. WP:V not WP:TRUTH. Furthermore, your recent edits don't seem to actually hinge upon the same issue as the WP:OFFICE issue, as far as I know. Were any of your edits oversighted since the original mass deletion? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Privatemusings (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

see also Privatemusings (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

1) Request checkuser evidence linking these accounts to the same editor.

1. Purples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Why oh why not? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Nowthennowthenurrgeurrgeurrg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Littlevixensharpears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Thepmaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Requested. Mercury 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You do know that David Gerard, who identified this, is a CheckUser, right? Guy (Help!) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(apologize for threading) I think I missed his post then, I'll look for it. Mercury 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Acceptable use of sockpuppet accounts

1) Sockpuppet accounts used under various circumstances, such as editing contraversial articles or simply having multiple accounts for one's own reasons is permitted

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems too broad. I don't think it reflects current practices to state that "...having multiple accounts for one's own reasons is permitted". Chaz ^Beckett 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnacceptable use of sockpuppet accounts

2) Sockpuppet accounts may not be used to influence discusions one is participating in with another account or to vandalise wikipedia, or for any other purpose that may be considered disruptive

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This list is too limited. These are a few examples of unacceptable use, but it implies these are the only unacceptable uses of sockpuppets. Chaz ^Beckett 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Suitably revised--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of sock puppets

3) All sock puppet uses are forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee does not play semantic games. Kirill 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am proposing this since it is consistent with the Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry policy terminology. Bad sock puppets have long used the good sock/bad sock terminology to confuse others. The terminology now is that "alternate account" have acceptable and unacceptable uses. A "sock puppet" is a username used for purposes of multiple account deception. -- Jreferee t/c 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If what you're saying is that we should call good alternate accounts alternate accounts and bad ones sockpuppets then I agree--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to attempt to nail down the terminology regarding sockpuppets/alternate accounts. At a minimum, this should include introducing principles defining each term. Chaz ^Beckett 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of privilages

4) Misuse of one alternate account is a misuse of a single privilege and remedies may be directed towards that single privilege.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I proposed this. Policies apply per person, not per account. If someone vandalizes four articles, we do not merely block their access to those four articles and let them edit the remaining 2,000,000+ articles. We block their access to all 2,000,000+ articles. In a similar way, it would not make any sense to block one misused alternate account and permit use of other alternate accounts. By treating alternate accounts as a single privilege, the remedies can be fashioned to address that single privilege. -- Jreferee t/c 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitly a sensible idea--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems a sensible point to make, but I believe its a policy issue. If it came up in a policy discussion, I might support it. This is not a policy discussion. Relata refero (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

5) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adopted verbatim from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve. This is similar in tone to principles from CheeseDreams 2 and Lir. Also of note is the follow-up to Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al, in which StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs), an undeclared alternate account, was restricted to a single account (and blocked indefinitely). The use of an alternate account to stir up policy debates while the main account does something different has never been acceptable on Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The degree to which a policy is "gameable" depends on the willingness of the community to tolerate a user's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be the impression that we're making policy here. We're not. Go change policy if you like; this is the wrong venue. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Wholly support this principle - the challenge remains to integrate the discouragement into WP:SOCK. My editing issues substantially began after reading (what I took to be both advice, and permission contained within) the 'Heated Issue' section, which was longstanding in that policy. Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I support the principle. Though I don't support Mackensen's interpretation that the whole issue of WP:BADSITES and/or WP:BADLINKS, and so on, could in anyway have been "stirred up" beyond the ridiculous level of brownian motion this whole issue has already been at. To place all that at the feet of Privatemusings would be scapegoating. Even the arbitration committee was wholly unable to calm the situation in the attack sites case. If anything, PM was trying to calm debates. "PM has had helped out at the encyclopedia-- he was a valuable contributor to the badsites discussion, helped mediate, and did get some things accomplished."[3] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Object. Gameable. Opens the door to persistent disruption, so long as the disruption maintains a veneer of civility. Durova^Charge! 09:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Object WP:SOCK already has it that the use of alternate accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. We need to end sock puppet's ability to game the system with good/bad sock puppet terminology; all "sock puppet" use is forbidden. -- Jreferee t/c 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Since "heated issues" is specifically included in the language then it must be concluded that using such an account for such a purpose is, while not encouraged, is not prohibited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a sensible summary of relevant parts of existing policy. This makes it a little different from some of the other suggestions on here. Relata refero (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Imperfect policy

6) Much of Wikipedia's written policy is necessarily imperfect and continuously evolving. Users acting according to a reasonable and good-faith understanding of a policy as written should generally not be penalized if the policy is later amended to prohibit their behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We can't really expect everyone to know the "real" intent of the policy if the actual text says something completely different. Kirill 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kirill; this has bearing on remedies but not on principles. Mackensen (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse sensible application of ex post facto. Durova^Charge! 09:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. (as I've been asked to expand) There's nothing to stop the community from deciding tomorrow all users whose name starts with K are banned, then Kirill and I would be equally screwed. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This statement is vague. In any event, acting with a reasonable and good-faith understanding of one policy as written but with a disregard for the consequences your actions still is actionable through other policies. -- Jreferee t/c 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Office actions

7) WP:OFFICE actions involve, by their nature, imperfect on-wiki communications.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Kendrick7^talk 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see what this is driving at. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you, or anyone, actually explain to me exactly what information can't be added to Giovanni di Stefano? Privatemusings seems to have added one piece of information, then he was told not to do that, and he stopped. Then he added a completely different piece of information, and was banned, with the claim that he'd been warned somehow regarding a totally different issue. I haven't seen evidence supporting that. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of what he added is in the deleted history. A more responsible approach would have been to email Fred Bauder, and he would have explained the situation, as he did to me. Assuming, that is, that PM did not email Fred, which he might have done Guy (Help!) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm just concerned that there appears to be another class of articles, which are not made explicit as WP:OFFICE issues, that none of us can edit according to regular principles. In any case, WP:OFFICE articles don't actually need any on-wiki communication. Nobody would have been hanging round that page disagreeing if it had been stubbed and protected and listed at WP:OFFICE in the usual manner. I still see no Foundation input on the matter. Relata refero (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why a responsible and sensitive editor cannot edit this page. There are, however, many reasons why a prudent editor might not want to (take this from someone who is self-evidently not one to run from controversy). The problem was that the edits were not sensitive, and PM was not sensitive to the messages Fred was sending. Unfortunately this article is a murky one. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive biographies

