Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

Pre-case statements from un- or semi-involved users

Statement by Guy

Privatemusings is the third account of this user to make significant edits, other accounts also exist. The account privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally registered to engage in contentious policy debate to separate that form the main account, Purples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, since the (then) main account was also used in contentious areas and did not in any case have a reputation that would be damaged by participation. A significant number of people expressed the view that this is not a valid use of an alternate account.

As I understand it CheckUser indicates that Why oh why not? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nowthennowthenurrgeurrgeurrg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Littlevixensharpears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Thepmaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also the same user.

Under all the various usernames, Privatemusings has shown consistent interest in drama. Edits to Essjay controversy and AACS enryption key controversy both focus on Wikipedia drama taken to mainspace.

The various accounts edit overlapping subject areas. For example, Purples edited Jonathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Privatemusings edited Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), King's lawyer. See [1] for one of Purples' edits to Jonathan King.

Giovanni di Stefano is a highly sensitive article. Privatemusings made highly insensitive edits to this article.

What should we do about people who adopt tones of sweet reason to cover querulousness? Who assume bad faith in others while accusing others of failing to assume good faith in them? Who deliberately flaunt conventions in an apparent desire to court or prolong controversy? There are extraordinarily abrasive characters on Wikipedia. We can work with them up to a point if they are of self-evident benefit to the project. It is much harder to understand why we put up with disruption from editors whose history is less than stellar, particularly since even the very long-term difficult editors are in a state of more or less constant friction. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by WAS 4.250

I think this boils down to the fact that for a single edit-able space, it is necessary for the contributors to act as if the opinions of others matters. If you do not act like that, then you have to be shown the door. I tried with both Jon Awbrey and Privatemusing to convince them to act like other opinions mattered and in both cases, I believe the response was to insist that their right-ness mattered more. It is unworkable to allow people to edit a single edit-able space who do not act as if the opinions of others matters enough to cause them to self-restrain their own edits.WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privatemusings&oldid=172419903

Statement by Alecmconroy

As I've said at ANI-- there are a few things I in PM's defense, but those few things aren't sufficient to convince anyone that PM doesn't still need some help in learning to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

In PM's defense:

• I don't think he's ever bad-faith abused sock puppets. When he created the PM account, he immediately identified it as a sockpuppet. He was quick to share his other accounts with any admin who asked. This is not the behavior of an abusive sock-puppeteer, it's the behavior of someone trying to comply with our rules as he understood them. Perhaps he didn't succeed and he crossed a line, but it does look to me like he tried very hard to comply.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Enough. This case is unnecessary and should be summarily dismissed.

It is time we stopped protecting people with process and form-filling. The community should know what to do: zero tolerance for anyone mucking about with BLPs. That we protect the subjects of such articles, and indeed good sensitive editors who painstakingly work on them, is more important than that we protect disruptive editors who are here to push agendas, or, as here, simply enjoy wikidrama. In such cases, after due warning from uninvolved parties, an administrator should simply issue an indefinite block. Goodnight.--Doc^g 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I've been an uninvolved observer of this situation, but I think the Arbitration committee should hear it to determine two issues. Firstly, was it acceptable for Privatemusings to be blocked for sockpuppetry on 18 November after a block for the same reason was overturned on 16 November, absent any evidence that he had engaged in sockpuppetry on the two days he was unblocked? Secondly, is Privatemusings' attraction to highly controversial situations a deliberate attempt to cause drama and trouble, for example by provoking bold actions by administrators that are subsequently reversed? (That has, after all, been the effect). Useful answers could be rendered on those two issues which would be helpful in other cases. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Relata Refero

1. If PM was blocked for violation of WP:SOCK after he agreed to abide by a more restrictive interpretation of GHBH - and one that is very far from achieving consensus - than was in operation at the time of his creating alternate accounts, than that is patently absurd.
2. If PM was blocked for "aggressively editing" an article even when he "freely admitted he know little or nothing of the basis for the disputes", than that's a somewhat original reason to support a block.
3. If PM was blocked for discussing on an article talkpage what precise reasons we have for excluding apparently reliable sources - "Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it" - it implies that we are now restricting the editing of certain articles to experts; there has been no claim made that PM has either a COI or a particular POV concerning the subject of this article, about whom he is as well-informed as the rest of us. Naturally, if this is an WP:OFFICE matter, than the normal privileges do not apply. However, this article is not listed on the WP:OFFICE page as being under scrutiny.
4. Have we become, as suggested by someone on the Administrator's Noticeboard, a place so finished/mature/stodgy that we are in danger of confusing an idealistic devotion to fixing things with a disruptive tendency to create trouble? Is PM incapable of improving the encylopaedia, and is, in fact, his effort completely disruptive, or is he merely an annoyance because he insists, politely, things be explained? Or is he, as some of us seem to think, playing a complex game to confuse us into biting our own tails? (I suspect this last point is why most people are interested, though I find it less compelling or interesting than the first three.)
5. I enjoy a bit of constructive anarchy as much as the next man, but the point of "process and form-filling" is to protect those without power from the occasional ineptitude of those with power. If this is one of those cases, I'm all for "process and form-filling".

Given these facts, I would be surprised if ArbCom did not choose to take this up. Relata refero (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to David Gerard: If PM seemed to think that he had a right to have multiple accounts and to not reveal publicly the links between his accounts, as long as he did not use those accounts to game consensus or evade scrutiny, that is because that was specifically considered legitimate in WP:SOCK, and still appears to be the consensus version of that policy, if with one or two minor changes to attempt to reduce wikidrama. I don't see why anyone is particularly outraged by that, and not by the first three of the points I make above. It seems more than obvious which of the two situations is problematic for the project. Relata refero (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

I concur with the statement by User:Relata refero. The thread which runs through this editor's so-called "disruption" is not a belief in creating drama, but a belief in adhering to one of our guiding principles, that Wikipedia is not censored. This is a belief I strongly share; I also edited at the two articles User:JzG mentions, Essjay controversy and AACS encryption key controversy, when those were current events, and I am certain via a slightly different random walk I'd be exactly where Privatemusings is now; I am tempted even to carry his cross.

Accusations of "disruption" have been made, and I have repeatedly requested diffs[2] [3] which might show this disruption exists, and they have not been forthcoming. Is the word "disruption" merely a cipher that can be trotted out to justify blocks without evidence? Privatemusings is disruptive only in the way Caesar was ambitious: he's some vague threat to the community which just had to be taken care of, don't worry your pretty little plebeian heads about it.

Privatemusings has worked tirelessly for months to help craft a policy for when links containing external harassment, so-called WP:PROBLEMLINKS, are appropriate in our encyclopedia. The creation of such policy was called for by you, the WP:Arbitration Committee, in a recent case. Of course, when he then went forth and tried to apply the principles the community has tried to develop there to actual articles, he was quickly labeled a troll. The lack of "consensus" to lift this block seems in part due to all the bad blood left over from the attack sites ArbCom being poured upon this editor's head. Furthermore, Privatemusing made clear at WT:PROBLEMLINKS that he created this account to avoid this bad blood staining his other account, and despite JzG's statement that No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, the timing of this block, mere hours after he agreed to give up using any other account, seems to suggest the wisdom of his original course of action.

To pretend that his verifiable, sourced edits to the biography of a certain lawyer violated WP:BLP is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, and our readers rely on us to provide reliably sourced, verifiable information. If we need to create a WP:Biography of living lawyers policy so that our readers and editors may be aware that the articles of lawyers are some special exception to our normal rules, so be it, but the community should not be punishing Privatemusings under such a non-existent policy by standing WP:BLP on its head. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:28, 20 November 2007

Statement by David Gerard

Privatemusings feels his private information, and his name, was revealed. This appears to be because he was sockpuppeting furiously and one of the sockpuppets had a variant on what he claims is his real name. I'm frankly baffled someone could do this and then blame others when the link between the accounts is revealed. Not to mention that he'd promised to keep to one account and then started using others. What baffles me further is that he sincerely believes running multiple accounts, and lying about them, is behaviour he has a right to on Wikipedia. Somehow all this was done in good faith, of some sort. Good luck sorting it out - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add: I was only concerned with the use of multiple accounts for drama. I have not looked into PM's editing career itself. I have no problem with PM having only one account and sticking to it - but the edits will I expect be a matter for the AC to consider - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jreferee

(I recognized that my statement is after the decision to accept the matter.) My interactions with Privatemusings are recent and came on the talk page for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. My impression is that Privatemusings flies in the gray area between sock puppet and appropriate alternate account, seemingly to test policy boundaries to see how others respond (as opposed to the purpose of improving policy). Privatemusings seems to seek out interactions with the more experienced Wikipedians, the effect of which captures their time away from other matters. The actions taken against Privatemusings may have been too heavy handed, but non action would seem to be too light of hand. I revised Wikipedia:Sock puppetry about a week ago per talk page discussion to include Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts in hopes of addressing such situations. In response, Privatemusings posted these questions and I posted these answers and this answer. I do not think admins and others have been effective at dealing with the many questions raised around Privatemusings actions and ArbCom review of the situation would be most welcome. -- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from (uninvolved) Snickersnee

Hello, I hope I'm putting this in the right spot. I have just looked at this case, and am experiencing a failure to understand. To sum up my obviously flawed analysis:

PM bad because: SOCK

• Nothing shown here says it's bad to have a sock, not even that dubious "nutshell" cited by JzG. PM appears to have been using socks precisely within the intent of the stated exceptions, violating no policy.
• Also, this sock had already outed itself.

PM bad because: BADHAND

• Only if you are certain that the weak examples of "disruption" are somehow sufficient to ignore WP:AGF. I didn't follow every link - can someone point me to one significant example that doesn't torture the definition?
• If you read the referred policy re. "bad hands", it pretty much requires you to assume bad faith and accuse the sockholder of being a troll. PM conceded that he was using socks to avoid the inevitable stink of heated issues following him home, which is also his defense.

SOCK good because: contentious articles taint user interactions.

• Everyone seems to agree on this one, yet you continue to have this discussion.

And even if all the above is mistaken, others have already given evidence that the community had considered these issues and reached an agreement with PM, after which this was the only active account. So whatever you're sanctioning now, I don't see how any version of sock policy can legitimately apply. At the end of his evidence, which is all about socks, Guy says the final ban wasn't about socks at all but about "poorly sourced and problematic edits". So why throw up a sockscreen? Aren't you really accusing him of something resembling vandalism, or malicious trolling? I haven't seen evidence of that. Certainly none so outrageous that it justified overriding both consensus and good faith, and then twisting together two separate policies as a remedy to a problem that didn't exist anymore, if it ever had. How come I see AGF used as a club and a shield, but almost never a mirror?

I haven't read previous case material, and shouldn't need to - if you can't explain it here, you can't do it anywhere. The first person (other than PM) that can provide ONE rationale which reconciles ALL the points above gets a cookie. You cannot use the terms "drama" or "disruptive" unless you also point to an example and the applicable policy. Anyone unable to do so should go to bed without dinner. Alone.

Additionally: no one here denies PM's claim that JzG/Guy violated the trust of an EXPRESSLY PRIVATE (unlike ^{GIANO v DUROVA}) email from PM, involving some now judging this case (just like ^{GIANO v DUROVA}). So far, there seems to be no question of any rebuke to JzG for doing this, even though I see the same cast of arbitrators (as in ^{GIANO v DUROVA}. Does stare decisis have a wikified policy analogue, or not? If the same principles apply, shouldn't Guy's actions also be subject to this arbitration, as with Giano? If Guy disclosed explicitly private personal correspondence to share evidence which he himself has now concluded is NOT relevant to a poorly justified final block, how is this more ethical than Giano disclosing arguably implicitly private correspondence, sent to a mailing list, which was entirely relevant to the mistaken blocking of an innocent person?

