Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 18 September 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Important — please note The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case: "Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident." "Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed." "All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided." The Clerk for this case is KnightLago (talk · contribs) who will be assisted by non-recused members of the Clerk team in enforcing the above rules. The Clerks will, wherever it deems necessary, refactor and remove statements where they violate the above directions, or where they violate the general standards of decorum and Misplaced Pages policies. The Clerks will, where required for particular egregious or repetitive violations, ban participants from the case pages for an appropriate period of time. Both the refactoring of statements, and case page bans, that are implemented by the Clerks, can be appealed to the Committee. If any user requires assistance in submitting private evidence to the Arbitrators in the method requested by Committee (see the second bullet point, above), please contact a member of the Clerks or, alternatively, an Arbitrator directly. —User:KnightLago (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the exceptional nature of the case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the normal workshop format is not appropriate. This page will be used by the drafting arbitrator (Coren), or other arbitrators as required, to post redacted summaries of privately submitted evidence when appropriate and to ask questions to the participants in a format closer to that of an inquest. Please refrain from responding directly to statements made by others; this page is not appropriate for threaded discussion and such comments will be refactored. The prohibition against posting private information remains in force here. When in doubt, submit evidence to the committee directly.

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 bans

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. Russavia, 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 and this injunction.

List of editors subject to this motion

To be provided by Arbcom

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sounds like a good and necessary precaution. Offliner (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is based on, but either way, it is too broad. IF there are specific articles in question, name them (ex. web brigades), or maybe even an area like "modern Russian politics" (which is the bone of contention between Russavia, Offliner and other editors). I can fathom no reason why - for example - I should be banned from improving my latest DYK (dwór) or FA (Polish culture in WWII). Not that I can understand the reason for any topic ban... nor for targeting only some editors. I'd suggest looking into article 1RR restrictions (worked quite nicely on Volhynian massacres in a recent Polish-Ukrainian dispute) or temporary protections instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On the first part of the proposal: What's the point of this? Does anyone really think that anyone involved in this case is planning on, or will have time for, doing reverts or massive editing on any articles that are most likely be closely scrutinized by the committee? And why shouldn't I be able to continue with my completely uncontroversial content creation - finishing up the articles on Leon Feiner, Stanisław Aronson, Mirosław Iringh and Platoon 535 just to name a few I've recently started (and doing content creation is a great stress relief from all the Wiki drama that is going on) and hoped to bring to DYK status? What exactly is the rationale for instituting what look like punitive bans at this early point in the process, unless EXPLICIT Misplaced Pages rules violations can be cited?

If the Committee is really concerned about some uncalled for content editing going on while this is in progress, then I suggest that rather a list of potential "trouble" articles is created and these are all protected or put under 1RR restriction.radek (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the second part of the proposal: Why is Russavia's ban being removed on articles, other than these which have to do with this case? I see no reason for that - and please see my comments on AN/I in regard to this matter. This has been addressed over and over again and there's no reason why his/her ban should be rescinded in any way, except for him to participate in this case.radek (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This may need to be two different proposals - one for a topic ban and one for alterations to Russavia's block. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Piotrus. Come on, we even don't have any evidence as of now, and we've already got draconian sanctions it seems! What use would it be of Eastern European accounts A, B, or C, if they are not allowed any more to edit articles on EE topics? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Such bans would be temporary until the end of the case. I'm sure that any editor who participated in the mailing list in general but who refrained from taking part in the more egregious discussions or from translating them into on-wiki actions will eventually be exonerated. In the mean time, a topic ban will allow uninvolved editors a chance to repair some of the damage in peace. Thatcher 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what damage there is that "uninvolved editors" need to repair in peace?--Staberinde (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent? I find that a bit shocking (even more so that my temporary desysop - I again invite everyone to examine my log and point out to me which administrative actions I took in the past year could be seen as controversial). I ask you again: what wiki policies where broken when I wrote dwór or Polish contribution to WWII, and what damage those uninvolved editors have to repair in those articles, or in hundreds others I've edited in the past few months, uncontroversially and without any conflict or even interaction with editors who are party in this case? Also, Thatcher, I have two important questions for you: have you read the archive and do you consider yourself uninvolved in this case? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My only attempt at enforcement action recently ended in utter failure; unless the emails go back 18 months to when I did more enforcement, or unless you folks were discussing tactics on how to get me to reverse my decision (besides the extensive and tiresome personal email lobbying), then I might be involved. But I don't really care. Whether I am involved or uninvolved I am entitled to use the workshop. I have not read the archive but am extremely curious to know whether I was discussed and in what terms. And as far as "guilty until proven innocent" is concerned, you are once again dragging criminal legal matters into the administration of a web site. Arbitration is not a legal process. The goal here is the smooth running of an encyclopedia, and if they think there is sufficient evidence, based on a preliminary review of the emails, that this group of editors have negatively affected these articles by gaming 3RR and 1RR restrictions, blocks, provoking other editors, and so forth, then Arbcom can take whatever steps it wants to ensure the smooth running of the encyclopedia pending a more thorough review. Thatcher 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