8) If a biography of a living person needs to be held to a higher standard than our normal sourcing policy, it is the responsibility of WP:OFFICE to maintain that standard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The OFFICE only steps in when necessary. As both Jimbo and I were watching the article and in communication with the subject of the article, adding the services of the OFFICE to the mix was not necessary. Problem articles are the responsibility of any one who notices them and takes responsibility. Reckless editing in the face of warnings to take care is the problem here. The duty to take reasonable care depends on the situation, not on attachment of a label. Privatemusing came to the article to make trouble, to make a point, not to solve problems. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Follows from the imperfect nature of the communication. Editors can not be expected to read minds. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, both on the general principle and its specific application. It would be obvious to anyone reading the talk page of the article in this case that it was a sensitive area. All users should behave responsibility when adding contentious material to an article which is clearly under particularly close examination. In this case Privatemusings had been reverted several times but persisted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm a little lost on this one. I would agree that if a living person biography is currently under scrutiny, then WP:OFFICE may hold the article sourcing to undisclosed standards. Also, I would agree that, per foundation issue #5, Jimbo does not need to list an article at Office actions - currently under scrutiny to hold the article sourcing to undisclosed standard. Foundation issue #5 permits Jimbo to make general and specific policy merely with a single post anywhere Jimbo choses. Jimbo also can ask editors such as Fred to watch articles and make requests on Jimbo's behalf. I'm not sure what this request is getting at (and it is not clear who posted the Proposed principle). -- Jreferee t/c 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam, is it your position that all the material PM added to the article was contentious? He seemed to have gotten the message that some was and some wasn't, and he was debating the reliability of the sources for the material that wasn't. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

9) Adding reliably sourced, verifiable, NPOV information to a biography of a living person is permitted per WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generally, yes, but not when it casts the subject of the article in a false light. In this case the mainstream British media seem quite shy about investigating and reporting about the conclusions a person would naturally draw from the anecdotal information they have published. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Kendrick7^talk 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose in this case. It's a good general principle but the WP:BLP issues in this case are more complicated than might at first appear. It is possible to make reckless edits that are still within WP:BLP. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this editor has been accused of violating WP:BLP. You are at least agreeing that, in principle, he has not. Could you suggest an alternate wording which perhaps better gets this across? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Fred, our standard is usually WP:V not WP:TRUTH. It's a lot ask of us to somehow be better than our sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and when you're way over your head, as Privatemusings was, it's time to step back a bit. Fred Bauder (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. If you had simply bopped him over the head and blocked him for a week, we wouldn't be having this conversation; I would have shrugged had I even noticed it. I've had to be bopped over the head on any number of occasions. Aside from the sock issue, this editor has never been blocked for so much as a 3RR before, so I strongly suspect that would have done the trick. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that you would not have needed bopping over the head. I strongly suspect that no amount of bopping would have got the message home to PM that he was way out of his depth. I was previously involved in this one, it is far from straightforward, and editing without access to the tickets requires immense caution. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

9b) Material added to biographies of living people must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is likely quite burdensome litigation could be mounted in the UK or elsewhere in Europe based on UK or other European law. A person seeking publicity might choose such a course, despite the likelihood of an unfavorable result. Thus the warning about editing by users based in the UK. Fred Bauder (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is taken directly from WP:BLP. It's been alleged by Fred Bauder there are any other of number of laws of other countries and municipalities that must be considered depending on where the subject of the biography is from. If that's the case, the policy needs to be fixed; qq.v. WP:BURO, WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand we might not want to engage in WP:BEANS by implicitly adding something about this to WP:BLP, but this seems to be an ongoing issue with biographies of subjects of the British crown (q.v. Johann Hari). IANAL, so my understanding of reciprocity regarding international law is limited, doubly so in civil matters. I would hope, say, Kim Jong-il couldn't pull a similar stunt by, say, invoking the laws of North Korea? Or what about someone more European like Vladimir Putin? As a reader, it's important to me to know what rules govern the biographies I read here, and as an educated American, I genuinely regard Europe's laws regarding libel and freedom of speech as only slightly less backward than your typical autocratic regime. But if the policy needed to be fixed, I know I guy who doesn't mind getting his hands dirty working on policy pages. Name started with a P, or was it an M? Private something... tip of my tongue.... -- Kendrick7^talk 07:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment While ignorance of the law is no defence it seems burdensome that every contributor needs to familiarise themselves with the specifics of Florida law (those editors contributing from Florida and/or familiar with the legislation will make a miniscule percentage of en-WP's contributor base, and a small one of those working in the BLP field). Failure to comply with particulars specific to Florida law should be treated as good faith errors and not violation of BLP policy. It is the job of those who are familiar to guide the other users, not to sanction them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputes on reliability of sources