Perhaps arbitrators have not had sufficient time to consider these questions. Please consider this as a respectful request that they do so, and provide some explanation of their decision. Thank you. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Privatemusings is now limited to one, single account to edit Wikipedia, and must obtain the Arbitration Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Furthermore, Privatemusings is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely: he is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Details of the enforcement regarding these Remedies is detailed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned?

On the proposed decision page, a proposal to ban for 90 days got six votes supporting it, but wasn't included in the final decision. Is there a reason why? ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 15:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see this. I'm pretty sure that's the final decision area. Icestorm815 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It originally was not included in the final decision, by accident, but is now. Cbrown1023 talk 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I came accross this case's closing on WP:AN, and decided to give it a quick check. The notice of it on AN didn't mention a ban, so I was a little curious. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [4] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Original case located here.

I propose

Repeal

Privatemusings banned for 90 days

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

Impose

Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints Mercury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as mentor in this case.

Thanks for consideration. M-ercury at 00:40, January 14, 2008

I have a general familiarity with the Privatemusings case, and personally would probably have supported a lesser remedy than the committee adopted in the case a couple of months ago. However, I don't believe there is sentiment from the committee as a whole to make any changes to the remedies at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for archiving purposes. Daniel (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by User:Lawrence Cohen

Privatemusings is prohibited from working on WP:BLP articles. However, is there any intended prohibition on his removing obvious vandalism or BLP violations from those articles, if found? At User talk:Privatemusings#Probation violation the question has come up whether reverting this edit as vandalism and/or a BLP violation on Heather Mills is allowed, or this edit on Jonathan King. Lawrence § t/e 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted by Guy for review to AE, as well, after this posting by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Privatemusings. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Last question for the arbs from Lawrence

Is it safe to assume that in any such topical editing ban, that unless you guys specifically say, "Even if you want to revert vandalism or a BLP violation, don't..." that other users are safe to make such positive edits? Lawrence § t/e 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to try to extract any rules from this. As Sam said, "I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there ..." That doesn't mean that common sense shouldn't be applied, but it also doesn't mean that boundary-testing is welcome. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to try to push things to risk a pointless ban, no. I was just curious about their thinking, since it's bound to come up again with someone else. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

The account that made the complaint about PrivateMusings — Archfailure (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) — is one with almost no edits. No one sensible is likely to argue that PM shouldn't revert vandalism and serious BLP violations. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG has indef banned Archfailure. Lawrence § t/e 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

As reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of WP:3RR I suggest that reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of PrivateMusings BLP article parole. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Falls under the heading of "admins are expected to use judgment, even in enforcing ArbComm sanctions. No admin using sound judgment would do anything about reverting that. Not usre this is worth the Arbitrator's time. GRBerry 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If administrators interpret this remedy as precluding the edits that are being reported, then I will move to vacate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Archfailure's attempt to get action against Privatemusings is distinctly tendentious. I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there, but it would be madness to consider it blockable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Even Archfailure says that it was a good revert. Clearly, no admin or Committee action is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe we have a consensus here and that a Clerk can go ahead and archive this section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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

• Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified by e-mail)

Statement by Avruch

I would like the Committee to please reconsider the indefinite restriction placed upon Privatemusings that prevents editing to any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person." I request that this restriction be commuted to an indefinite or time-limited parole, including: allowing blocks in line with the remedy based on edits reasonably construed as a violation of the BLP policy and restriction to 1RR for all non-vandalism edits on BLP articles.

Privatemusings, returned from his 90 day ban, has edited reasonably and participated as a member of the community in a number of policy related areas. His contributions have shown a fully improved understanding of and adherence to Wikipedia policies and norms, and Wikipedia has benefited from his presence. He has not incurred any additional blocks or other restrictions since returning from his ban, and many editors expressed during his ban and upon its expiration that his insight and participation was valuable both on-wiki and on the Wikback forum. I've even seen grudging praise about his presence on Wikipedia Review.

The link to evidence presented against Privatemusings that is related to the BLP policy is here. While the links to the di Stefano article edits are admin-only, the description does not lead me to believe that they are egregious violations of BLP policy. It is clear to me and many others that the atmosphere of the di Stefano article is particularly strained and contentious, but PM and others should not be penalized permanently for inartful attempts to edit an article whose history is unclear to newcomers. Edits to the King article are admittedly more serious, and display a regrettable lapse in judgment. However, it seems unlikely to me that such behavior will be repeated and I believe the Committee should give Privatemusings the opportunity to reform and eventually transition to an unrestricted status should his conduct remain exemplary. Avruch ^T 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings

Yes please! I'd love an unencumbered account! I'll happily engage with any process any of you recommend; anyone have any questions, for example? I could answer some on a subpage? or expand answers to points you feel it would be good to address? - would anyone like to chat on IRC or somewhere? - let me know. I should also note that ides like a '1RR' on biographies of living people are fine with me, and in many ways are good practice, as well as reassuring anyone worried that I might leap into disruptive editing. How's about a six month '1RR'? I'm also open to any other ideas which may be floating around.

I think my case was a little unusual, and I also wonder if there's any appetite to look at the decision overall, and specifically some of the principles involved (well actually, mainly this one) - which I feel may not have been applied equitably across the board. I'll explain further if any find it relevant.

Regardless of the outcome of this request, I've got a couple of quick questions that are hopefully easy to resolve as well;

• A link was provided at the end of my biography editing restriction and I wanted to clarify the intention of that. I'm not sure which aspects of my editing the arb.s which to define as inappropriate (one article, two, or just a general sort of thing). In particular it would be very helpful to me to have a concrete response to my posts like this one and this one.
• If this is too soon, how long d'ya think represents good timing? I'm happy to wait as long as you like, but I'm not completely sure what will change in the interim, so would hope you might consider this now.

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Too soon for a change. Give it some more time, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Privatemusings has improved his behaviour considerably since his return and if he maintains this attitude then I will definitely be prepared to remove the remaining restrictions - but we need slightly longer to show it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Too soon. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Give it another couple months and if behavior is still good I will give my unqualified support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would support modification of the remedy, but defer to my colleagues who believe that the passage of some additional time would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to Clerk: I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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

• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Privatemusings

The committee indicated previously that after a little while they might lift my indefinite restrictions in editing BLPs - is now a good time? I'd like to edit unencumbered.

Any help in properly formatting this request is appreciated, and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have! - In particular I should note that I have reverted some BLP vandalism whilst under this restriction (which you've discussed previously as being acceptable, I think) - and lately I've unintentionally and accidentally made a couple of very small edits to biographies (one of which inspired me to make this request - and see contrib.s for all the info...)

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the commentators below for their kind words, and faith - and the imp in me can't help but note that this clarification has now taken longer to deliberate than the original case! This being a wiki - I'm going to 'be bold', and adopt the following plan from here on out;

As well as continuing to remove vandalism from biographies, I'm now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.

I totally see the merit in FT's proposal below, and I will continue to seek wiki-advice from the many friends I've made around here - ironically, largely since sailing into choppy waters. I'm not absolutely sold on the merits of a formal 'mentor / mentoree' label, but am happy to give it a go, and will ask around a bit.

Once again, thanks to all below! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Update! - I'm back to not editing BLPs following some discussion on this page's talk page, and my own. I would like the restriction lifted if possible... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

This might be moot, but I would urge that ArbCom approach this case with due consideration and good thought. This is a complex and tricky case in which various factors need to be considered, and, as FT2 notes, BLP could one day be the bane of Wikimedia. I urge caution, but I also urge that we really look at Privatemusing's growth as an editor. I believe he has changed and flourished as an editor and Wikipedian since his vices were placed, and I would like to pledge my personal, humble support for him and the removing of his BLP-related chains. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Similarily to Anonymous Dissident above, I wish to note my full support for removing these restrictions. My interaction with Privatemusings on biographies of living persons issues in recent months have been extremely positive, and his attitude is (in my opinion) compatable with the current policy and the current environment. If you need to consider some form of monitoring or similar for a couple of months just to make sure there's been no reoccurance of any problems, I'd be happy to assist and I'm sure others would too. I believe the remedy is no longer needed and is detrimental to allow it to continue. Regards, Daniel (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

I say go for it. Like Daniel above me, my interactions with PM have likewise been good, and he shows a desire to better Wikimedia. It's not like you can't reinstate the restrictions anyway, but especially given the recent special BLP decision, it seems like it takes much of the hardship away from removing these restrictions (as any uninvolved admin could reapply them). PM of course would have to keep that in mind, but personally it's something I'd like to see. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

Per my last request on this page for the same purpose, I still believe that the remedies on PM can be safely removed. Swatjester correctly points out that, following the close of the Footnotes case, any admin can reapply the same remedy at need. I think, however, that there is no higher risk with Privatemusings in this area than with any other editor. If the Committee doesn't believe that the restriction should be lifted now, even given the Footnotes case, perhaps you could consider putting a fixed time limit on this remedy as an alternative. Avruch^T * ^ER 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Giggy

I say go for it. I'm sure PM will be watched, closely, regardless. giggy _(:O) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

I would like to second the requests for the Committee to set an actual timescale. Open-ended sanctions help no-one, and "a little more time" is too vague to be helpful. PM said previously he had been told "after a little while". I fear that if the committee don't set a timescale, some people will start to say PM is returning to this issue too often, but to say that would be unfair if the committee had failed to set a timescale. I realise that setting a timescale can lead people to just keep quiet until the time period is up, but if that is the case then an undefined period can be used first (to see how things go initially), followed by a defined period (an indication that things are going in the right direction), followed by (if deemed appropriate) full lifting of the sanctions or restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shalom

Add my voice to the chorus calling for Privatemusings to be freed from his constraints. From recent discussions on his podcast (WP:NTWW) and at WT:OPTOUT, he clearly understands some of the issues involving BLP, and is clearly willing to follow his own principles. If this turns out to be wrong, we can always send it back here, but I'm more than willing to let it fly and see how it goes. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

So, given the votes below, should a timetable be set, or how should we as a community approach it? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The underlying concerns over judgement and what might be generally called "clue" in contentious areas persist.

Privatemusings has made quite some improvement in this area, and all signs says he aims to do so more, but for me this is a blocker. BLP are our most sensitive articles. They above all should not be the experimental ground where PM explores whether he yet understands how to handle himself and his approaches/ideas. That mostly doesn't change, whether his stance may be more towards privacy, or more towards disclosure on BLPs, since done poorly, both can (and do) create a problem (or add fuel/oxygen to one) where none existed before. I'd as soon, for his own benefit, protection, and learning, as well as for the wiki, that Privatemusings stayed off BLPs a considerable while longer, until he shows consistently a little more of what might be termed gravitas or careful judgement beforehand (for lack of a better word), in his judgement when, whether, and in what style and manner of posting, to dive into contentious issues (which BLPs as a class can be).