""uninvolved editors"" "repair in peace" "damage"??? First, we don't know who "uninvolved editors" are - we don't even know who the person or persons who hacked private emails are but it's pretty probable that they are engaged in this area which is what motivated their illegal action. No "damage" has been shown to have been caused by anyone involved (and yes, I'm even including those of the involved parties that I've had disputes in the past in that statement) so this kind of language is completely unwarranted. "Repair in peace"? You are making some very serious implicit accusations with your tone and displaying the prejudiced assumptions you have already made.radek (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am making assumptions, and I have formed a preliminary opinion of the case, based not only on the publicly available discussion but also based on the extensive email lobbying to which I was subjected earlier this year. This preliminary opinion is unlikely to change until Arbcom releases more details about the messages, because I am not privileged to see them. If the evidence pans out as it was initially described, I think a large number of editors are going to get a well deserved boot out the door. But that is only my prejudiced opinion. Thatcher 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of private materials

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Self-explanatory. Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Self-explanatory, but impossible to monitor and impose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So it should be altered and strengthened. Something like "anyone who admits to or is found to be circulating private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved will be indefinitely banned per WP:OUTING. Editors who make on Wiki threats to reveal this public information for whatever reason will likewise be indefinitely blocked".radek (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Speculative and inflammatory comments

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Self-explanatory. Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sounds quite helpful. Such comments don't belong on Misplaced Pages, nor on any googlable public foras, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

On the use of the mailing list archive

To make things clear, the Committee did — and will continue to — examine the list of email that has been received for potential serious violations of Misplaced Pages rules. In particular, hounding, meatpuppetry and disruptively gaming the rules are all activities that are forbidden and destructive and that can (and usually are) made possible by coordination off-wiki.

In doing so, we are proceeding under a number of (rebuttable) presumptions: that the mail archive has not been fabricated, that most email within the archive have not been altered or falsified, and that completeness of that archive is unknown. Insofar as information in the emails correctly matches verifiable events on-wiki, they can be presumed to be authentic. Evidence otherwise is welcome and solicited, in particular from the participants of the mailing list.

There have been objections to the use of the archive entirely based on the allegation that it has been acquired through illegal or unethical means. It is to be noted that the archive has been received independently by a number of editors, none of whom are alleged to have stolen it, who then forwarded it to the Arbitration Committee. Claims that it has been obtained improperly by the original sender are unsubstantiated, and unverifiable by the committee. Other alternatives are equally likely (that it was transmitted willingly by a member of the list or that it was leaked accidentally then forwarded by an unknown third party for instance) and investigating the issue is neither possible, nor within the Committee's remit.

At any rate, even if one ignored the obvious fact that criminal rules of evidence do not apply to the Committee the original provenance of the email archive is entirely moot: the Committee is not bound by and exclusionary rule in the first place. Even if the allegations of the mailing list archive having been taken illegally by an outsider "hacking" were correct, they lie entirely outside the jurisdiction and reach of the Committee, and have no bearing on the propriety of using it.

— Coren  18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)