10) Engaging in good faith dialog regarding the reliability and use of certain sources in Talk space is permitted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Trolling about a divisive issue is not. Privatemusings came to the article to make trouble, to make a point, and succeeded. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Trolling is a horrible accusation - it offers no sensible defense (Have you stopped beating your wife, Fred?). I've been very clear that all I ever wanted to do was discuss matters. You basically told me I was trouble, too stupid, shut up, and go away. That was wrong. Privatemusings (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This seems to characterize Privatemusings general behavior in the day or two prior to the block. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you change permitted for "practically mandatory"? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that part of the rationale for the block was that Privatemusings was discussing sourcing issues on the talk page that were somehow forbidden by the WP:OFFICE from being discussed. Otherwise, the timing of the block doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He was trading on the lack of formal OFFICE involvement, despite the fact that both Jimbo and I were monitoring and discussing the matter. There is no simple mechanism to ban a user from editing a particular article if he persists despite discouragement. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation issue #5 permits Jimbo to make general and specific policy merely with a single post anywhere Jimbo choses. Foundation issue #5 permits Jimbo to exercise Foundation issue #5 in any reasonable way, such as asking editors such as Fred to watch articles and make requests on Jimbo's behalf. If Jimbo acts per Foundation issue #5, it is formal OFFICE involvement irrespective of how Jimbo acts. Foundation issue #5 does not require Jimbo to explain his actions and it seems likely that any such explanation could risk disclosing confidential information. Once Privatemusings learned of Jimbos concerns, the intent not to cause trouble is no longer an element and Privatemusings can be sanctioned merely by disregarding the outcome of his actions. -- Jreferee t/c 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we're misleading our readers by not adding some sort of tag to articles to clarify this sort of thing, and confusing our editors by not adding some sort of tag to the talk page to guide them. I see this issue as an over all failure of good communication. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Telling Privatemusings that I would be seeking an indefinite ban if he kept on seems clear enough. Fred Bauder (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not poker. You had the right idea, but you should have just blocked him for a week and warned him at that point; otherwise, you should be assured any editor working in the area of WP:BADSITES has seen plenty of idle threats. That you are an important editor, whose words need to be taken very seriously, is not, as of yet, included in the {{welcome}} template. So, instead, it looks like you were trapping him by letting him muck around on that article until some other editor came along to block him for, basically, everything he's ever done wrong ever. I don't believe that was your intention, you were effectively giving him a free card, but that has been the result. I know I'm a Massachusetts liberal, who doesn't like indef blocks in general, but, as I said just earlier, this editor -- across all alternate accounts -- has never been really blocked for anything before. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Even if other venues are more appropriate, the talkpage of the specific article is where such discussion should be initiated.LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred made a judgment call about PM's behaviour. That judgment is open to question, which is what is being done here.

Foundation principle #5 is a catch-all to ensure Jimbo remains our God-King. It's not questioned here, but what can be is the interpretation JR gives. I am sure Jimbo watches, and is concerned about, several articles. It is the work of a moment for him to step in personally and protect a page. He has done it before, IIRC. Nowhere on the talkpage as it stands is there an indication that Jimbo wishes certain information be kept out of the article. I visited the talkpage once before the deletion and recreation, and I don't remember anything other than a simple statement that information had been received. Yes, information is received all the time. If an article cannot be edited for legal reasons, there should be a giant bloody sign on it. This article wasnt even protected for BLP reasons, and we do that all the time. If there are genuine OFFICE problems that warrant the invocation of God-Kinghood, which we know JW does not like doing, a word stating so would be helpful. If there are, and the word comes, however privately to ArbCom, I think we should all recognise that this was an almighty cock-up from the Foundation side, and it would be a bit much to indefblock on. If the word does not come, then we are back to editors editing as editors, without the God-king-hood behind them. Relata refero (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

11) Alternate accounts for the purpose of compartmentalizing edits to hide from scrutiny, or confuse editors is not permitted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thoughts. Mercury 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, but I don not believe PM was trying to protect his edits from closer scrutiny or to confuse anyone. Even though that was the effect, it was unintended--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely concur with this proposal.--MONGO (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree but would comment that "heated issues" specifically allows the creation of alternative accounts for that purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Have no idea what it would take to confuse some people, it might not be a lot. WP:SOCK says nothing about confusion. Hiding from legitimate scrutiny is another matter. Not all 'scrutiny' is necessary legitimate in the sense of valuable to the project. As we've all seen recently, excessive scrutiny can itself be disruptive. Relata refero (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Obfuscatory masquerades merely detract from the 'pedia and lead to distrust.Bakaman 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

12) Sockpuppeting for whatever purpose is not a right.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thoughts. Mercury 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppeting is okay, someone may want to use another acount for an assessment drive or whatever--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that Mercury read all the above proposals before submitting identical ones. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is phrased in a significantly different way. Mercury 23:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Whatever" appears ambiguous. Does Mercury mean "any"? I would oppose this interpretation since by the language of the policy it is not prohibited = the right exists, but is discouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

'Sockpuppeting' is as much a right as 'editing' is. Both are privileges which can be revoked following disruption. Somewhat empty statement. Relata refero (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Release of identifying information

13) Wikimedia foundation policy allows only a limited range of situations in which information derived from checkuser may be disclosed. Disclosure of user real life identities, or information which might lead to their being discovered, is a sensitive matter which is avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Checkuser may be a red herring in this case. As I understand it, checkuser established a pattern of sockpuppetry which included an account which could be tied to a real life identity, owing to the name of the account. Checkuser is a tool which correlates IP information; the name of the account was always a public matter. Users who inadvertently disclose that information have options, including account renaming, for avoidance for exposure, but there is no ironclad guarantee in this matter and checkusers are not enjoined by these considerations when identifying sockpuppets, as the checkuser tool provides no data, either way, as to whether account name X corresponds to a real life identity. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, to set up for later findings. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

14) Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons is detailed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons is forbidden and should be removed from both articles and discussion pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per evidence and FoF on di Stefano and Jonathan King. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with principles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring

13) WP:WHEEL warring, in which an admin undoes another's administrative actions — such as reblocking a user already blocked and unblocked on the same grounds is a bad thing. Wheel warring considered improper behavior for an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see the wheel warring. Is there evidence on the /Evidence page that I missed? Mercury 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury - please please please just try and be as clueful as possible in this process - I believe that you are at risk of giving the impression of 'playing dumb' in bad faith. To assume for a moment that you are not playing, please just consider that this is a 'principle' - and surely (surely?) you agree with it. I do. Privatemusings (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? The closest we came to wheel warring here was 02:10, November 16, when East718 unblocked Privatemusings reversing the 00:06, November 16, block by Bishonen. or do you mean Bishonen's reversal of David's email-inclusive block? I hardly think that was evil. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This principle does not appear relevant in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard restricted Petesmiles to one account, and since there was an emerging consensus to let him choose which account he could edit from, I went ahead and unblocked. I would have blocked Petesmiles too, but WilyD had already gotten him; he was presumably doing the same thing as evidenced by his block rationale: "One User/One Account, but it doesn't matter which, so I'm blocking this and unblocking Private Musings". [4] east.718 at 01:15, November 24, 2007