The intention is good - but good intentions that lacked that judgement got him into problems last time. I've been in dialog with him enough to form a view and as he'd acknowledge, we have covered areas like this a few times, I'm fine helping him on the way. A considerable while longer, probably, and a fairly solid judgement track record when he joins any contentious topics - and said with the express aim of him being a better editor and avoiding a repeat while he's still very much figuring this aspect out, rather than any kind of punitive or disapproving sentiment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Update - regarding a duration. Nobody can tell what is needed. But I agree some path, or measure, would be good to give. I would like to go directly to the point here. I'd advise Privatemusings to seek a mentor, someone who does gravitas, measuredness and "clue" well, and when tempted to post on some topical matter or high profile issue or dispute generally - ask them by email before diving in, for feedback on the proposed post. In brief, I want to see actual consistency and good quality calls in these areas, rather than a set period of time. Posts on project matters, user pages, etc are a sample of how he might be if admitted back to BLPs. Still too "frothy" to feel we can do without this remedy at this time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per FT2, I am greatly encouraged by the changes in PM since the case, but think that a little more time would help. This is not meant in any way as a punitive measure. James F. (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the above but would add this. As the community is becoming aware, we have recently given administrators additional power and encouragement to act on problems in BLP articles. Should those prove to work, I would regard them as rendering a separate editor restriction on the same topic as unnecessary and otiose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

---

June 2008 discussion, part 1

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_restricted, Privatemusings (talk · contribs) was restricted from editing any BLPs due to apparent past issues, but now in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Privatemusings he has stated that

'm now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.

is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him about editing BLP's. The remedy is still in effect and he can't lift the sanction himself. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree... PM is a good guy, someone I greatly respect for his perseverance and his attempts to add value in a lot of novel ways, but even PM can't just ignore a ruling/sanction. If no admin chose to enforce the sanction, it would be unenforced, but Ryan has already said he's warned him. I would support a block over this, with some considerable regret. PM, don't do it. Appeal the sanction and ask that it be lifted early, instead. I think you'd get massive support for that. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware he was violating his restriction (hey, no one can watch every wiki edit ;-). No editor can overturn their own restriction. If he violates again, let one of us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

Statement by User:Privatemusings

Could I have my restriction on editing BLPs lifted, please? I asked about two months ago, and someone else asked a month or two before that. Happy to answer any questions. Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

reply to Sam... yeah, I know I haven't always exactly made the most sensible 'keep your head down' choices - I guess my head's stuck somewhere! - I see Daniel's suggestions made the policy after a time, which is great - and I totally understand that the reward board thing might have touched a nerve... on the other hand.. it was kinda supposed to, and I'm glad to have maybe raised a smile here or there. I've tried to be consistent in criticising the system, not the people (I do think the arbcom is full of outstanding people, but is singularly useless as a body) - and would like to edit unencumbered if at all possible. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. your comment is somewhat non-committal (probably intentionally, so sorry for being dense...) - would you mind saying 'yup, the restriction can be lifted'? If you think otherwise, there's no need to say anything ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

John's suggestion seems sensible to me, for what that's worth. I guess the alternative would be to see Av and the arbs back here in a month or two? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

< I see this is sort of spread across the wiki in some ways - I've been loathe to respond at the AN page because I'm not sure it would help (though I would like to respond to a few points!) - but it may be timely for me to make a note here. A recommendation in a previous request for this restriction to be lifted was that I seek out a mentor, and I was glad User:Lar agreed to wear the hat a fair while ago. I sought his, and others' advice at this page (which I presume you chaps may have seen before commenting?) - further to this approach, I note John's proposal below, and I see Nonvocalscream, and Durova have also kindly offered to lend a hand. Hopefully the arbcom may see some merit in at least one of these useful suggestions! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)I'm very happy that the community chooses to discuss this, and support that process... it's good to talk...

per comment below - I should reiterate that I'm very happy with Lar being my 'official' mentor - I'm unsure to be honest exactly how the 'official' and 'unofficial' roles may pan out - in particular I'd also like to thank User:Jayvdb for his help and advice over the last month or so, and repeat what I mentioned at my mentoring page ("I'd actually like to be mentored by you, wiki reader - whomever you may be") - if the arb.s have any other suggestions, instructions or ideas I'm happy to try anything else as well... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)anyone at all should feel free to ask questions, make suggestions or just generally hang out at eith my mentoring page, or talk page anytime! I have tea!

Statement by User:Sarcasticidealist

I have no thoughts as to whether the restriction should be lifted at this time, as I'm unfamiliar with the details of the original case, but I think using this as a reason to leave a restriction on editing BLPs in place is a little nonsensical (and could come across as spiteful). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

Since I've commented in each one of these, why upset the streak?

The BLP restriction was imposed because of actual problematic editing by privatemusings on BLPs. If the restriction is to be continued, it should be because there is still a concern that his editing of BLPs may still be problematic. I, personally, see no basis for the belief that this is true. His editing of the ArbCom policy page was presumptuous, and not something I would have done - on the other hand, no similar flair for the dramatic has been demonstrated on contentious articles (that I'm aware of).

Further, regarding his post on the reward board. To be blunt, the gears of ArbCom have ground to halt everywhere except in accepting new cases. You have a slate of important cases to decide, cases where the parties and the community are ill served by interminable delays. If you are hopelessly deadlocked and unable to come to a conclusion between you, admit that and dismiss the case. You need to set a deadline for these cases where you haven't come to an easy conclusion, so that debate does not rage on forever until everyone has lost the plot. Privatemusings' frustration, and that of many others, is understandable - you should not take his tweaking your nose amiss when you are, in fact, not performing to expectations. Avruch ^T 20:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And if that sounds a bit harsh, apologies... I have a great deal of respect, individually, for almost all of the arbitrators (a couple I haven't seen them do enough to form an opinion...) - but I do think that, as a whole, you've become a bit dysfunctional lately. I would hope that in a situation where it is unclear if a restriction is necessary, you would take the conservative route and restore full privileges. Avruch ^T 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I propose a different restriction.

“ For three months, PM must outline all intended BLP editing at his DIY garden, with each BLP raised as a new section, and recieve confirmation from any admin to proceed prior to touching any BLP or BLP talk page. ”

A number of admins and others are keeping an eye on that page, and I am sure that PM will find ways of enticing us or others to keep up. If he gets too annoying, and nobody helps him, at least he will have created a nice list of troubled BLP articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said, I've been running around madly in the garden doing my masters bidding, and I am pleased to inform you all that the brambles are well advertised and the path is wide enough for four abreast. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alecmconroy

I'll just parrot what Sarcasticidealist said above-- I won't argue whether the restriction should be lifted, but I absolutely applaud PM's use of the charity fundraiser. There's widespread sentiment that Arbcom's sort of stuck in the mud on this one, and there have been widespread thoughts on how to respond to that. Most of those thoughts have not been pretty-- I've heard "Make a no-confidence motion on Arbcom", I've heard "move that the case be deleted", I've heard "move that arbcom as whole be deleted". I've even heard "Form a citizen's 'emergency acting arbcom'" to try the case. (none of these ideas do I support, I just mention them to give context).

By contrast, PM's charity fundraiser is a 100% positive way to try to gently encourage things. It's far less negative than the other suggestions, it has precedents (in that we often do little fundraisers for other ways of improving the project), and although PM himself of course has views about what the outcome of the case should be, he had the wisdom to carefully craft his fundraiser so that it not tied to any specific outcome-- all it asks is that the case take less than four months from start to finish--- a very reasonable goal to encourage.

Do what you will about the BLP restriction-- there are plenty of good reasons to argue the restriction shouldn't be lifted. But the charity fundraiser is not one of those reasons. PM should be proud of that one-- I know I would be if I had thought it up. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

o.O by NonvocalScream

Wait. From the arb comments let me see if I play this one out correctly. What does PM edits to the arb pages have anything to do with his BLP restriction? This is the message I get "criticize arbcom, and we will keep you restricted". Do I understand that because he criticized the arbitration committee, he can not have his restriction lifted? This seems wrong. Can the arbitrators clarify?

Disclosure: I vocally supported restricting PM during the case. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: Do you think that I don't know the ramifications of his BLP editing in the past, I'm the one who blocked the editor and participated in the arbitration. Do you think I would be advocating for lifting his restriction if I knew the risk still existed? Arbitrators, I was there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Barberio: You ask to much. Resignation is not called for. You use a cannon ball to kill a mosquito. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I rather like the idea of Lar and Durova mentorship. I think if the committee is amenable, this will work. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of importance by NE2

I agree that it's pretty silly to use "disruption" to ArbCom pages as examples.

I also suspect that NonvocalScream is lying when he says he "vocally" supported restricting PM. --NE2 07:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

link NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, so you hadn't lost your voice yet. That makes a lot more sense. --NE2 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Random832

I agree with NVS - this is disgraceful. But, if you're going to insist on making the community do your jobs for you... --Random832 (contribs) 07:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is one of judgment; I don't really see why it matters where the display of questionable judgment was. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) - Let me spell this out for you: When nobody but you thinks that they are in fact displays of questionable judgment AND the purported displays you have cited as examples of bad judgment are both actually instances of criticism of YOUR actions, I think it's not out of line for the community to request - or even demand - examples that you are not inherently biased in evaluating. --Random832 (contribs) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Durova's proposal. --Random832 (contribs) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Barberio

Some Members of the Arbitration Committee have commented that they are upholding this solely because of Privatemusings' public comments about their behaviour, and a well intentioned attempt to alter Arbitration Policy which was reverted and which revert Privatemusings' accepted.

I think those Arbitration Committee have made a grave error. Community consensus seems to agree. It does seem like the community has expressed a lack of confidence in the Committee.

I ask that the members who made those inappropriate comments resign. --Barberio (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. It is not on this incident alone that I ask for your resignations. This incident is simply the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. You were on notice that the community wasn't happy with how things are working, but just seem to shrug of any criticism and continue to act inappropriately. --Barberio (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Durova

With respect for Sam Blacketer's concerns, I'll offer a compromise proposal: a temporary replacement of Privatemusings's current sanction with mentorship. The Committee would review after 90 days. At any time, if serious concerns arise, any single member of the Committee could reinstate full sanctions as an emergency measure.

I've had pretty good luck mentoring Jaakobou in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes: Jaakobou has earned 3 featured credits and 4 DYKs and has been blocked only once in the last eight months. During Privatemusings's ban from Wikipedia I mentored him on Commons where he made useful non-controversial contributions. Privatemusings and I have a good rapport through Not the Wikipedia Weekly collaboration. He's polite and means well, and with a little guidance and experience in mainspace he may do all right.

Privatemusings tells me he's amenable to this proposal. I hope the Committee considers it. with respect and good wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual mentorship would be fine with me. And with regard to Lar's link (a bit off topic in the present context), I received numerous thanks for timely humor and exactly one concern, which I took seriously. Had there been others I would certainly have taken it down. With respect, the present situation would be best helped with a focused and calm solution. Durova^Charge! 06:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could we amend this to a troika with Jayvdb? (Whether or not he's not included formally, I'd be glad to collaborate with him as a comentor). Best, Durova^Charge! 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of information by Lar

Privatemusings already has a mentor. He asked me to be his informal mentor some time ago and I've been giving him on and offline guidance, as I think others have as well. If he wants to change mentors, that's fine by me, as I haven't been all that verbose in my guidance.

But, and with all respect due Durova here, I'm not sure that I agree she's the absolute most ideal mentor that PM could find. The issue with PM's restriction not being lifted seems to be a matter of judgement calls (when not to say things and what sort of things to say when). Regrettably, and again with the deepest respect for the many sound contributions Durova has made, I feel I must point out I'm not sure that her judgement is always completely sound, and I offer FT2's head on a platter as a pointer to something that I imagine raised more than a few eyebrows as to appropriateness and tastefulness at the time. Perhaps a committee of mentors might be an approach? ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Durova's reply to me (and in reply to Fayssal's comment as well)... yes I really do have concerns about Durova as sole mentor. I think it would end badly, although not because she doesn't mean well. Given this [5] I think it's fair to say I'm not the only one who has been mentoring, and in fact if you review the Garden page, you'll find Jayvdb is more active than I. I contacted him offline to seek agreement before proposing the following: That it be 3 people (avoids ties) and that one of the people be Jayvdb. I think most people know that Jayvdb has a very deft touch. If the other two are Durova and me that's fine by me... ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see arbs voting on a motion... I would like to clarify that my participation was assuming Jayvdb would be included, so there would be 3 mentors (breaking ties if any should arise). Can we please get the motion clarified to reflect that? Not to put too fine a point on it but I think it's rather important, and he's already been participating (since back when I first agreed to mentor PM after he asked me)... thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal from uninvolved AGK

The proposal for superseding Privatemusings' restriction with a mentorship program, adopting Lar, Jayvdb, and Durova as the recognised mentors, seems to be the most universally beneficial course of action this thread could sent the matter down. To that end, I propose the following decision:

Begin proposed decision.

