Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by uninvolved Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted

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

• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by Anthonyhcole

In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox.[1] Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda.[2] Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutralhomer

As I said on the ANI thread, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per User:Mark Arsten's question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

• I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, Newyorkbrad and Mackensen. I ask you.

• I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!

• If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.

• I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for L'Arianna. Instead, I at least brought the venerable maestro pictured on the Main page and am quite proud of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I won't opine as to whether it would be a good or bad thing to relax Gerda's restriction with respect to significant expansion of an article, but article expansion is unquestionably not article creation. In either case, Neutralhomer should not be offering to act as a proxy to circumvent anyone's restriction. Especially in an area where doing so could reignite this little war. Resolute 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC) @Smeat - Montanabw's assertion is not correct. DYK allows two types of content: New (provided it meets minimum thresholds) and expanded (provided it meets an entirely different set of thresholds). But they are not the same thing, and she's engaging in false equivalency. Resolute 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smeat75

Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page [3] "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Ruhrfisch

The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then Roger Davies added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they [sic] create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." diff. I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Mark Arsten

If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by v/r - TP at 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Ayn Rand arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

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

• TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [4]

Statement by TParis

I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:

• 17:50 8 October 2013 I JethroBT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) closes an RFC determining not to use qualifiers in front of the word "philosopher" in the lead.
• 18:04 8 October 2013 Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makes an edit request to make the change in the article per the RFC consensus
• 18:27 8 October 2013 I fulfill the edit request to enact the consensus of the RFC
• 19:08 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed the full protection per the closed RFC and enacted result

• At this point, two edit wars break out:

1. Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American: [5][6][7][8][9][10]
2. Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied: [11][12][13][14]

• 00:51 11 October 2013 I fully-protected the article due to edit warring
• 01:02 11 October 2013 I placed the article under a 1 revert rule and created an edit notice
• 12:39 11 October 2013 Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) makes an edit that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC. However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American. It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
• 14:06 11 October 2013 I bring it to Jreferee's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
• 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee declines to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the talk page, Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to this motion, upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - TP 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - TP 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jreferee: Please notify me if you do indeed make an statement concerning an action I've taken. At this point, as you've self-reverted, I believe that settles this matter. Since I believe I followed policy to the letter, I have no idea what particular action you dispute (maybe the 1RR/week rule but that's not connected to this dispute that I know of). So after your statement explaining yourself, if you do make one, this matter is wrapped up.--v/r - TP 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Jreferee's concerns

Edit wars can happen over days, not just minutes or hours. That no edit has been made in 5 hours could simply mean that an editor is currently asleep or at their place of employment and has not had a chance to see that their previous edit was reverted and revert again. This article just came off a full protection for edit warring, there is no reason to doubt that those same editors were not warring again. In addition, this article is under discretionary sanctions, which means that we treat edit wars much more harshly and strictly. The edit where you say I claimed that you consistently make these mistakes, you've taken out of context. It is in fact the motion linked on WP:AE, on the bullet starting "In March 2013, the Arbitration Committee..." and is described as the motion requiring that admins not undo Arbitration actions, in explicitly or in substance, without Arbcom's authority or community consensus. You had neither and your action undoes my full protection in substance because you've subverted it. The notification that this was an Arbitration action should've been evident when I said I'd bring it to WP:AE, but if that were not enough than you should've been aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions either by the edit notice I placed on the article 7 hours before your edit or the "This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page. Despite all of that, the article was fully protected. The giant red notice on top of the edit box told you it was fully protected. WP:PROTECT says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." If you felt that my full protection was rash, you should've come to talk to me about it. Your entire defense is a non sequitur to that.

If you don't understand that what you've done is against several policies as I've outlined in very clear detail, then perhaps this case needs to remain open.--v/r - TP 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jreferee

I am working on my statement and will post it shortly. TParis's actions need reviewing and, in fairness, I would like to have my statement on record in this discussion before it is closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my actions

Regarding my actions, the closed AN/RFC post[15] drew me to the Ayn Rand article. (I had never edited the Ayn Rand before). The RFC issue - "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead" had already been closed and addressed three days prior, with all page protection removed.[16]

At the time of my edit, the page had received full page protection with a 1 revert rule. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary or on the article talk page. I edited the article as an editor implementing WP:LEAD.