Privatemusings's multiple account issues were already cleared up, and he was unblocked, after consensus had formed on WP:AN. 51 hours later came the reblock by Mercury, in part, for the exact same issue. Even though the issue of using YouTube as a source was tacked on to the new block, arguably changing its nature, I still believe this is an important principle to keep in mind here. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Especially as part of the last blocks edit summary mentioned the (ab)use of alternate accounts, which had been resolved to the communities satisfaction as commented by Kendrick7, and had not been violated since. Indeed, rather than wheelwarring with another admin it may be considered that Mercury was wheelwarring with the community - although not with intent! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Endorse LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

14) Forum shopping, in order to obtain a different result from a decision made in another forum, is a bad thing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What forums, what decisions? Mercury 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, you see this is a 'principle' - phrased in general terms. The first sensible question to ask is 'do I agree with it?' - and then perhaps 'is it relevant' (see Guy below). I agree with it, and I think it's relevant. Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate. What forum, what decision is the principle derived from? Mercury 00:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? Which point of evidence or proposed finding does this reference? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to have been consensus at WP:AN to allow Privatemusings to edit from one account. Reblocking in order to force the ArbCom (a different forum) to address the issue all over again could be perceived as forum shopping. - Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be very difficult to prove. ArbCom is the appropriate forum for disputes that weren't settled at an earlier stage. It would be necessary to show that the dispute had been considered settled by nearly all parties and that Privatemusings was blocked to move the matter to a more favorable forum. I don't think such evidence has been presented yet. Chaz ^Beckett 12:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This first part can be easily proven. The second requires evidencing intent, which I concur is impossible to prove. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Its quite clear that forcing a user to defend himself repeatedly and sequentially in different fora seems inappropriate. RfCs are closed when ArbCom opens, for example. Relata refero (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of alternate accounts

15) While not forbidden, the use of alternate accounts without a compelling reason is considered problematic. Use of alternate accounts merely to divert controversy from a regular account is divisive and unacceptable. Where an alternate account is used, it is expected that the benefit of its use to the encyclopaedia be reasonably obvious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In my opinion, this belongs at WP:SOCK - no prejudice as to the value of the point. Privatemusings (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe this is in line with what is expected of people. Use of a second account to "sanitise" a main account puts at a disadvantage those who are prepared to stand behind their controversial opinions. It is divisive because you don't know who you are dealing with, or whether two people advancing the same views are in fact only one person. It undermines trust and impedes the process of consensus building. It also places the puppeteer under additional stress and offers a dreadful temptation to support with the other account. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this principal, especially that alternate accounts should be used mainly to benefit the project, not just the user. Chaz ^Beckett 00:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, with reservation "heated issues" is specified in the language of WP:SOCK as a legitimate reason.LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't make policy. ArbCom investigates questionable user conduct. Further, who decides 'reasonably obvious'? Too vague even for policy, or for the restatement of any policy that does not in fact exist. Relata refero (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Disclosure

16) It is unethical for editors who have received information off wiki to take on wiki actions (such as blocking, reviewing a block, or voting in an Arb case) without some disclosure to the community, unless there is a reasonable belief in an extreme risk to the wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The effect would be that all parties must disclose all correspondence, at least the existence thereof. Policy does not, to my knowledge, presently require such; it seems entirely possible that editors would feel uncomfortable coming forward in some situations if they knew all such correspondence would eventually be disclosed. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(hope it's ok to reply here) - the correspondence absolutely should not be disclosed, the fact that there had been correspondence should be, most particularly if there is absolutely no reason not to. (I'm thinking of the difference between saying 'I received some private communication, and I have to say I agree' and not saying anything at all, giving the appearance of a wholly independant view). Privatemusings (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first, that no present policy requires this (that I know of), is the real show-stopper. Arbitration isn't the place to make policy. The second is that what you suggest is untenable. If I state that I have received private communications, but refuse to indicate with whom, it will lead to boundless inquiry--why do you agree, with whom did you speak, etc. Independent views are the product of independent judgement, not necessarily independent information. It's an impossible restriction, to require someone to state whether or not they have engaged in private communication, but not with whom or concerning what. It can be taken as granted that an arbitrator will have received private communications concerning almost every case; whether those communications had any effect whatsoever is unknowable. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - one short further point; It is not the existence of private communications received as part of an Arb Com case that I refer to. It is the existence of private communications which prejudice, (as in occurred before the matter came before the Arbs, and directly relate to it). I wholly appreciate the minefield that one enters if attempting to legislate people into doing the right thing.

To be specific for a moment, Guy has stated that he circulated material to at least 3 Arb.s, and that discussion occurred concerning the very block now being reviewed. Those Arbs should disclose that fact. Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"...some disclosure..." does not mean full disclosure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed Privatemusings (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very very unsettled by the fact that it's possible that many of the admin.s who took action in my case, and possibly some Arb.s currently voting might be undisclosed recipients of material distributed prior to their open involvement in this case. Specifically, the discussion initiated by JzG before my original indef block.

My concerns are independent of the rights and wrongs of those actions.