4) Remedy two of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings is vacated. In its place, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned three Committee-approved mentors, who will be asked to assist Privatemusings in understanding and following policy, and improving as a contributor, to such a level where continued sanctions will not be necessary. The Committee will review this arrangement at its discretion in the future.

End proposed decision.

As a brief additional note, I do not share the concerns over Durova's judgement expressed above. However, I do believe that the more hands to guide Privatemusings here, the better, and providing for the three editors aforementioned to serve as mentors will allow the unique assets each would bring to this arrangement to be taken advantage of.

Regards, Anthøny 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Privatemusings has gone to great lengths in various forums to tell the world that there was nothing wrong with his use of multiple accounts, and nothing wrong with his edits. He violated the prohibition on editing BLPs almost immediately his ban expired. I do not think that this augurs well. I think PM is a nice guy but has seriously failed to understand just how sensitive BLPs are and how important WP:BLP is as a policy. His edits to the di Stefano article were spectacularly ill-judged. I believe that much of the support for PM comes fomr the fact that he is a very nice guy, but ignores the fact that (a) he has never to my knowledge acknowledged that he did wrong by his use of multiple accounts and (b) that his editing of BLPs was careless to a fault. He has violated the terms of his restriction, and that, I think, is a very good reason not to even think about lifting it yet. And that's before we get to the fact that he's been agitating about the di Stefano article again. There really should be a WP:TENFOOTPOLE policy for that one. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

I personally think Privatemusings has grown a lot since the restrictions are imposed, and it is time, at least, to give him a trial without his bonds. However, if this is not going to happen, I think a mentorship program followed by review will be to the benefit of everyone with little to no drawbacks. In any case, I think some kind of action and absolution is required here, whatever form that may come in. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse. I have prior involvement with Privatemusings, although outside of the scope of this case. Anthøny 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not a clerk, but this seemed the best place to put this note (apologies if it wasn't really needed), which is a reminder that if the restriction is lifted, then Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (which I was reading recently) will need updating, as well as the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'll let you into a secret. Several times recently I've been thinking of suggesting removing the restriction, but then you've done something like this or this and I decide that my time might be more productively used elsewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not comfortable lifting the restrictions at this time. Your continued lack of good judgment in some instances and as well as pushing the point in others, does not reassure me that you should be editing BLP articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Privatemusings chose the timing of this request. Doing something controversial on ArbCom related pages a few days before asking for a review shows a general lack of clue and adds to my reluctance to drop the restriction. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm with Flo and Sam on this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is one of judgment; I don't really see why it matters where the display of questionable judgment was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Durova's proposal is satisfactory to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing stopping Privatemusings from asking more people to join with Durova and Lar here, but as far as "voting" is concerned, if the two of you disagree on some detail, then it's probably over a principle worth discussing more broadly anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem in seeing user:Privatemusings editing BLP articles under mentorship for a while. Many positive steps have been taken by this user lately but I'd prefer him editing with the help of a mentor for three months or so... a "walk on a path in a garden" may be the right walk. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lar, you can adopt a dual mentorship model if you really have concerns regarding Durova's mentorship. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Mentorship, either single or dual, looks fine to me; I have no problems lifting the sanctions pursuant to that. Kirill ^(prof) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Happy with dual mentorship, but not with single-person mentorship (in principle). Should we move to a variance? James F. (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I support lifting the sanctions. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Motion

1. Remedy 2 ("Privatemusings restricted") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings is lifted.
2. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.
3. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion.

There are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

1. Support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Support adding Jayvdb also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Noted my support for Jayvdb as additional mentor. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Support. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I support adding Jayvdb as a mentor. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Paul August ☎ 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   I support adding Jayvdb as a mentor. Paul August ☎ 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   I second NYB's "advice". Paul August ☎ 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Support (including the addendum), but caveated with the very strong advice that Privatemusings use good judgment and avoid the more highly controversial BLPs such as Giovanni di Stefano as he begins to step back into this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support as presently written. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kirill ^(prof) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on reset of mentorship

Comment: The ArbCom notice above says that the mentoring is solely for the editing of BLP articles. In what way does requesting a review of a block constitute the editing of BLP articles? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think this is outside the permissible scope. AN/I is not a biographical article of a living or recently dead person. I do however echo the concern with regards to the the AN thread - the mentors should really talk to PM about this... but I'm afraid there is no way to reset the clock in accordance with the remedy cited, unfortunately. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I also am concerned about this reset. Giggy (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NonvocalScream initiated a RFAR clarification, and has now withdrawn it with conditions that are not congruent with the mentoring arrangements that were agreed upon. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn with the understanding that the reset is at dissonance with the remedy. *** NonvocalScream (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

misuse of authority

Bollocks. This is more of the same kind of retaliatory use of sanctions which is exactly the kind of crap from arbcom that I was concerned about when his BLP restriction was up for review last month. --Random832 (contribs) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008: Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

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

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NonvocalScream (talk)

Can you amend this remedy so that this action can be permissible. At this time, the mentors can not do what they are doing, because PM was not editing a biography, he was editing AN, and a subject totally outside biographies?

They cite a remedy for which they can not apply here. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• John: Nothing controversial here... just that in order to apply what you applied, the case //must// be amended. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• John: You have cited a remedy that was not applicable, how do you expect Arbcom to enforce it this way? It needs clarified or amended, no matter if all four of you agreed, AC needs to agree as well. This is not the precedent we set, mentors do not = arbcom. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw this request for amendment with the understanding that the mentorship extension at dissonance with the remedy, mutually agreed on between the four, and that the extension is broader in scope than what the Committee mandated and therefore the original enforceable mentorship ends at the unextended (pre extension expiration is still valid) time. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• PM: Kindof sortof? But can you answer more fully, did the mentor group have informed consent, or not? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on this answer I am under the impression that the mentorship extension occurred outside the mandate. My motion remains withdrawn with my earlier opinion on the dissonance. Whether or not the Arbitration Committee modifies the remedy to fit this extension, are allows the extension to expire naturally will be completely up to the other party, mentors and arbitrators. I will ask that any further agreements of this nature take place on the wiki before such announcements of extensions take place. This type of action should be on the wiki. Absent any modification, I will clear the extension from the arbitration case page Log of blocks and bans in a few days time. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• JV: No threats, just that you really can't do things in accordance with a remedy, if it is not really in accordance with a remedy. Surely my correcting the AC page will not disrupt your intentions. A quick scan of AN reveals that I was not the only one confused at this odd extension. As for structural damage - do you seriously think that this has damaged a mentoring relationship? You are mentors, not arbiters. So mentor. You did this extension on odd grounds, not me. On wiki actions are open to review. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• JV: Very well. Then I will take my hands off. I trust you all - I just want to see this handled well - PM has great potential. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Flonight: Agree and suggest - "For the purposes of editing success, Privatemusings (talk · contribs) is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. The mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. Mentorship arrangements may be extended at the descretion of the mentors." This is my suggestion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am just recently online, and have only just now seen an email from Lar informing me that there has been a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring notices for clarification by the mentors and/or privatemusings.

NonvocalScream, that is based on your opinion of how the arbcom remedy was amended last time, and without an appreciation of how it is being applied. If you are right, and the mentoring arrangements have gone beyond the arbcom definition, and someone like you requires that we explicitly have arbcom approval for every detail of the mentoring, then we would have come to arbcom to seek their advice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. In order to re-assess properly whether the mentorship has been operating within the scope of the arbcom remedy, I have wanted to review the recent rfar clarification, and of course needed to review the related email discussions from the last month.

I think I speak for all the mentors that we have understood the arbcom remedy prefix "soley for the matter of editing biographies of living persons" as an indication that that is the outstanding set of problems that arbcom still sees the need to remedy, and also as a limitation on the remit of the mentorship.

So, how does this Moulton issue fit within the scope given to the mentorship? As Durova mentions, at the beginning of the mentoring arrangement, Lar proposed an overall strategy consisting of three stages, one for each month. One of the mentoring arrangements was that for the first month privatemusings was to alert the mentors in advance of any posts that are broadly interpreted as "what ArbCom was worried about", and waits for the mentors give an appraisal of the intended post. This is in context of three or four arbs initially commenting harshly on the "general lack of clue" shown by edits like this one made a few days prior to requesting the prior restrictions being lifted. We felt it was necessary for Privatemusings to keep his head down for the first month in order to apply himself to the task at hand.

At the three months, we as mentors need to be able to say that he has addressed the BLP problem, and we cant do that if he is preferring to spend his wiki-time wading into every drama he can find, or worse yet, initiating them like he did with this Moulton unblock request. Privatemusings hasnt kept his end of the bargain, resulting in only 30 rather simple content edits over the last month. As a result, the mentors have decided that a much more focused approach is needed to ensure he undertakes actual editing during this three month period. We need evidence of good editing rather than the lack of bad evidence. He needs to get a better appreciation for the need for good editing practises, in order to obtain a release from the shadow over his head. If he isnt going to focus on serious editing in the three months, I dont feel right letting the mentorship continue for two more months as a charade.

We have decided on the basics of the new more focused approach for the coming month, however we are waiting on privatemusings to give us some thoughts on the specifics and his preferences. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Also part of the mentoring arrangement was that the clock being reset if he didnt stick to the three stage plan. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@WAS 4.250, I agree wholeheartedly with the message Create. We are hoping that privatemusings does more of that in the coming months. The mentorship arrangement doesnt not require that he seek our permission to do that he wants; otoh, it does attempt to curtail his tendency to treat this as a free speech project. If he wants representation, for himself or for others, that comes at a price: free content. As another example, refer to User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, where Privatemusings waxed lyrical whilst proposing to edit an article that the arbitrator Newyorkbrad explicitly told Privatemusings to steer clear of in the last clarification discussion. I have privately told him that his involvement in the Wikiversity project is a good thing, but warned him to ensure that his edits there over the duration of this mentoring stage are of the kind that all arbcom members will decide are constructive and well intended, 'cause the committee members are sure to look. The three months of mentoring is in vain if his mentors do not unanimously agree that the problems identified in the last arbcom case appear to be able to put to bed safely, or if the arbcom members review his contributions over this period and come to the view that the problems remain, that he has hasnt done much here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@Troikoalogo, the notice was public, and hit AN, as it was a unanimous agreement of the mentors that in the last month, privatemusings had not cut the mustard. If we hadnt disclosed the "clock reset" publicly, two months from now we would have had people wondering why we hadnt notified everyone publicly at this stage. It seems like the only way to have streamlined this would have been to ask Arbcom to reset the clock instead of doing it ourselves. We live and learn. p.s. Privatemusings wished, and the committee agreed, to give me this plastic sheriff's badge.  :-) He is welcome to have it back if he likes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@NonvocalScream, your involvement in this has caused more complication and confusion than it has solved. You brought the matter to arbcom, so please dont complicate things further by boldy clerking the matter based on your "impressions" - we can do without that. As an update, privatemusings has now emailed the mentors so the train is back on the track. Mentoring discussion to check for structural damage is now getting underway, but may be protracted due to timezones and the heightened tension caused by this also being on arbcoms desk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@Yes, it definitely derailed what the mentors unanimously considered to be the right next step, and it prevented privatemusings from comfortably letting us know what he thought the (different) direction he thought it should take. We are not trying to be arbitrators, but if we dont undertake to mentor properly, the arbitrators will be less likely to let others out of their bonds early onto the path to enlightenment. I can see why you consider this to be an unapproved extension of the remedy, but at the time it seemed plain that privatemusings was in full knowledge of this when it was being discussed, and had spectacularly forgotten more recently and when he had to be reminded of it at User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano. I agree that the mentoring plan should have been onwiki a long time ago, and sent to arbcom-l formally to ensure they were 100% happy with it. But those things didnt happen, out of laziness and the lack of foresight, and we find ourselves here. I dont mind if you go remove the notice from the arbcom page, but I dont see why it is necessary. There are clerks who can do that. It would be great if you let us untangle it, or hand it over to arbcom to untangle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from Avruch

Doesn't the remedy state "solely for the purpose of editing biographies of living people" or something to that effect? If the mentorship agreement stipulates a wider area of supervision, it has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee. Also, and importantly, this seems premature. Privatemusings hasn't had the opportunity to make his view known on that page.