The edit I made to the lead that has been cited as raising concern up to where I reverted my edit[17] is my changing the lead from reading (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American article in the lead of the protected article. I revised the lead per WP:LEAD to read "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" text word "Russia" continuing to link to the Russian American article. I though that novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could be covered by the one word "writer" and the remainder of the lead used to characterize the forms of writing she did. I saw "Born in Russia" and "Russian-born" to mean one and the same. When I posted the "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" edit, I saw the change itself as factual, uncontroversial, and having clear consensus via the language in the lead itself. I used the language in the protected article to make the change. I did not think I was taking sides on any issue or of any issue of which I was aware and believed that my edit was consistent with the page protection. User:I JethroBT's subsequent post[18] suggested that my edit may not have contributed towards encouraging consensus-building with interested editors. On reflection, I realized that my edit subsequently gave an appearance of unfairness that could have affected consensus-building with interested editors. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this.

Regarding TParis's actions

The Russian American disagreement by four editors (two on each side) leading to the full page protection with a 1 revert rule was whether the hyphenated Russian-American should be removed from the article. Michipedian's notes that the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time and someone removed it.[19] Medeis added the Russian-American text back into the article 21:49, 8 October 2013 Ten minutes later, Yworo changed the article to remove the visible Russian-American text and move the Russian-American hidden link[20]21:58, 8 October 2013, noting "here's a better place to link Russian American." Five edits made to the article and about two days later, Michipedian maintained Yworo's edit and added the linked text Russian-American.06:10, 10 October 2013 FreeKnowledgeCreator then removed the Russian-American text but was fine with "Born and educated in Russia" and its link to the Russian American article mentioned just a few sentences later in the lead paragraph. 06:40, 10 October 2013 Michipedian then re-added the Russian-American text.12:53, 10 October 2013 Three edits made to the article and eight hours later, Yworo removed the Russian-American text.20:32, 10 October 2013

About five hours after the last of seven edits made over two days by four editors regarding the Russian-American issue, TParis change the article protection from unprotected to fully protected with a 1-revert rule so that it linked to Russian American and read "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary, the edit notice, or on the article talk page. TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed.

The above seven edits over two days by four editors is what TParis subsequently characterized as an edit war regarding specific Russian-American verbiage[21] for which fully protected the article with a 1-revert rule the only administrative recourse available. TParis has not commented on or provided any diffs of where he blocked or warned any involved editors before the full page protection with 1-revert rule. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, the four editors involved in the disagreement were Yworo, with 10 total edits to the article, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, with 5 total edits to the article (two favoring removing the hyphenated Russian-American text from the article) and Medeis with 12 total edits to the article, and Michipedian with 3 total edits to the article (two favored retaining the hyphenated Russian-American text in the article). There was no dispute over the article lead containing (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American.

After I made the edit to the article, TParis coercively indicated on my talk page that I needed to either revert my one edit regarding the specific Russian American verbiage ("Russian-born American writer and philosopher") or he would take the matter to WP:AE, and failed to provide enough information in which to make a decision.[22] TParis posts at AN, linking to [23] to claim that my one edit is evidence of consistently making questionable enforcement administrative actions.[24] TParis claims above that this post informed me that his fully protecting the article with a 1-revert rule was somehow an Arbitration action.

This AN request resulted in me looking into the matter. I ask AN to determine at least:
(1) whether these events and this AN request were the result of an overreaction by admin TParis to seven edits over two days by four editors new to the article looking to become interested editors in the article.
(2) Whether TParis overreacted when he fully protected the article with a one revert rule to protect it against any rearrangement of the lead with regard to the "Russia" term.
(3) Whether TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed to favor recent content.
(4) Whether TParis failed to sufficiently explain his full page protection/1 edit revert action to those looking to edit the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query from NE Ent

Why here instead of WP:AE?