It's just wrong, guys - sort it out. Privatemusings (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance here, and I don't see any evidence of it. Mercury 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the intention, Mercury - it's a principle. Do you agree with it? Privatemusings (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to agree or disagree. I prefer to save that and give you a chance to establish its relevance, or show the evidence this principle is a derivative of, if you are inclined. Mercury 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

<- To illustrate, I'm afraid I would consider this post to be disingenuous, unethical, and contrary to the spirit of this process if it later transpired to be the case that Mercury had received information privately (say from Guy, or Durova) concerning me. I'm afraid that, in my opinion, this post also implies that he did receive material, but that it didn't inform his decision. Really, I would seriously hope the ethical bar to be higher. What's going on behind the scenes? Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Musings, you are really exhausting my patience here. clarified. Mercury 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury, I'm afraid when you indefinitely block a user, refuse to discuss it, recommend that the arbcom rejects the case, and consistently fail to address reasonable concerns, you may appreciate why your patience is perhaps warranted.

Thank you for being clear - I'm relieved that you received no email, or so called 'evidence' prior to issuing your indefinite block. You see how simple and powerful the truth is? thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ps - while your attention may be here - are you aware that Guy is saying that your block had nothing to do with sock issues? Is this accurate? Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The block message on your talk, and the note I logged in the software is clear I think. Not to insult anyone. Mercury 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear, thanks. Privatemusings (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Any blocking Admin must be aware of prior actions

16) Prior to issuing a block a sysop is required to review the contributions of the intended blockee to ascertain that the matter has not already been actioned/resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are you familiar with the case at all? Mercury 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my observation that the alternative accounts question had already been resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? Has evidence been provided to show the blocking admin was unfamiliar with Privatemusings's contributions or that the matter was already resolved? Chaz ^Beckett 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See my evidence, particularly the end. Relata refero (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That the principle of escalating warnings is paramount

17) Unless there is clear evidence that the encyclopedia is in immediate danger of being seriously disrupted, that unambiguous warnings of increasing severity in respect of violations of Wikipedia's rules, policies and guidelines are required to be placed on the pertinent editors talkpage before the use of anything other than very short duration sanctions are permitted. Blocking and then justifying or providing reasoning is not a suitable substitution, given the debate over wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not workable. Mercury 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As proposed, this is process for the sake of bureaucracy. This is ripe for abuse by wikilawyers. Chaz ^Beckett 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it; given that wheel warring has become a problem, it might prove a valuable restraint on impulsive admins getting first-mover advantage. Relata refero (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Privatemusings' Proposed Findings of Fact

Throughout much of this process, I have felt rather like Josef K, and I would like assessment of the following assertions which i believe to be findings of fact;

1. I was blocked without any prior discussion from the blocking admin

2. The block reason was half inaccurate, and half confusing

• I made a strong, public commitment to editing using only this account significantly prior to this block.
• The discussion of WP:RS seemed to me to be productive.

3. This, my third indefinite block in quick succession, immediately overturned a consensus formed on AN/I

4. At no stage have any diff.s been provided that warrant an indefinite block

5. The sole diffs provided as rationale for the block prior to this process (with thanks to Durova) - [5] [6] [7] are not disruptive, and are no grounds for a block.

6. This block is punitive

7. JzG has acted unethically in sharing privately submitted personal information when expressly asked not to

8. David Gerard has acted irresponsibly in publishing that information on the wiki

9. The discussion of references to usually reliable sources has been problematic at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano

10. My contributions to that discussion have been in good faith, and intended to progress the article work

11. Mention of specific sources is disallowed, and surprise at this practice, and the desire to discuss it, is fundamentally what has landed me in hot water.

12. This is a very unpleasant, avoidable experience, and I feel bullied, and feel that some editors have acted inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have moved these here, and left them in one section currently, I would envisage it as possible for Arb.s if they wish to support or oppose a particular assertion could just say something like;

3. oppose <some reasoning> <sig>

Once again, I defer to the expertise and preferences of Clerks, should they wish to refactor in any way.

It's a personal opinion that the behaviour referred to in the final assertion does warrant sanction, but I don't feel that my opinions (I am after all an intimately involved party) on this are necessarily useful. I'll be happy to share my thoughts if asked, but would prefer the question of the indef block to be resolved first if possible. Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

<comment from Picaroon, when this section was filed under a 'motion'; Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)>

These assertions should be on the evidence page, or the workshop talk page. I don't see what you're motioning for. Picaroon (t) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG acted improperly

1) Though the block of Privatemusings may have been warranted, JzG (talk · contribs) (Known as Guy) acted improperly by 1) assuming bad faith and 2) blocking Privatemusings without prior discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Though personally disappointed, and intensely angered by JzG's behaviour, I'm not certain that it wouldn't be better addressed in an entirely different case. I do have some thoughts on that matter. I would however invite the Arb.s to clarify if there should ever be either some sort of presumption of innocence, or perhaps that some matters should be considered sub judice - I really feel comments such as this (and there are many more) are beyond the pale. Privatemusings (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I have just been passed this old note and would like to point out that the steps Guy mentions are exactly the ones taken against me. All of them. Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG was acting in good faith to block someone for misusing a sock account.--MONGO (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By definition, it is impossible to block someone in good faith. By blocking someone, you are assuming thay are acting in bad faith--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse violating AGF and procedure (on discussing disputes and warning editors) is not excused by the ends - even if undisputed - unless there is an immediate and serious danger to WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings's use of multiple accounts was disruptive

2) Although he may not have intended it, Privatemusings's use of multiple accounts was disruptive as it confused some editors and generally made things difficult

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no reasonable basis for confusion. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, some editors were confused by the multiple accounts. Look at the oriigainal AMI post--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The creation and use of the alternative account is as permitted by WP:SOCK and thus was not disruptive, despite confusion on the part of some others.LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)(edited by LHvU to clarify per discussion below by adding italicised text. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Do you see anything to the contrary? Nothing here says sockpuppets aren't permitted, it just says some editors were confused, which they were--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I could have clarified my response better. It is not PM's fault that people were confused by his (I argue) legitimate use of an alternative account; it is their unfamiliarity with the policy. i.e. it is not disruptive to act correctly just because some people misunderstand. I have now clarified my oppose.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was disruptive if editors were confused. See the "Imperfect policy" section, below--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings's use of multiple accounts was disruptive