Noting Durova's post below, it seems likely that Privatemusings agreed to the extension. Nonvocalscream - in the future, it might be good sense to contact the participants involved before posting a clarification request in a situation where you do not have all the relevant facts. Avruch ^T 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

John is correct: Lar's proposal allowed discretionary extension within the realm, broadly defined that could reasonably be considered what arbcom was worried about. All parties agreed that extension was appropriate, including Privatemusings.

A summary of the matter is that Privatemusings has a track record of intervening in high tension areas in a manner which--although well intentioned--tends to consume administrative attention. Editors who are successful participants in Wikipedia namespace have usually acquired an intuitive grasp of site dynamics from article building. We are in agreement that Privatemusings would benefit from more mainspace editing experience, preferably sustained attention to building a single biography article. Our goal is a guided approach that would leave Privatemusings well equipped to function independently at the end of the mentorship term. A review of the first month led to the conclusion that not enough progress had been made yet.

Request withdrawal of this motion. We aim to reduce onsite drama, not increase it, and the decision was reached with unanimous agreement. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To Dan: assume good faith is policy. Before attempting to attribute a negative motivation, an appropriate prelude would be consultation with any of the parties or at least a review of the editor's contributions. Privatemusings has averaged approximately one mainspace edit per day since mentorship began, mostly minor wikignome work. It is our opinion that two more months' mentorship at this level would be insufficient. Editors who take on the site's hot button disputes, sensitive BLPs, etc. and make difficult situations better are usually people who bring experience from thousands of mainspace edits--often having shepherded articles from stub-class to GA or FA. The concern is that PM's interest in resolving such situations, unless tempered by better field experience, runs a likelihood of missteps that would ultimately lead either the community or the Committee to a pragmatic assessment of his productivity as an editor v. the scarce administrative time consumed by his attempts to assist in sensitive areas. We, the mentors, wish him success and have agreed upon this course of action with his consent. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To Nonvocal Scream: mentorship is by its nature a consensual relationship. Declared or undeclared, mandated or voluntary--it cannot be effective without the consent and active participation of all parties. It works best in an environment of trust and goodwill. Privatemusings's best interests ought to be our driving concern, not the establishment of formal statements about the legitimacy of this or that adjustment. Good mentoring responds naturally to changes in circumstance. I think I speak for all the mentors here in saying it would be much more constructive to engage us in dialog if such serious concern arises again about our mutual choices, rather than initiating preemptive formal motions that--even at best--must consume energies better spent on mentoring itself. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

I'm not particularly pleased with what can be seen as a punitive action against somebody for the sole reason of their sticking their neck out with a WikiPolitical opinion that others find politically incorrect. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Lar

To Dan: I agree 100% with you, I'm not at all about punitive actions. However this action is not punitive. Per Durova, we're (by mutual agreement, including that of Privatemusings himself) taking him on a path to enlightenment. That includes aiding PM in improving situational awareness about what's prudent and what isn't. A mentorship does after all include some actual learning by the mentoree or else it's not successful. We probably should post the email that outlines our mutually agreed upon approach, though. I note that the three of us are not always on the same side (of anything) and yet we mutually agree PM acted imprudently here. Mentorships work best when the elbows of the mentors aren't jiggled. Agree with Durova that this motion is ill advised and should be shelved. NVS no doubt knows better now, although I think he meant well. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To NVS: A clarification: ArbCom does not enforce remedies. We, the collective users of the site, do. If this mentorship fails (and I really hope it does not... we did not do this reset because we want failure, we did it because we want success!) it will be up to us (1500 admins, millions of users) all to enforce the rest of this decision. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference: User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden/A_threefold_path_to_enlightenment (a subpage of where the article specific discussions have been held) This process was agreed to in advance via email. Perhaps it should have been documented on-wiki rather than privately, but privately seemed a good approach at the time for "respect for the individual" reasons. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A note: Durova, Jayvdb, and I have continued to discuss this with Privatemusings. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:WAS 4.250

I would just like to reflect here on how far off the initial path we have come. The free culture movement began with copy left software and now has Wikipedia as its most public example. The opposite of free culture is called in the movement "permission culture". Stop asking permission. Create. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Troikoalogo

If PM wants to enter into a private agreement to be mentored in orange-eating ((c) fayssal - below) then that's his affair. But when his orange-eating regime is then posted in large letters on government buildings as if it were a wanted poster, then the citizens are entitle to ask "WTF?".

If a private agreement, why was this posted on arbcom enforcement (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_placed_under_mentorship)? And why did it need posted to AN [6] as if it were a sanction for PM's postings about Moulton's block. A private agreement, should be a private agreement, and a matter for e-mail and talk pages. The effect of the way this has been handled is at variance with Durova's stated intent "to reduce onsite drama, not increase it" - it looks official and putative and has an obvious chilling effect.

The intention may be good, the mentorship unobjectionable, but I still think that some people have let the plastic sheriffs' badges go to their heads. --Troikoalogo (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Privatemusings

In a few hours time, barring objections, I'll post all the email correspondence to subpage in my mentoring area (this has been discussed a bit between the four of us, and my reading is that permission has been clearly granted - but it's better to be safe than sorry! In fact, I'd say some commentators thus far have probably been a bit 'hasty'. I don't think I agree with some that's been said, and I'll write stuff up in a bit. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't post the email correspondence, because I'd misunderstood, and I don't have permission. I'd like to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible.

I understand my mentors' worry that my post to AN was impolitic / unwise, and I further understand the point of view that posting controversially can waste resources, is in someways disruptive, and undesirable, though I think it's a rocky road, and by no means fully agree.

I need to talk through more fully the perspectives that my mentoring programme has been disappointing, or that I haven't kept my end of the bargain, because I don't really understand them yet (I've actually been really pleased and proud with what I've been up to!)

there may be merit in arb.s clarifying how they see the 90days working from their perspective (per Nonvoc's final point above), and if there's any stuff folk want to chat about, swing by my talk page or drop me an email any time. Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)although I think an eggshell ballet may work out better for me than making omelets! - and better yet! - go write an article :-)

ps. just 'cos it might actually be relevant, I should note that I'm heading out, likely for at least 24 hours, now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@bainer - the answer is kinda sorta... you can see the correspondence here... I should have taken the time to respond more substantially to the tension between the arb mandate and the mentoring terms previously, and I really think that any miscommunication is my fault - hopefully we're moving on now on a good foot :-) I certainly wish to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tom harrison

Maybe the way we can avoid drama is to keep most of our edits in article space. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gladys J Cortez

When I saw the addition of the "mentoring extension" notice at the bottom of the "Moulton unblock" thread, it seemed to me, by the placement and the wording, that the extension was caused by Privatemusings' request for the unblock of a controversial user. Now, obviously from what's been said since, that's a complete misread of the circumstances--but it's also clear that I wasn't the only one who misread it that way. Had the notice of mentorship been placed somewhere less-proximate to the Moulton thread, I wonder if this confusion and the resulting drama might not have been avoided. Just an opinion, anyway...Gladys J Cortez 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Regarding NVS' stated intention to clear the extension from the logs of the arb case, I encourage the arbs to address this issue in their ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If Privatemusings entered into a mentorship agreement that was broader in scope than what the Committee mandated, then as Avruch says, that is his business, not the Committee's. That then begs the question of what did Privatemusings agree to? I await his input here before saying anything more. --bainer (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I gather these are the terms that the mentors and PM arranged. It purports to create a mentorship scheme applying to two things, firstly any proposed edits to BLPs, and secondly "any posts, broadly construed, that might fit into 'what ArbCom was worried about' (cases, policy and the like)". It also provides for the mentors to reset the process. This goes beyond what was mandated by the motion. What was mandated was mentorshop "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]" (emphasis added). Further, the motion provided for expiry in ninety days "[i]f no issues arise"; this was not particularly clear, but it should be understood to mean that the Committee can extend the mentorship if issues arise.

Of course, as has been said PM and his mentors are free to agree to terms of mentorship that go beyond what the Committee mandated, and if they wish to do so then I wish them all the best. However, from the circumstances, I do not think that is what has happened here; I believe that PM and his mentors have constructed terms on a misapprehension about the meaning of the motion. The mandated mentorship is limited "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]", and does not extend to "cases, policy and the like". If we had intended that we would have said so.

I think now PM and his mentors need to work out some terms once more with the understanding that the mentorship mandated by the Committee extends only to editing BLPs and is subject to review by us at the end of the ninety days. --bainer (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies to Privatemusing and NVS if my comment would sound inappropriate but I am sure you would understand that it is meant to clarify some interesting issues related to drama. The drama goes this way... Once upon a time, there was someone who ate chocolate more than his body could afford, so the doctors advised his parents to keep monitoring his chocolate diet until the body becomes able to fathom and get adapted to some degree of chocolate consumption. Recently, he started eating oranges (in a normal way - no exaggeration yet) and immediately their neighbors went asking doctors to clarify if eating oranges is permissible. fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per Thebainer, this was a voluntarily entered into agreement. Having in effect delegated to the mentors the responsibility of overlooking Privatemusings' contributions it would not be right to supervise them excessively in so doing. So I'm not inclined to intervene; however I would say this. Suppose (for the sake of argument, I'm not saying this is something he would actually do) Privatemusings had gone blanking large sections of history articles that had nothing to do with living people. That would be disruptive; is it argued that the mentors must ignore it because it is not about BLPs? I don't think that's reasonable. Finally, logs of blocks and bans should be kept up to date and not blanked unless authorised by the committee or its clerks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support John, Durova, and Lar's approach to handling this mentorship. In general a mentor's close working relationship with their trainee, even during a focused one such as this one, necessitates them keeping an eye on other aspects of their trainee's contributions. In this situation in particular, getting to the root of the problem is important if PM is going to succeed as an editor on Wikipedia. While this mentorship was formed to focus on the removal of the BLP restriction, the other concerns identified in Privatemusings case indicate that simply educating about the BLP policy and monitoring PM's contributions is most likely not going to achieve the enlightenment needed to succeed in editing BLPs. For mentorships to succeed, a broader approach is often needed, and I think John, Lar, and Durova understood that going into the situation. For example, a discussion about good communication methods and then coaching a trainee in ways to achieve their desired goals through good communication is appropriate during most mentorships and is key to the success of this one. Based on my view about mentorships, I see no need for us to alter the wording of the motion, but if others disagree then I think we need to expand the wording to give them free reign to do what is needed to achieve the best outcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I trust all the mentors here, individually and even more so as a group, and see no need to change the wording of the mentorship agreement. And, no, no messing with logs of blocks and bans. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