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)

Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision#Tariqabjotu's move.

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I don't think it is acceptable at all, but I am merely applying the rules (which I explicitly disagree with) you (the arbitrators collectively) have established in the Manning case.

Here you are drawing a frankly ridiculous distinction between:

• making changes to content through protection that prohibits changes to content which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do); and
• making changes to the title through protection that prohibits changes to the title which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do).

In the manning case you (personally) are endorsing the characterisation as simply "not ideal" any administrator ignoring protection when they do not agree that the reason protection was applied has been adequately explained. Whether the edit was requested by another user is irrelevant - the person performing the action takes responsibility for that action (as has been upheld many, many times by ArbCom). Tariq has never denied knowing the page was move protected, probably because trying to move a move protected page displays a prominent warning about the protection.

If it is acceptable for one administrator to perform an action in these circumstances but not acceptable for different administrator to perform an action in the same circumstances then we might as well not have any rules of admin conduct at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RL0919

Although he has not made a statement here or otherwise commented on it, Jreferee has now self-reverted the edit, so this case may now be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at WP:AN referred to. Jreferee, please revert yourself. Risker (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, I'm not going to relitigate the Manning naming dispute case here, although there is a big difference between an admin responding to a move request through *move* protection and an admin making major content changes through *full* protection. Jreferee made major content changes to this article, editing through protection, which administrators are warned not to do without obtaining consensus; when they click "edit", the editing window is coloured instead of the usual white, and there is a notice above. The same is not true for changes to titles through move protection. So let's stick to the facts when discussing this situation: based on policy, why you think it is acceptable for Jreferee to rewrite an entire section of this article whilst it is under protection? Risker (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As Jreferee has self-reverted, I don't think we need to take this matter further. People make mistakes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 23:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Mathsci interaction ban

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

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified

Statement by Cla68

On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. After it had been there for two days, someone brought it to my attention and I filed an ArbCom enforcement request.

It appears that during his Wikibreak, Mathsci investigated and found my organization of employment and place of residence, which he then posted on his userpage hoping that I would discover it. The person in the photo is not me, but does bear a resemblance to me. Although my real name is easily discoverable on the Internet, my employment and exact residence are not, as far as I am aware. Thus, I believe it would take some dedicated effort and time to find this information. I have offered to provide documentation to ArbCom showing that I do work for that small organization and reside at that location.

Note- Mathsci has previously been warned about digging for and posting private information about other editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

Anticipating this request yesterday, which concerns a now oversighted diff of a captioned thumbnail image on the fourth version of my userpage, I sent a preliminary communication to Roger Davies. Amongst other things it disclosed details of two short google searches, each on two terms. It was accompanied by copies of two emails to arbitrators. I requested that, if he thought it appropriate, he might forward these to arbcom-l, which he kindly did. I will post a detailed response to Cla68's statement here on or before Thursday October 10th. Sorry about the delay and thanks in advance for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last statement I made to the arbitration committee, I mentioned that my main priority was to make an apology to Cla68 on this page; and that I expected a sanction. On Thursday I received a response from WTT asking about what kind of sanction I expected; and then almost at the same time a response from Roger Davies encouraging an apology by email. Almost immediately after Roger's email, I got an unexpected phone call telling me terrible news about a friend. That entirely changed any plans I had and occupied me for the rest of Thursday and the whole of Friday. Even while Roger was posting his motion, I received a long phone call from London about this; and then another from others In London while trying to compose this message. Regardless of the motion and these terrible events, some form of apology to Cla68 will happen. Even if Roger has changed his mind about an email apology, I probably will post a modified version of the message I sent to arbcom. I hope my statements about my temporary unavailability were not misread. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a slightly edited copy of the message sent to the arbitration committee.

Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will in addition send a private apology to Cla68 further to the statement above, as Roger had suggested. A copy will probably be sent to arbcom. I have witnessed supposed disputes in the past on WP which have evaporated. That certainly applied in the case of Elonka, whom I later met with her father here in Aix-en-Provence. My computer account in France will terminate at the end of the year, after which I will be at a so-far unknown location. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a message to Cla68, with a copy to Roger, which he may distribute to other arbitrators if he wishes. Even if this was sparked off by one single edit, sadly I have to agree with Carcharoth, Timotheus Canens and Newyorkbrad. In my email apology to Cla68, I wrote that I feel burnt out, physically and mentally. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

While superficially straightforward, this case raises some nasty tangles. I have no interest in what was on Mathsci's user page, and am happy for Arbcom to rule on whether it was (probably) an attack. However, if that ruling is made, I ask that Arbcom address whether off-Wikiedia provocation has occurred, and, if so, whether its extent should be regarded as a mitigating circumstance.

According to statements made by Demiurge1000 at AE (permalink), it is very likely that Cla68 has been participating in off-Wikipedia harassment of Mathsci for an extended period. Unfortunately, as well being one of Wikipedia's highly talented editors, Mathsci is also highly trollable. Those who have been attacking Mathsci literally for years at the bad site know his weakness—indeed, it is because he keeps responding that they maintain their interest.

I support the principle that Wikipedians should generally ignore off-site behavior, so X saying something bad about Y off-site does not excuse Y responding badly on Wikipedia. However, it would be particularly unhelpful for this case to reward the prolonged attacks at the bad site when they finally provoke a bad response. If Arbcom rules that an attack has occured, rather than a project ban, a final final warning should be issued—much like the undertaking that I think was eventually wrung from Cla68 regarding outing a certain editor unrelated to this case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I understand that this involves non-public identifying information, but at the Enforcement request, I saw a statement that the edits were suppressed, as potentially outing. I think the Committee settled the interpretation of WP:OUTING in the TimidGuy Ban Appeal, where the intent was more judged rather then the accuracy of the outing information. Even if Mathsci has gotten the information wrong, the fact that he posted this information in an attempt to intimidate another editor, no matter what conflicts they've had before, requires a most strenuous response. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Though the irony in this request is mind boggling, mathsci's actions are disappointing. The posted information is not really outing - since no independent user could have specifically connected it to cla68 - but it certainly does look like harassment with its "I know where you are" message. That is definitely inappropriate and I can see that it is going to be hard to get over that. But, it is also important to recognize that Mathsci is a valuable editor on Wikipedia who, to some extent, is responsible for the fact that our R&I articles are reasonably balanced and neutral. Doing a great balancing job in a contentious area that is rife with SPAs and POV pushers comes with a load of stress, all of which has been obvious and very visible in the case of Mathsci and now this stress is manifesting itself in a bad way. Along the lines of Johnuniq above, I hope mathsci can present arbs with a reasonable explanation for what caused him to use such an obvious form of harassment and I hope arbs can work their way through this mess in a way that doesn't lose us one of our more committed editors. There are, in this world, trees and there are forests - we should try not to lose sight of the latter.--regentspark (comment) 13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Like RegentsPark, I find Mathsci's actions very disappointing, and note that they require some strong sanction being placed on him, however, I do not believe that an indef ban would be, overall, beneficial to the project of building an unbiased encyclopedia. I urge the committee to find another sanction, as harsh as deemed necessary, which will allow us to retain Mathsci's considerable contributions. I believe that a significant mitigating factor here is the extended campaign of harassment that has been conducted against Mathsci for years by multiple editors, some now banned and some still editing, which included on several occasions disclosing Mathsci's own place of residence. That Mathsci has not been able to follow the advice of others to ignore the attacks against him is regrettable, but understandable: such advice is much easier to give then it is to follow, as any editor who has ever been harassed or attacked by another can attest to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree with Beyond My Ken about imposing an indefinite ban being problematic here. I would suggest doing now what was done with Cla68 after he was indefinitely banned. In that case there were discussions between him and ArbCom to make sure that after being unblocked, Cla68 would stick to certain rules to make sure we would not see the same problems again. Similar discussions can be conducted with Mathsci right now. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re R&I)

In cases such as Betacommand 3 (regarding user:Δ) and Rich Farmbrough much was made of the need to have bright line rules, stepping beyond which would result in sanction. It seems to me that Mathsci has been given such bright-line rules, has been cautioned many times about the need to observe them, and explicitly warned that breaching them would lead to a ban.