2.1) Although Privatemusings was openly labeled as an alternate account intended to comment in Wikipedia discussions, the main account was not identified. This was not appropriate under WP:SOCK and was confusing because other users could not assess on what basis Privatemusings was commenting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; a more specific version. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I would go further: I believe it was disruptive in Wikipedia namespace and became untenable when PM started making controversial content edits. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, and I see plenty of evidence of his gaming the system and other issues of varying severity.--MONGO (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This flies against the principle of "comment on content, not contributor". Every comment should be judged on its own standing and not who made it or why. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings has misused at least one alternate account

3) Privatemusings has misused at least one alternate account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have proposed this. Policies apply per person, not per account. Under Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts, misuse of one alternate account will affect that person's ability to operate alternate accounts. Once consensus determines that a person is using one alternate account inappropriately and that alternate account is blocked, any subsequent use of an alternate account by that same person may be addressed as set out in evading community sanctions. Privatemusings still would be able to contribute from his/her main account if no other remedies are implemented against that main account. In addition, assumption of good faith still would apply to that main account per treatment of the editor. -- Jreferee t/c 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. One can learn to act...honestly, for lack of a better word, after a while. I might have a bulletproof assumption of good faith but that's my opinion--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment appears unrelated to the header.LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as all but the PM account has been blocked, PM appears to be his only account now. spryde | talk 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence to support this assertion might be useful. I'm having a hard time inferring what this is referring to. Is it the {{linkless}} "gossip" subpage of User:Petesmiles created in 2005 (as among his earliest edits) and blanked in January 2006? Failure to have just {{prod}}'d this some years back was a mistake, but it still seems like a stretch to bring that up as a pertinent issue today. (Took me ten minutes to find it, and I knew where to look!) -- Kendrick7^talk 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment diffs? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings's sockpuppetry

4) The use of multiple accounts by Privatemusings was based on a reasonable interpretation of the policy regarding such accounts as it stood at the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts. Kirill 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. This gets us into intentions and motivations; treacherous ground, that. People should stop horsing around with the sockpuppet policy. Mackensen (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

How about prefacing this with "During discussions over the policy, six (or however many) editors inluding two (or however many) adminstrators expressed that..." Then it's not about motivations, simply stating facts. It would then need the suffix "while others strongly disagreed." of course. Or, even more simply, change it to "The precise interpretation of the policy as it stood was not widely agreed upon." - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree It was, though I'd like to know why he wanted multiple accounts--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree I believe that it can still be argued that the wording permits a contributor to open an account that participates in one area of Wikipedia so as to avoid tainting the contributions of another existing account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG's use of language

5) JzG has used language, particularly swear words, that has inflamed situations both in discussions and on edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is not against policy to use strong language but admins should be expected to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and to me that does not really include swearing all over the place. It is particularly offensive to people with whom he is discussing a matter, and his short outbursts can sometimes break the spirit of WP:NPA. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitly agree we should develop some sort of guideline about this--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need specific diffs in respect of this case, otherwise this is not the place for it. Not that I deny using Angl-Saxon terms at time, it's just that this case is narrowly defined and the proposed finding is out of scope. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. I cannot recall immoderate use of language in this matter (the indef blocking of Privatemusings for a third time) by JzG, so diffs are needed. This is not a RFA on Guy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not an arbitration on Guy but he is an involved party and the arbcom have already set precedents for bringing judgements against people in such a situation. violet/riga (t) 12:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is an example (I am not aware of any) regarding the matter that is being discussed by this arbcom then it is not germane, IMO. This ArbCom should not be Cydetracked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not related to this case.--MONGO (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While it might not be directly related I think it would be remiss of the arbcom to not tackle this matter and require a separate route, be it RfC or other, to look into it. That strikes me as somewhat bureaucratic when I hope it is obvious to all that such language inflames situations. While that might not be the case here it reflects on how JzG interacts with some people. Yes it comes from frustration and is not always unwarranted, but I think it should be investigated while we have this opportunity. violet/riga (t) 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

6) Privatemusings is an alternate bad hand account used to compartmentalize edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thoughts as well. Mercury 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose No evidence has been provided to show this account falls under the definition of "bad hand" as presented by WP:SOCK, that is, of any "deliberate policy violations or disruption." -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided the required evidence. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it. Could you perhaps summarize your interpretation of the evidence? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose Not only is there no evidence, there is actually evidence to the contrary--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose This is now the only account used by this individual. The editor requested that they use the other article editing username as their only account in the discussion following one of the other recent SOCK indef blocks, but this was not allowed since the disputed edits would disappear and may give an unfair (according to some) contrib history. If PM's preferred option account was allowed to have been the only account the block and this ArbCom would possibly have been very difficult to "justify".LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely...using an admitted sock account to edit war, especially on controversial policy pages, is something that needs to be a bannable offense.--MONGO (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of reverts from a consensus on said policy pages?LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of Privatemusings real life identity.

7) When blocking Privatemusings for violating policy on sockpuppetry, his other accounts were listed on his User page. One such account bore a username which appeared to be Privatemusings' real life identity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

See my comment above on the related principle. Ultimately the Ombudsman Commission will decide whether a breach occurred; checkuser is a Foundation responsibility and the Arbitration Committee does not generally assert competence in these matters. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not 100% accurate - the username contains my real first name, and I have significant privacy concerns over its publication. I am currently in discussion with the Ombudsman commission because I assert a) there were never any grounds for a Check to be run, and b) The Privacy Policy was breached. It may not lie within the specific remit of this case to discuss this further (this should not prejudice the opportunity for further discussion elsewhere, or a future arbitration involving the relevant checkusers). Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (NB no diff is given because the edit has now been deleted) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The username is said to be identifiable to a nickname the editor has used in real life, but a quick google hardly betrays much. All David did was put all the usernames in together, which is at worst a simple and quite understandable error. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Why is the user name which PM is objecting to the publication of (and the edit containing that name now deleted) included in the 'Disagree' comment google link immediately above this one? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I am angry that the username was revealed, not repeated - see here for further. Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of alternate accounts