status quo

g'day all.... as I mentioned on the on wiki record of my mentoring, I am currently wiki-gnoming away on several BLPs, in exactly the way I enjoy, and making the types of edits I've been consistently making for some months. My mentors' resignation bums me out, but I thought it was worth noting here that I consider myself to have learned much from the process, and will consider myself to be unencumbered by any formal restriction per the details of the lifting above - I believe the 90 day period passes next week :-) Happy to chat (probably this is a better spot?), and thought a little formal note was a good idea too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Um... you probably need clarification from ArbCom on this, but my view is that if all the mentors resigned, you failed your mentorship, and therefore the restriction does not lift just by having the clock run out. That doesn't even take the reset into account, by the way... ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally surprised that there's a difference of opinion on this one - but my reading of the arb situation, in particular with reference to thebainer's comments around the time of the 'nonvocalscream' clarification request thing, support my interpretation, in my view. I'm happy to chat about this (or indeed about my current BLP editing) here, or wherever appropriate :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask for an explicit revote or clarification from the arbs then. In my view, at any rate, you're completely wrong. A mentorship is a trial period, and does not have a guaranteed successful outcome. ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I both hope and believe that a re-vote isn't specifically required - it's my observation that re-votes and clarifications aren't the committee's strong suit (I think you once mentioned that getting three arb.s to comment was quite a success!) and frankly the arbs seem a bit busy with other stuff too. I'll obviously make myself available to any such process, and because I do regularly edit BLP articles now (largely rugby league related ones lately, actually) - I'll happily discuss any and all edits with anyone who wants to swing by my talk page (or indeed my mentoring page). I honestly feel this represents putting the best foot forward.. Privatemusings (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the ArbCom where your status goes now. We resigned en masse because we'd rather see you under a mild restriction than see that restriction lifted before you're fully equipped to move forward under your own steam. We hoped such a gesture wouldn't be necessary. Then we hoped it would have its intended effect. It's up to you where you want to go with things now. Wish I could stand behind you now and say you've made the most of the experience. As things are, suggest you downplay it. Really wishing you the best. Perhaps when you have more time to devote to mentorship. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is, I think, whether "issues arose" related to the BLP-specific purpose of the mentorship. I'm not sure that this is the case, despite the resignation of all three mentors over a perceived lack of progress and good faith effort in the mentorship process on privatemusings' part. Avruch ^T 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The other members of the Committee may not agree with me on this, but as I noted in the previous clarification archived above, only mentorship relating to BLP issues was mandated, though of course Privatemusings was free to enter into any other mentorship arrangements that he wished. So yes, Avruch correctly identifies the question as I see it. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Committee is discussing the situation now. I anticipate that a motion will be made to clear up the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

sounds good - I (obviously!) would like my restrictions to be formally lifted as soon as possible, and I'd be up for making a statement to that effect if poss. I haven't been contacted by any arbs with any questions or anything at this point, but remain happy to engage at any suitable venue - maybe other community members might wish to comment too? (although I am, I hope understandably, nervous as to what folk might have to say!) - I leave it to others' solid judgment as to whether or not a clarification request at the requests page is a sensible call? thanks all, Privatemusings (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

just checking in - haven't heard anything directly at all :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

no news? - 1 week down.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

my money's on christmas coming first ;-) - no news. Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll gladly cover your more foolish bets, it's way easy money. I'm not covering THAT bet. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

< hows about 5 bucks says no arb motion passes before Feb 09? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

no takers? I've heard this new committee is getting organised pretty well? We'll see how it goes. For the record, I'm off to the cricket in a couple of days, and will likely try and grab some shots for the players' articles. I've also edited a bit at Jonathan King, and remain interested in how Giovanni di Stefano is developing. I consider myself entirely unrestricted at this point, and will continue editing in the way I enjoy, with the aim of improving the encyclopedia here and there, and avoiding getting up folk's noses too :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 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.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• None, but I include my own userlinks, in case they are of interest.
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Principle 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.
• The word sockpuppet should be replaced by alt account. Sockpuppets are bad things; alt accounts (as this principle admits) can be good things.
• More importantly, the last sentence should be struck or recast.

Statement by Septentrionalis

The last sentence, italicized above, sets policy. It has been adopted at WP:SOCK, apparently on the basis that ArbCom said so. It is, I think, bad policy, but efforts to amend it while ArbCom's wording continues will be met with this irrelevant argument.

• It does not describe what Privatemusings did wrong; see a summary of the problem, by JzG, here. Privatemusings had an account which revealed his real world identity; he set up several alt accounts:
  • User:Purple, to do editing
  • User:Privatemusings, to discuss policy
  • and half a dozen others.

He then proceeded to discuss policy intemperately, under the assumption that at worst, Privatemusings would be blocked, and Purple would continue unscathed. He also developped most of the abusive techniques that WP:SOCK condemns.

JzG suggested the following as an acceptable solution: At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity..., but the second account (Purple) was still an alt.

The problem here was the abusive editing, and the assumption that alt accounts would not be recognized, so Purple would escape scot-free; not the discussion of policy. If Bishzilla were to discuss policy, nobody would complain, as long as Bishonen stayed out. We are all pseudonyms; it doesn't matter which pseudonym discusses policy, but what arguments they use.

• It is not what ArbCom actually enforces. Future Perfect was roundly chastized at the late Macedonia case; but his satirical account User:Former Abbreviated Username of Future Perfect at Sunrise, although its sole function was to discuss policy, was not mentioned or condemned.

• It has led to absurd results, and will lead to more. This effort to get ArbCom to don their asbestos armor and shoot Bishzilla provokes this request. Will it be the last?

Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think Brad's point about deception is fairly well taken; the incorporation into WP:SOCK does not say that, and would be a reasonable policy if it did.

Again, the User:Geogre case, like all the others, concern abuses of alt accounts. To say that that justifies banning them would be like saying that the number of cases about bad admins justifies abolishing adminship. Tempting though that sometimes is....;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

I think this is proposed amendment is a bad idea. PMAnderson doesn't present any significant example of the current prohibition has causing problems. The use of undisclosed alternate accounts is tolerated in certain circumstances, but those should be kept limited to those that demonstrably help the project. There is no reason why an editor in good standing should need to use an undisclosed alternate account to discuss or edit policies, or other internal project debates. If that were allowed, there are many problesm that could arise, even by editors who feel they are working in good faith. See the recent matter of user:Geogre for an example of that. User:Privatemusings is another. It is easy to imagine a situation in which an editor is trying to make an edit that may not be allowed by policy. If he made a change to the policy using his regular account then it would be an obvious case of gaming the system. If he uses a separate account it might not raise any concerns. Wikipedia operates on transparency and mutual trust. This would be a step in the wrong direction.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RexxS is correct that the community sets policy, but it does so in various ways. One way is by through consensus on relevant discussion pages, another is by altering the written policies, and a third is by unchallenged interpretations of the ArbCom. This particular matter was discussed by the community before the ArbCom decision, and after the decision the written policy was amended. So all three components of the policy setting mechanism were involved in this.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I comment solely on the narrow point that "the last sentence should be struck or recast". I believe that ArbCom should take care not to make pronouncements that may be characterised as "making policy". Policy on Wikipedia has always been created by the community reaching consensus on a particular practice. The expression of that policy may then be documented on policy pages; and subsequently may be used by ArbCom to guide their deliberations. It is completely anathematic to our principles when a small group—even one as august as ArbCom—makes a statement that is then incorporated into a policy page and subsequently imposed upon the community. Put simply, that is the wrong way round. If it were to be shown that ArbCom were reflecting an as-yet-unwritten practice (forbidding alternative accounts to debate policy), then I would retract this statement. As it is, I doubt that to be the case, and request ArbCom to reconsider the wording "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Will Beback

I will have to beg to differ. There is a difference between policy being made and policy being documented. Making of policy occurs by the cumulative actions of our community of editors and enjoys consensus by that very fact. The only exception to that is when an RfC definitively decides on a policy that is contested. Documentation of policy may indeed occur by the three methods you outline, but please understand I am not arguing semantics. You only have to review WP:ARBDATE to see the results that can arise from assuming that changes to policy pages—even those enjoying consensus there—sets policy. The standard required for setting or changing policy is high; and without a strong community consensus, either taken from clear current practice or from a conclusive RfC, you leave it open to challenge at any time. It is exactly for those reasons that I humbly caution ArbCom against making policy statements, unless it is crystal clear that such policy already has uncontested community consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Privatemusings

That bit was always a bit clumsy of a rather grumpy arbcom I reckon - the real problem in my view is folk kidding themselves that they're discussing principles, when really they seem to be looking for policy guns to shoot someone with - sometimes to avoid listening. This isn't really directed at anyone posting here at the mo, mind.

I do get to take this opportunity to point out the delicious irony of the chap rather vigorously condemning me at the time, running his own 'sock' throughout, complete with chat's about policy ;-)

Oh and my first account was kind of tangentially linked to my identity (particularly through other online sites and stuff) - but I'm cool with anyone mentioning it - it's not a 'badusername' ;-) - you can even call me Peter, I won't report you! Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I continue to assert this stuff, wouldn't agree with Sep's write up above (or maybe it's Sep's write up of JzG's statement?) - and though it's rather ancient history, and no big deal any more I'd point out that not a single diff has ever been forthcoming which showed deception in terms of multiple accounts (or much else for that matter :-)

If the silly 'you can't use an alternate account in policy discussion' bit is causing trouble, strike it, otherwise Brad seems spot on, as usual. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recused MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recused Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that. The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive. I see no reason to amend. — Coren ^(talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision#Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Initial point, one reason for the inclusion of this wording was to make people accountable for their comments during policy and dispute resolution discussions. If an alternative account is linked by name, disclosure on one of the user pages, or by definitive comments made by the account, then that would satisfy this concern. So several of the examples would not pertain to the particular wording. -FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse on all things related to Privatemusings. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Coren et al. Wizardman 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• My views on arbitration decisions and principles being imported into policy or guideline wording have been stated elsewhere before. Such wordings and principles should only be added following discussion at the policy or guideline talk pages, and only if it does in fact represent emerging consensus or current practice. There will be exceptions when there is immediate consensus at the talk page to make a prescriptive change, but such change should be mostly descriptive, though it should always be borne in mind that current practice is not always best practice. In this case, there needs to be a discussion at the policy talk page about what represents current and best practices in these situations. My personal view is that alternate accounts should only be used in limited circumstances, for clearly defined reasons. Most alternate accounts should be clearly identified, by their name, and/or by a template or note on their user page identifying the master account. Simply adopting the same mannerisms, or self-identifying while editing, is not enough - any editor must be able to go to the user page and find out who they are really talking to. If there is good reason for an alternate account to be undisclosed, then it is the responsibility of the operator to keep the two accounts separate, and not edit in the same areas as the main account. Even then, if the undisclosed secondary account encounters someone known to the primary account holder, that can be a problem. As far as terminology goes, the term 'sockpuppet' is used too liberally - in my view, it should be reserved for deceptive use of other accounts. A clearer distinction should be drawn between sequential accounts (retiring one account and starting a new one, but not returning to carry on a dispute started by the original account, obviously!), editing while logged out (either intentionally or otherwise), editing as an IP when blocked, and deceptively operating two or more accounts simultaneously in the same area (socking). There are different reasons behind all these, and conflating them and applying the term "socking" to all of them does more harm than good, in my opinion. Finally, for alternate accounts and arbitration cases, my view is that only primary accounts should be used on such pages. Even using obvious accounts such as "NAME-2" can be misleading, as that splits contributions between two accounts, making it harder to apply scrutiny to all edits. As far as evidence submission goes, though (as opposed to workshop proposals and case discussion pages), I think it should be permitted to be able to submit evidence anonymously. But no-one has really agreed with me on that last point yet. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amendment request: Privatemusings (October 2014)

Original request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Ponjuseme (talk) at 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle Sockpuppetry

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ponjuseme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Privatemusings (diff of notification of this thread on Privatemusings' talk page)

Information about amendment request

• [7]
• In the principle of sock-puppetry, I suggest that a complete prevention of alternate accounts from editing in "discussions internal to the project" is vague and outdated. This is due to a large portion of editing being taken out of the article namespace and into other places. As well, in regard to disclosed socks, this would prevent connected I request that this principle be amended to only prevent !voting in areas that are heavily influenced by !votes and unrelated to content/conduct issues, such at requests for adminship, requests for bureaucrat, ArbCom elections, policy debates, and others like that, as well as prevention of !voting in any way whatsoever where a main or a sock has already !voted, such as in RfCs, AfDs, and others. In regards to undisclosed socks, this would also entail a complete interaction ban between the sock and the main account, as well as a ban from the sock and the main account participating in any discussions together. This would not change any other requirements for alternate accounts.