Iff mathsci has broken those rules, then I can see no justification for not following the course of action (i.e. banning him) that he was warned would occur.

It will be a shame to lose a good content contributor, but no one editor can be bigger than the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie-: The block will be to protect cla68 and other users of the project from harassment in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

What is the purpose of the six month block, considering blocks are not punitive? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statement by Mathsci, but at the moment my view is as follows: this seems to be plain harassment of another long-term contributor, for which I am minded to consider an appropriate sanction on Mathsci – up to and including a project ban. Veiled harassment of this nature is utterly unacceptable. AGK [•] 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Both Cla68 and Mathsci have submitted e-mails on this matter, but am awaiting an on-wiki statement from Mathsci (and responses to various e-mails from both editors) before proceeding further with this. Statements from other editors are not likely to help; if made they should be kept brief. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirming that AGK and Carcharoth have correctly described the situation, which the Committee is reviewing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Concurring with the comments of my colleagues. Also noting that the Arbitration Committee has at this time declined Cla68's offer to share his personal non-public data. As both editors have submitted email statements and/or comments, and the matter does involve personal non-public information, I am hesitant to have a lot of public discussion on the exact nature of the content involved; non-party comment should limit itself to principles rather than the material that has been identified. Risker (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I'm concerned, Mathsci's behaviour was reprehensible, and his side of the story has done nothing to convince me otherwise. I'm still awaiting further responses to emails before I make a final decision, but concur with my colleagues that statements from other parties should be kept brief and regarding the principles rather than the material. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, to be entirely honest, Sir Fozzie, this is not a clear case of outing; Mathsci, basically, put a pic on his userpage linking to an organisation and to a small community. As it turns out, Cla lives in that community and works for that organisation, although Mathsci never linked those elements to him (basically, Cla was outed by his own public reaction – which was something I wanted to avoid and so I suppressed the diff on Mathsci's userpage containing the image and the caption). So, as I said, this is not really a case of outing, but rather of harassment ("I know where you live and who you work for") and no amount of off-wiki harassment should ever justify such an action. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores. That said, I'm still waiting for Mathsci's reply before deciding what to do. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A non-involved admin could have blocked Mathsci for this incident, and would have been supported. However, given the circumstances and Mathsci's history, it is appropriate it has come to ArbCom to deal with. I think by now it is clear that if any user sleuths personal information on another user, and then uses that information in a private vendetta to harass, silence or intimidate the other user, they will be removed from the Wikipedia community, and will need to convince either the community or ArbCom that they can be trusted before being allowed back in. That the user doing the harassment is already under formal trust not to mention the other user on Wikipedia, let alone post something that indicates: I know where you live, and I know who your employers are, then we are dealing with a serious issue. The Committee are looking into the reason why Mathsci did what he did (was he provoked by Cla68 for example); however, I do believe Mathsci has been given guidance in the past not to respond to provocation, and especially not to take matters into his own hands. I don't see that ArbCom have any room for manoeuvre here; this is an indef ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Mathsci)

For there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

Enacted - Rschen7754 08:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. The facts are not in dispute. If consensus is that an initial six months is too lenient, please copy edit accordingly,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Minor c/e "referring to" > "relating to".  Roger Davies ^talk 07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. I've not seen anything that persuades me that this should be anything other than an indefinite site ban, indeed off-wiki communication has strengthened my resolve. My current preference is an initial 12 months restriction, but I will support 6. Worm^TT(talk) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Roger. The facts are not in dispute. A lot more could be said, but at this stage it seems it would be best (for his own good as well as that of others) if Mathsci took an enforced break from this Wikimedia project. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. With the same thinking as in the comment I made when this request was originally filed. AGK [•] 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Unfortunately necessary. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree with Roger on the substance of the matter, but would prefer an initial 12-month term. Courcelles 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Carcharoth and T. Canens. Made a trivial copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Comments

---