8) The same editor edited Wikipedia:No personal attacks as both User:Purples (e.g. [8], [9]) and User:Privatemusings (e.g. [10], [11]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Am I a party? No matter. Here is evidence that this editor edited the same contentious policy in the same way with both accounts. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs show editing 5 months apart. I am not 100% sure but I think WP:SSP means abuse to do it in relatively the same time frame. spryde | talk 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was asserted that a separate account was needed to avoid problems for the main account. The diffs show that this person was prepared to engage in precisely that controversy under the main account. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Privatemusings account was created on 24 September 2007. Therefore both accounts did not exist when Purples edited earlier in the year. Therefore multiple accounts did not edit the same contentious policy - the same editor contributed to the same discussion under one account and then another account created for the involvement of in contentious issues. Therefore there is no violation of WP:SOCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, this finding, as it is worded is correct.--MONGO (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with stated principle, but not with header. As the two accounts commented at very different time periods, not in the same sections and not to indicate independent support of each other it cannot be held that they were used to improperly unbalance the debate; therefore it was not inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of an alternate account

8.1) The same editor edited Wikipedia:No personal attacks on 28 May 2007 as User:Purples (e.g. [12], [13]) and six months later on 20&23 October 2007 as User:Privatemusings (e.g. [14], [15]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed a version that fails to either assume bad faith or selectivly quote the facts. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons issues

9) Privatemusings' edits of Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) violated WP:BLP by inserting poorly sourced material and failing to apply appropriate caution. Misleading edit summaries were used. Privatemusings failed to heed advice to apply greater caution from User:Fred Bauder, who has long experience with this subject.

Purples' edits to Jonathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also display a lack of sensitivity to WP:BLP and misleading edit summaries, e.g. [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stick in the sand. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Support; the evidence bears out this finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence here is convincing that BLP was violated.--MONGO (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of blocks, bans, probation and other restrictions

10) The purpose of blocks, bans, probation and other restrictions is to prevent the damage or disruption of Wikipedia, rather than to act as a punishment for damaging or disrupting Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As for how this is relevant, why should PM be blocked if he will no longer be a liability to Wikipedia?--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The first block was to prevent disruption, then main account was left untouched. Behaviour after that was a series of escalating and increasingly disruptive edits to a highly sensitive article. Previous edits to a sensitive article indicate that this may be characteristic. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is now, rather than last week--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, PM is only unblocked for this arbitration. Last week he was blocked for a seires of escalating and disruptive edits to an incredibly sensitive BLP, with past history indicating that this may well be characteristic behaviour. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse and there are policy dictated procedures on how to deal with such disruption before blocking should be contemplated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed principle

11) (proposed principle)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Abandon alternate accounts

1) Privatemusings should refrain from using his other accounts in future

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems like a sensible idea--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought part of his initial agreement was to do just that? spryde | talk 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was but now that it's gone to ArbCom stuff like this needs to proposed--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as PM has already agreed to this, other accounts now being blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings' list of alternate accounts

2) Privatemusings is to provide ArbCom with a list of all his/her alternate accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I proposed this. Policies apply per person, not per account. The blocking of one alternate account is effective only if all alternate accounts are blocked. The public (or private) list provided to ArbCom will allow ArbCom to block all Privatemusings' alternate accounts. -- Jreferee t/c 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as following what had been previously agreed before last block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings' list of alternate accounts

2.1) Privatemusings is to provide the community with a list of all his/her alternate accounts. Those which reveal his real name and/or personal details do not have to be listed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so anymore--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I have every confidence in ArbCom too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of all Privatemusings' alternate accounts

3) All alternate accounts of Privatemusings are to be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I proposed this. Policies apply per person, not per account. As indicated at elevation of remaining alternate accounts to sock puppet account, misuse of one alternate account will affect that person's ability to operate alternate accounts. Use of alternate accounts is a single privilege. Misuse of one alternate account is a misuse of that single privilege and the remedies need to be directed towards that single privilege. -- Jreferee t/c 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest rolling 1-3 up into a single item "Privatemusings is restricted to one account..." per the recently closed Martinphi-ScienceApologist Arbcom case. spryde | talk 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree-Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as being already agreed prior to last block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings banned for one year with option for early review

4) Privatemusings is banned from Wikipedia for one year. He may appeal for an early end to this ban after three months if he registers an account at another Wikimedia project and contributes productively there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe evidence has come to light which renders it relevant to consider whether or not this proposal has been brought in good faith. I think it's quite revealing of the character of the proposer of this sanction that she engaged in fairly substantial conversation on my talk page, over a number of threads, having previously written, and distributed this pernicious material, which uses a post of mine as the first example in an ugly tirade against imaginary monsters and 'troublemakers'. I'm actually very proud (and undeserving) to have been considered in the company of User:!!.

She is an editor who has discussed my case, supported my block, and right now is proposing a year long ban (with a gracious provision for early review). It transpires that despite her claims of attempting good faith discussion, she was in fact basing her interactions on a bizarre, misguided, horribly shallow prejudice.

I would like this, and the following proposal to be immediately struck. Privatemusings (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Basically formalizes the community sanction with a specific one year end point to the ban if he doesn't take up the offer to shorten with early review. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. He was already contributing productively here; this implies that was not the case. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hell no!! Why the heck would we want that! He's an okay editor it's just that he's been a bit disruptive with the use of multiple accounts--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This sanction is out of all proportion to the disputed violations by Privatemusings, which have been poorly warned/discussed, and takes no regard of the editors otherwise excellent contribution history (mostly under his "previous" main username). LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings is restricted to one account

5) Upon such time as Privatemusings's editing privileges are restored, this editor is restricted to one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Firmer variation on some proposals listed above. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

okay, better--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This, and all the proposals like it, call on facts not in evidence: Where has it been shown that PM abused the priv. of having alternate accounts? Barring that, there is no reason to resrtirict him more than any other user. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as this has agreed prior to last block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings banned from Wikipedia for one year.

