Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Opened on 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Privatemusings[edit]

I have found it hard to draft a clear statement because I still find it hard to understand what specific activity has been alleged. In general terms, I understand that many people have found me to be a useless disruptive troll. This is wrong in every sense. I have been a good faith user for a long-ish time, and wish to be unblocked.

I'm unsure as to cultural norms on this point, but would presume that certainly Fred, and I would hope Jpgordon, and Morven who have all issued judgments in this matter would recuse themselves from this process.

The following represent the administrative discussion I am aware of on this matter to date, latest first;

A very vague estimate would be 20 editors coming out clearly in favour of an indef. block, and perhaps 17 or so suggesting alternate options, or outright opposing. The statement that it has consensus is certainly not clear cut, nor in my opinion accurate.

Assertions
  • I was blocked without any prior discussion from the blocking admin
  • 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.
  • This, my third indefinite block in quick succession, immediately overturned a consensus formed on AN/I
  • At no stage have any diff.s been provided that warrant an indefinite block
  • The sole diffs provided to date (with thanks to Durova) - [1] [2] [3] are not disruptive, and are no grounds for a block.
  • This is a very unpleasant, avoidable experience, and I feel bullied, and feel that some editors have acted inappropriately.
  • This block is punitive
  • I should be unblocked
Further assertions
  • JzG has acted unethically in sharing privately submitted personal information when expressly asked not to
  • David Gerard has acted irresponsibly in publishing that information on the wiki
  • The discussion of references to usually reliable sources has been problematic at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano
  • My contributions to that discussion have been in good faith, and intended to progress the article work
  • 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.

Please please please treat me with respect and courtesy during this process, which I hope is how I have behaved throughout.

Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mercury[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked PM for using this alternate account not in line with our "Good hand, bad hand" accounts, and I did not find it to be a legitimate use of alternate accounts. This part of the sock policy referencing good hand bad hand accounts would appear to preclude usage of an alternate account for the purposes of disruption on on site drama. That is to say, the abandonment of a previous good account, in favor of using this account soly for disruption, does not legitimize its use.

In addition to this, I've found PM to be causing disruption around a highly sensitive biography of living persons article where he had been warned already. Reliable sourcing in these areas are non negotiable. This in connection with past disruption has already caused a net loss to the project. I have indef blocked the account to prevent disruption. I have since unblocked the account to allow PM to post this request.

There is no consensus for unblocking at the moment. I would ask the committee to reject this case as already handled, and in that case, I will reapply the block. However, if it takes arbitration to show abusive editors to the door, then I urge the committee to accept.

Statement by Fred Bauder[edit]

My involvement comes from my attempts to deal with the problems presented by Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Privatemusing's repeated creations of versions of this article, both in his own user space and in the article itself, including links on the talk page to his versions, has led, in my opinion, to the need to delete the article and its talk page with their histories in order to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There are many outstanding questions regarding what should be in this article. I am not at all sure that my approach is correct, but Privatemusing actions have been distinctly unhelpful over an extended period of time. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Decorum[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

3) 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 prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people[edit]

4) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Privatemusings and sockpuppetry[edit]

1.1) The evidence shows that Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has operated a total of eight accounts ([4]), well outside of policy and established norms.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings and BLP[edit]

2) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has edited biographies of living persons inappropriately ([5]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Privatemusings limited to one account[edit]

1) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is limited to using one and only one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings restricted[edit]

2) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Should he edit such an article, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 1 at 12:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings banned for 90 days[edit]

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

Passed 6 to 2 at 12:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings restriction lifted[edit]

4) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)' Remedy 2 ("Privatemusings restricted") is lifted.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings placed under mentorship[edit]

5) Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1.1) Should Privatemusings edit a BLP article he will receive one warning and a one week block; if he resumes editing a BLP article then he will be indefinitely blocked. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 at 12:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of one-account limitation[edit]

2) After Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) selects a single account for editing, his other accounts, including any newly discovered accounts, are to be blocked (or remain blocked) indefinitely, with care taken to ensure that the block of his real-world-identity-associated account is not performed in a fashion readily traceable to this matter.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

1. Blocked for 89 days for 90 days ban, less time served on case closing = 89. Nathan 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2. 21:57, December 2, 2007, Mercury (Talk | contribs) blocked #711675 (expires 21:57, December 3, 2007, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Privatemusings". The reason given for Privatemusings's block is: "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings".)

Mentoring notices[edit]

Under the terms of the mentoring provision here: #Privatemusings placed under mentorship which sets up a 3 month mentoring period with mentors Durova, Jayvdb and Lar, and the provisions of the mentoring process mutually agreed to, there has been a reset in the mentoring timeline due to this activity: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting review of User:Moulton's block (permlink). This is the sort of activity that, broadly construed, is what ArbCom was concerned about. Privatemusings's 3 month mentoring period now will run to 10 December unless there are further issues.

For Durova, Jayvdb, and Lar,