Statement by Ponjuseme

In this case, Privatemusings made problematic BLP edits, and used multiple sockpuppets in order to influence discussions in which he was involved. The principle relating to sockpuppetry explicitly stated that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

1. This is exceedingly vague, and could prevent anything from banal talk page discussions, to directly influencing RFAs about the sock puppeteer.

1. Editing project pages is a vital part of Wikipedia, for example, take the case of a person who wants to edit Wikipedia, but already has an account directly linked with them. If they were to participate in any discussions based on content with that account, this may draw negative attention (such as if a devoutly religious person wanted to edit and take positions in areas that conflicts with their publicly professed religious beliefs, and would lead to them being ostracized if connected with their real life persona). In regards to asking why they couldn't just edit just the article space, this hypothetical person might sometimes want to comment on an RfC relating to an article they were editing, or join, for example, the WP:PORN project and discuss pornography related articles, in which that editing may not be highly regarded by that user's religious peers. They might also want to AfD certain topics relating to their religion that they don't feel are notable, but would be pressured otherwise to not AfD.

1. This was a principle made in 2008, 6 years ago, when many things considered "internal to the project" we see today didn't exist or weren't considered in this principle. For example, the PROD process is in article space, but is it internal to the project even though it is visible to anyone looking at the page?

This is a specific, unambiguous case of a user who misused alternate accounts, and the principle made appears to be overly broad.

Statement by JzG

The view that people should use only one account in meta-discussion is a principle widely endorsed by the community and is not, I think, reliant on this case or the arbitration committee more generally. The guidance on alternate accounts is reasonably clear and the majority of dispute over what is and is not permitted is, frankly, generated by wikilawyering sockpuppeteers. I fail to see anything requiring change here, especially since the initiator is a rather obvious sockpuppet.

I have some idea who the sockmaster might be, and they are currently blocked and I think banned. Nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

• If there is a desire to change policy, I think it would be better raised on the relevant policy or guidelines talkpage, rather than in discussion of a principle from a 7-year-old case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On the substance, although this isn't an issue for us, for what it's worth I generally agree with GorillaWarfare's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this discussion should take place on the talkpage of the policy in question. I also feel that the policy is too vague. I feel that, for example, a legitimate sockpuppet used for privacy reasons should be allowed to edit deletion discussions in the sock's area of focus, of course assuming no overlap with other accounts operated by the same user. The current policy only specifies "internal discussions", and the argument could be made in either direction for whether deletion discussions qualify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• This may have come from an arb case, but the encyclopedia was different 7 years ago. The right place to make such changes are at the talk page of the relevant policy, as NYB says. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues and propose to speedily close this request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed as well. The proper place to discuss a policy change is at the Village Pump or the appropriate talk page. The proper way to do it, until and unless a change is made, is to discuss it using one's primary account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• The principle in question has been subsumed into community policy. Arguments to clarify it would be best made on the policy page. AGK [•] 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is not the right venue for proposing this particular change, and it is doubtful there is any merit to re-evaluating a seven year old case's language when it is n't particularly relevant anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Privatemusings (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by CypherPunkyBrewster at 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

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

• CypherPunkyBrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by CypherPunkyBrewster

Note: This is a legitimate alternative account. I will be happy to reveal my main account to arbcom on request.

In the 2007 Privatemusings case, (Final decision --> Principles --> Sockpuppetry) the following language was used:

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

This is referenced by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts --> Editing project space) with the language

"Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."

I created this account after the gamergate arbcom case. In that case, I did not comment on that case using my main account because so many people who have expressed an opinion on gamergate have received real-world harassment off-wiki. I was hoping to use this account if that ever happened again (and, of course, only in cases where I was unambiguously uninvolved.)

Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

Basically, I just want clear guidelines on what I can and can not do using this alternative account. I am not disputing any policies or decisions; I just want to know how to follow them.

• To User:JzG, who wrote "CypherPunkyBrewster is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial": You are wrong, and you are failing to assume good faith. This alternate account was created in order to edit articles and participate in discussions related to those articles where there is a significant chance of being branded as pro-gamergate, anti-gamergate, global warming denialist, global warming alarmist, pinko liberal, tea-party conservative, or even swivel-eyed loon. I am well aware of the discretionary sanctions associated with American Politics and Climate Change. I do not believe that I have violated the DS using this account, and I have completely stayed away from climate change on my main account for obvious reasons. If you think that I have violated the DS, feel free to report me at AE (I have no problem with identifying my main account to arbcom and asking them to publicly confirm no global warming involvement.)

• To User:Rich Farmbrough, who wrote "Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight", because the 2007 Privatemusings case is cited at the sock puppetry page, I strongly suspect that any attempt to start a community discussion on this topic would quickly devolve into multiple comments telling me to go to arbcom, so I did that first. Also, depending on how one answers my questions above, I could very well be forbidden from starting a community discussion on this topic. It would be, after all, a "discussions internal to the project". CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• To User:Seraphimblade (regarding the entire comment), That makes perfect sense to me, and I will have no problem following the clarification you posted. Thanks! On reflection, I see the wisdom of using the alternate account only for article editing and dispute resolution directly related to those articles. I will stay away from discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles I am working on with my alternate account. And of course I already knew that the main and alternate account must keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and all the other "don't do that"s listed in the sock puppetry policy. I will note that I made one edit that I now know was not allowed.[8] I apologize for that and assure you that it will not happen again. Again, thanks for the clear explanation. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• To Salvio giuliano, If another case like gamergate ever hits arbcom, I would like to comment as an uninvolved editor (revealing my main account to arbcom so you can verify that I am not involved), but not if it means revealing my real-world identity. Some of those involved in gamergate have done some nasty real-world harassment against those who disagree with them. Let me know if you think a majority of arbcom agrees with you and I will post an RfC at the sock puppet page. I have never made a gamergate edit using either account, but assuming that I had edited gamergate using my alternate account, as I understand it it would be OK for someone to name me as being involved, followed by my revealing my main account to arbcom so you can confirm that the main account has never edited gamergate. So let's say that happens and I end up being blocked (not likely, BTW; my main account is over five years old with over 10,000 edits and no blocks or editing restrictions and I don't intent to abuse this one either). It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? In my particular case I know the rules about block evasion and would cease editing using my main account until the block was lifted on my alternate account, but I doubt that this would be a good solution for the more aggressive editors who end up at arbcom. So how do we handle that situation? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• To GorillaWarfare, is it even allowed for an alternate account like mine to make a clean start while the main account stays the same? I kind of assumed that that wouldn't be allowed. Unrelated question; I do want to give people confidence that I am not violating our sock puppet rules, so if I put a notice on my user page saying that any and all checkusers can look at my account for any reason, would that override the usual checkuser restrictions? Is there any way my waiving my privacy in that way could compromise the privacy of someone else? CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Related question: Again just asking about what this particular arbcom decision does and does not allow, and of course assuming that the other legitimate sock puppet restrictions are obeyed, is an alternate account allowed to ask questions at the teahouse, reference desk, or help desk? I think that we have already established that this is allowed if in support of an article the alt account is working on, but how about generally? Some questions might be of a personal nature. How about answering questions posted by others? I saw a recent rrefdesk question where one of the answers mentioned that the person answering was transgender. That might not be something you want to be published on the internet about yourself. --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I urge the committee not to accept any requests from this account until there is a public declaration of the editor's primary account. BMK (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Guy's comment below, I concur that CPB's edits do indeed seem to be pushing that agenda. I have asked CPB on their talk page to reveal what account they are an alternate of, but if he or she refuses or ignores the request, I strongly urge the committee not to proceed without CPB revealing to the committee what that account is, and an evaluation being made to see if any aspect of WP:SOCK is being violated. Alternate accounts may not be used to avoid scrutiny, and the climate change area is certainly one in which there has been a significant amount of sockpuppety and other disruptions. BMK (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions notice on CPB's talk page. BMK (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So on his talk page - as well as personally attacking me and my motivations - CPB says that he wants to use this account to edit contentious subjects, such as Gamergate, Climate Change, and American Politics. But there is a standard in place for editing Gamergate - since we don't know who CPB is, how is that standard of time/edits to be applied? Certainly the CPB account wouldn't qualify.

In any case, from CPB's description on the talk page, it appears to me that what he wants is a "get out of jail free" card, where his "legitimate" alternate account can raise hell in contentious and disputatious subject areas, and his primary account can merrily edit without suffering any consequences, or scrutiny from other editors. BMK (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity ([9]), perhaps this ought to be closed. BMK (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Blocks are for people, not for accounts. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I note for the record that admin Swarm has rev del'd or oversighted the self-identification I referred to above, I'm not sure under what theory. BMK (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I also note that the AN/I thread which Guy Macon opened about this issue has been moved by Swarm [10] to Archive 901, and then was rev del'd or oversighted from that archive by him [11]. BMK (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: There is no reason to "rejoice in one's own cleverness" when the master account discloses their identity and then attempts to deny it, instead of simply standing mute. Seeing hyprocrisy such as that brings joy to nobody. BMK (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement Rich Farmbrough (CPB)

This has always seemed to me an invidious limitation of legitimate socks. If someone wants (for whatever reason) to use different accounts for different subject areas, then to suggest that those accounts be banned from "project space" discussion is not useful. Certainly crossover should be minimised. I have always imagined that this was an unintentional broadening of the proscription regarding creation of false impressions of support.

Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Addendum

This is a clarification request about:

1. A previous ruling
2. Opinion on policy

Clearly if it constituted trolling and was also deemed not useful, then the Committee would be very likely to speedy close it one way or another - and in the very unlikely event that the trolling nature was obscure, posting evidence to that effect would be legitimate.

However this seems a perfectly good faith question - and the fact that there is difference of opinion, and legitimate hemming and hawing from respected editors indicates that it is one that needs to be taken seriously.

In this context neither attempted outing nor tarring the interlocutor with the brush "climate change denialist" are necessarily useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Salvio - I think NE Ent is perfectly correct. Editing while blocked is of course blockable, and generally leads to block extensions. It would certainly verge on self-outing if a block of the alternate account/extension of block resulted in people putting two and two together. Of course there would still be no need for anyone to, rejoicing in their own cleverness, comment on the identity of the main account. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by JzG

CypherPunkyBrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial. Given the arbitration cases in that are already (both American Politics and Climate change), it would seem like a really bad idea to let this alternate account edit in project space. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer from NE Ent

If one account gets blocked, the editor simply doesn't use other when the block is in place. NE Ent 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

The way I've handled the main account blocked and alt account issue is leaving the alt account unblocked, then if it evades the block on the master's account blocking it for block evasion (without saying more) or asking another admin (a CU when it happened) to block the alt account. That way the two blocks are either separated by time, or, even better, by different blocking admins. If you wanted to block both accounts for the duration of the block the same principle applies, one admin blocks the main account and another blocks the alt account (with a different, but similar block summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

The editor is asking a long string of hypothetical questions. Some of them are brainteasers and not without interest. But the editor has not identified any special hardship that causes them to need relief from the sockpuppet policy. Since there is no valid grievance here there is nothing to adjudicate. My suggestion is that Arbcom should close this request with no action. Changes in policy can be proposed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

• As Rich Farmbrough says, this is a matter of the sockpuppetry/alternate accounts policy, but it was also brought up in the Privatemusings case. The idea behind it, I think, is quite clear. Some editors, if they, for example, edit articles on sexuality, politics, or other "hot button" areas, may not want those edits to be associated with their main account. Provided that the main and alternate account keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and the alternate account isn't being used to behave badly or otherwise avoid scrutiny, that is permitted. But the alternate account is not to be used in areas outside of article editing. Article editing, in my view, would generally be composed of the article and article talk spaces, any dispute resolution processes directly related to those articles such as mediation if you're reasonably a party to such a process, and other areas directly related to article content editing such as featured article/good article/DYK candidacies related to articles edited by the alternate account. So at least in my view, it wouldn't be entirely bound to a given namespace. Rather, it is bound to a purpose, content editing. It would not, therefore, include discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or other such internal processes. Nor would it allow general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles the alternate account is working on. The editor would need to pick a single primary account to use in such internal discussions, and use only that account for them. If you'd prefer that the primary account not be associated with such discussions, your option would be to avoid participating in them.