6) Privatemusings is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Privatemusings may not use any other account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mercury 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like Mercury to disclose whether or not she (or he) received the material referred to above, as it is a reasonable belief that she (or he) may be petard sharing with Durova. Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not discussing that question. Mercury 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Ok. I see. Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hell no!! Why the heck would we want that! He's an okay editor it's just that he's been a bit disruptive with the use of multiple accounts--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems excessive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support...he knew he was being disruptive, he switched accounts numerous times, without asking for a proper username change, and the illusion was we were dealing with different editors...at least at first. This was and has been a coverup.--MONGO (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per 4) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should take care with real life identities

7) When blocking editors for sockpuppetry, administrators should take care not to disclose users' real life identities unless doing so is absolutely essential.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't a workable remedy as written. A user who has created an account traceable to a real-life identity cannot claim such as a defense against sockpuppetry. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't particularly applicable in this case; the only extant real-life information came through a publicly-registered account; there would have been no way for any administrator to know that. Before anyone asks, it is not practical, nor grounded in policy, for an administrator to check this kind of thing. If I'm confronted by a lance of sockpuppets, I'm not going to name-check them, I'm going to block them. Now, if we're talking about information gleaned from private sources, then that's different, but unless I'm missing something that's not applicable to this case, and I see no reason to endorse an unrelated principle which might give the wrong impression. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mackensen: I deliberately worded as guidance, but the idea is not to provide a defence against accusations of sockpuppetry but instead a caution when administrators are called on to justify blocks. On Guy's point, there's no criticism of anyone's actions here, it's just a suggestion as to how to do things better in future. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

definitly, they shoul be desysopped if they don't--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? We already have a policy saying we respect privacy, and there's no evidence that David's addition of a username which is said to be traceable to real world identity (note: not RWI itself) was anything other than an honest mistake of the copy-and-paste variety. I have now seen what a CheckUser output looks like, it would probably be easier to make the error than to avoid it. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings should serve probation for a period of time

8) For failure to comply with the core policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and misuse of alternate accounts, Privatemusings is blocked for 6 months and then on probation afterwards*. The probation terms should include a topic-ban on all biographies of living persons (including Jonathan King and Giovanni di Stefano) due to failure to comply with this core policy. The topic-ban should have an expiry date (preferably 1 year, but it is up to Arbitrators to set this.) If he violates the terms of the probation then he will be blocked for 1 week, with blocks extended to 1 year if probation is continuously violated. His probation is to help a user (or a user who he trusts, and trusts him) with an article of their choosing (which, under no circumstances must not be an article about a living person due to Privatemusings' previous conduct on two articles which were in this topic area), not his, and use the User:Privatemusings account only.

• This was inspired by a police documentary where a criminal was given a 6-month jail term and then sentenced to community service afterwards. This is a sort of "reparative justice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He definitely should not be seeking out drama and exploiting it. Fred Bauder (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Solumeiras ^talk 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No way. No one here delivers "punishment". Blocks and the like are only imposed to prevent, rather than punish--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yea. Just so you know, If you want to change a proposal you have amde that's been there longer than about 5 mins, you should create another subheading with an extra equals sign at each side and number it 8.1). People won't hold anything against you just because they disagree--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that blocks are preventative, rather than punitive. The aim is to rehabilitate the user into Wikipedia, rather than punishing them. I apologise if I've done it wrongly, Phoenix. --Solumeiras ^talk 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per 4) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings is placed on general probation

9) Because of sockpuppetry and concerns over reckless editing of biographies of living people, Privatemusings is placed on general probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Privatemusings' probation shall automatically end.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would rather the Arb.s resolve the issue of whether or not 'reckless editing' occurred. Would you mind at least making the addition of 'three admin.s who have not previously commented' or something like that. I'm afraid I feel I would last about one post before Durova, Guy, Mercury et al. banned me for good. Privatemusings (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, copied from Wikipedia:Probation. I think this is a reasonable way to go forward given Privatemusings' assurances of good faith, and would let him edit but allow administrators to step in immediately to control disruption. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose PM did not violate WP:SOCK, now has one account, and we do not sanction over concerns but over agreed disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Censure of admins JzG, David Gerard and Mercury for failure in applying appropriate procedure

10) The above admins should be reminded that there is a process of escalating warnings to be given to an editor where there are concerns regarding violation of policy, and that following procedure is mandatory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unworkable. Especially sense I cited IAR in my extended rationale. There are some cases where warnings (many of them) are not appropriate. Mercury 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, definitly--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not block an editor, I blocked one of an editor's eight accounts. That does not require a warning. Nor does a preventive block to forestall careless editing of a sensitive biography. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting that you blocked an account with whom you were in edit conflict with, per below. I would suggest that an indef block forestalls more than just "careless" editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular to JzG

10.i) Executing a block in regard to an editor they were in dispute with, without issuing of warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular to Mercury

10.ii) Executing an indef block in relation, in part, to a concern that had already been addressed and resolved by the community and otherwise using a tariff that was out of proportion to the other concern, again without any issuing of warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Warnings were already given. Mercury 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusing subject to mentorship

11) Privatemusings subject to the involuntary mentorship of User:Mercury for a period of 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed in place of 90 ban. For the committess consideration, I am willing to take the volunteer time. Nathan 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Umm, can't help but notice that people are voting on the proposals above. Sometimes even just a bolded "support" with no commentary. That's a waste of time, the committee is unlikely to be swayed by that. It's also why the Community Excoriation Noticeboard was decommissioned, please recall. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think my take on that is that people are just using the templates to continue discussion - yes it's a little example of navel gazing, and won't be material in the long run, but I don't think it does that much harm. (mind you, neither does noting that it's a waste of time to 'vote'!) best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)