  For your specific hypothetical scenarios, then: In an ArbCom case, the alternate account should be used only if it is a named party. If you'd like to jump in on a case you're not a named party to, use your primary account. (If the alternate account is a named party, it would be wise to inform the Committee privately of the situation.) AN(I) and other administrative boards, generally not (though I personally wouldn't care if you reported blatant vandals to AIV with it.) Content discussion boards like RSN, NPOVN, etc., yes, so long as the discussion there is directly related to the alternate account's edits. So, discussing content yes, discussing editors no. For your third question, "disclosure" in this sense would mean publicly and clearly disclosing what primary account the alternate account is linked to (you can see my public terminal account for what that looks like), not just disclosing that it is an alternate. I think your fourth question is answered by the above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You bring up some additional good points. In the case that an alternate account is engaging in poor or sanctionable behavior, I would see it as entirely justifiable for an administrator to indef the alternate account as a "bad hand" sock. Alternate accounts are not meant to engage in poor behavior without that reflecting on the primary account, and the sockpuppetry policy already forbids that type of misuse. The conduct of the alternate account must be absolutely above reproach. So far as areas like Gamergate where editing restrictions apply, if the alternate account doesn't meet the requirements to edit there and isn't clearly and publicly linked to an account that does, well then, that account can't be used to edit there. Admins need to be able to verify that the editor is eligible to edit there; a vague handwave that "Oh, I have a different account that does meet the requirements" doesn't cut it. Nor is private disclosure and verification in that instance. Even when feasible, that would be too much of a timesink. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• My interpretation of current policy is as follows:
  • Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

    No. Participating in "discussions internal to the project" on an alternative account is explicitly prohibited by WP:SOCK, and ArbCom cases qualify.

  • Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

    Same as above; these are internal to the project.

  • Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

    No. Publicly disclosed alternative accounts are accounts that are identified by name and clearly linked to the main account. For example, if User:Foo stated clearly that they had registered the account User:Foo(public) for use on unsecured networks, it would not be a breach of policy for them to comment on internal discussions, as this account would be clearly linked to the primary account. Simply stating that an account is an alt is not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

    I'm hesitant to say concretely that alternate accounts can only edit the Main and article talk namespaces, because there are plenty of exceptions. I think Seraphimblade is correct to instead identify edits that are not directly related to improving article content as inappropriate.

I do think there is an interesting issue here, though. People who have accounts that are clearly traceable to real-world identities may not be comfortable participating in situations like the Gamergate case, where there is a real risk that people will try to retaliate. These people are effectively barred from participating in these discussions, as alternate accounts cannot be used in projectspace discussions even when used to protect privacy. The only real way for a user to get around this is a WP:Clean start, which comes with its own host of problems. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Sorry if that was unclear. You would not be able to "clean start" with an alternative account—you would need to abandon the primary account in this hypothetical. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this are essentially the same as Seraphimblade's. One way to allow alternate accounts used for the purposes of protecting privacy to participate in internal discussions would be to allow disclosure to the Arbitration Committee (possibly with some safeguards to prevent abuse of this). However, this would require amending both the sockpuppetry policy and the Privatemusings case. I would be amenable to the latter, but only if there is a community consensus for the former at an RfC or equivalent. Until that happens though, alternate accounts that are not publicly disclosed may not participate in arbitration cases, etc. to which they are not a party and that are unrelated to article content they are working on. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, I tend to agree with my colleagues, with one exception: for me, alternative accounts disclosed to ArbCom cannot be considered "undisclosed alternative accounts" for the purposes of WP:SOCK. Then again, this is only my opinion and we are being asked to clarify a policy, rather than one of our decisions, so I don't know how much weight our collective opinions carry here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If an editor has good reasons to desire to participate in an ArbCom case with an alternative account, he can try sending us an e-mail, explaining those reasons to us and if we're persuaded, we may grant an exception. That doesn't need an RfC.

    It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? [...] So how do we handle that situation? I'll have to think about this a little more before I can give you an answer... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is important to understand that principles reflect policy and generally-accepted best practices at the time they were written; principles are not in-and-of-themselves binding if community norms or policies change after the fact. It is not clear to me that any action is required on this matter. LFaraone 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Belatedly getting around to this. I agree that there's nothing here for us to do, although a change in policy might require us to look again at Privatemusings. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• The alternative to allowing such accounts to participate in discussions is that the alt account would be used for the editing, and the individual would really have no proper way to discuss their own edits if challenged, because using their regular account would look like the classic sockpuppettry of two different accounts being used to support each other. The wording needs to be changed, but that's up to the community. I think in the meantime, that we could make explicit exceptions, as Salvio suggested. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Privatemusings (June 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry:" 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." (emphasis added)

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

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry:" 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." (emphasis added)

• The last sentence (in bold) be struck from the decision.

Statement by Beeblebrox

This sentence of the decision is the entire basis for the policy at WP:PROJSOCK. I find it vague and unhelpful. The remainder of the socking policy already forbids the abusive use of multiple accounts. As ArbCom is specifically not empowered to dictate policy, I propose this sentence be stricken from the decision and links to it removed from the the socking policy, which would allow the community to freely modify the policy as it sees fit without seeming to be "going against an ArbCom decision." This will not actually change the socking policy itself.

@In actu: it's not an actual barrier to change, but it looks like one to some people, I just want to remove that perception and then propose changes to the actual policy. We don't do policy by fiat anymore, but it seems to have happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My goal here is to take arbcom out of the equation entirely, not to have it take a side. As it stands now it seems to be on the side of the policy as written, that is literally all I am trying to change with this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing little to no appetite for doing this, which is fine, the community is running with it anyway, so this can be considered withdrawn, or archived, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Do we really need to change a 14 year old case? The principles are all obiter dicta at best anyways. They may be persuasive as to what policy looked like at a time, but they flow from policy, not vice versa. The community could turn the see on the policy page into a see also or a contra, if it wanted to. The fact that a portion of the community uses the principle as a reason for not changing the policy is not a good argument for going around the community and changing the principle. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: On the day that the case opened the policy looked like this and it included the following clauses that the principle probably flow from:

• "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages."
• "Alternate accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternate puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."
• "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean," while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior."

While you might disagree with the drafters and it is more of a stretch than what modern arbcoms have done in the principles, I don't see them writing policy in whole cloth here. Getting arbcom to change a 14 year old principle because you anticipate some number of community members using it as a reason for opposing your preferred policy is getting arbcom to take a side on a policy debate. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a principle might act as a persuasive authority contra your preferred change in some future discussion isn't a good reason to change it. If the community, or a significant minority of the community, thinks that the policy shouldn't change because the policy and the case are lockstep, so be it. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Principles in arbitration cases always reflect the state of policy at the time of the case. I don't think it is necessary for each change to a policy to trigger revisions to all affected principles for past cases. To make it easier for future reference, going forward it would be helpful if principles linked to specific versions of the appropriate policy pages. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers

It seems that the community has already modified the Arbcom decision by adding the clause I have marked in bold. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Discussions that directly affect a legitimate alternate account in project space are permitted.

So in my understanding, if an editor has an undisclosed alt account to edit articles on a topic they avoid with their main account, they can take part in AFD discussions with that account if one of the articles they edit with it has been nominated for deletion, and I think they can nominate that article for DYK, GA and FA, or file a request at RFPP or report a vandal at AIV. Providing of course they don't take part in any of those discussions with other unlinked accounts - but that is already covered in the policy. I think those exemptions are sensible and it would be useful if Arbcom was to confirm that it didn't intend to have the PrivateMusings decision taken sufficiently literally as to prevent an editor submitting an article for FA review etc.

That still leaves us with the hypothetical scenario where an editor submits an RFA after a snarky interaction with someone's alt account. Taking the current policy literally, the holder of the alt account would only be able to oppose with their main account, and not refer to the interaction with their alt account. If the editor stayed away from the RFA with their main account, but opposed with their sock using the rational "Oppose per [diff] this incident" that would be a blockable offense as they would be taking part in a project space discussion that only indirectly involved them. I don't see a good reason for such a bureaucratic restriction, and would be happy if Arbcom were to set aside that part of the Private Musings decision.

No one disputes that we need rules against undisclosed alt accounts being used for double voting. But I'm not seeing any advantage in the extra bureaucracy of stopping alt accounts from participating in project space, and there are some downsides, especially if the PrivateMusings decision were taken literally, rather than as now, radically reinterpreted.

Statement by Nosebagbear

I'm neutral on whether the arbs should enact the actual proposal, but should they choose not to, a clear-cut statement that they have no objection to the Community re-writing the policy and that this principle should not be viewed as preventing that would be an alternate means of settling the concern Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Note that the footnote was removed by Jehochman with this edit yesterday. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there in fact a desire among the community to revoke/reword PROJSOCK? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• This has come up several times in the history of the Privatemusings case, and in every discussion someone explained that this principle represented ArbCom's understanding of the sockpuppetry policy at the time. It was never intended to establish policy, even though it is currently treated as such. (As an aside, if ArbCom were to establish policy, it would do so as a remedy, not as a principle. Principles are derived from the community.)
  For full disclosure, I supported removing this line from the sockpuppetry policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Undisclosed alternate accounts, and while that point was somewhat lost as part of a broader discussion, I still believe that this line no longer reflects the current consensus. The fact that the 2007 committee believed it to be an accurate summary of community policy is, in my view, irrelevant. – bradv🍁 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to change the principle. ArbCom principles are not binding statements of policy. Their impact is generally limited to providing a framework to decide a particular case at hand. They are certainly not designed to constrain the community's ability to adopt or change policy, especially over a decade later. Unlike Brad, without my arb hat on, I think the statement ought to be policy, but if the community disagrees with me, this principle really should not stand in the way. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 23:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think we need to be very cautious about changing Principles and FoF from previous cases and do not see a compelling reason to do so here. That it resonated enough with the community to incorporate it into policy for years shows how ArbCom can exercise moral leadership. I'm glad we're amending PROJSOCK coming out of the VP discussion but don't think we need to amend our decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would support the removal of the PROJSOCK footnote but I don't think we can do that as an ArbCom as it's beyond our scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• If this were a remedy, I'd be immediately all-in. However, it's a Principle based on community consensus, and we all know that can change over time. If people are using a Principle from 14 years ago as the sole justification for something, then there needs to be a demonstrated consensus that it's still valid (which, based on the recent RFC, is not the case). However, I do tend to agree with my colleagues above that it was consensus at the time. I'm not sure if striking is the best way to indicate this, or if we should just do something like appending a clarifying note. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues above. Principles can always only reflect the policy and guidelines at the time. They are not meant to be the basis of policy or guidelines. I think the best way forward is to remove the footnote from WP:PROJSOCK which was added two years after the case with this edit and leave the question whether to remove the rest to the community to discuss. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with SoWhy's assessment and recommendation. I think this discussion gets the point across, such that editing an old case just isn't necessary. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• What SoWhy said. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.