Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

message: Privatemusings is the third account of this user to make significant edits, other accounts also exist.  The account  was originally registered to engage in contentious policy debate to separate that form the main account, .  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 , ,  and  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 , Privatemusings edited , King's lawyer.  See  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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User talk:JzG|Guy]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by WAS 4.250

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Alecmconroy

message: 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.--Docg 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Doc

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]]

message: #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.
#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.
#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. 
#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.)
#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)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Relata Refero

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by David Gerard 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Statement by Jreferee 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question from (uninvolved) Snickersnee 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

message: Privatemusings  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is time served included in block time? 

message: I'm willing to give this one a chance.  
Original case located here. 
I propose 
====Repeal====
=====Privatemusings banned for 90 days=====
3) ' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days.  The revocation affects all accounts.
====Impose====
=====Privatemusings placed on mentorship.=====
3) ' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008.  The commitee appoints  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)
thread_title: Privatemusings

message: =====Privatemusings placed on mentorship.=====
3) ' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008.  The commitee appoints  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)
thread_title: Impose

message: 3) ' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008.  The commitee appoints  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)
thread_title: Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Lawrence Cohen]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Last question for the arbs from Lawrence

message: The account that made the complaint about PrivateMusings —  — 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)
replies: text: User:JzG has indef banned Archfailure. Lawrence § t/e 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by SlimVirgin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by LessHeard vanU 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment by GRBerry 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Avruch|Avruch]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 

message: *Too soon for a change. Give it some more time, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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 DissidentTalk 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Daniel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Swatjester 

message: 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. AvruchT * ER 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Avruch 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Carcharoth

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Shalom

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_restricted,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2008 discussion, part 1 

message: Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings,  is subject to an enduring restriction prohibiting him from editing any article which is substantially a biography of a living individual.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Mills&diff=prev&oldid=202664800
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=201770197
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paulos_Faraj_Rahho&diff=prev&oldid=198043459 - recently deceased, covered by WP:BLP
The restriction makes no exceptions for reversion of vandalism.  Guy (Help!) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already subject to RFAR review here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings for a clarification. Community consensus, which can change sanctions, so far seems to be vandalism/BLP reverts are exempt from the prohibition, so far. You should weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three arbitrators have spoken out against these edits being blockable reverts. Can this be considered resolved?  Risker (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The first two are clear vandalism reverts, and no administrator using sound judgment would take any action regarding them.  The third is on the article of someone who was dead before the article was created, and has never been a BLP article.  (It is also a good edit.)  Contrary to Guy's assertions, WP:BLP does not apply to material about deceased individuals, nor has it ever.  No action should be taken.  GRBerry 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the history of PM certainly ther first 2 look substantially positive edits and really he should eb congratulated for "turning over a new leaf". Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to close this, based on feedback above and from the Arbitrators here. MastCell Talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AE discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Privatemusings]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Sarcasticidealist]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Avruch

message: I propose a different restriction.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:jayvdb|John Vandenberg]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Alecmconroy]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  o.O by [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: link NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh, so you hadn't lost your voice yet. That makes a lot more sense. --NE2 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing of importance by NE2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Barberio

message: 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, DurovaCharge! 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 06:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, DurovaCharge! 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal by [[User:Durova|Durova]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Point of information by [[User:Lar|Lar]]

message: 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:
:
4) Remedy two of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings is vacated. In its place,  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.
:
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)
thread_title: Proposal from uninvolved [[user:AGK|AGK]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: 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 DissidentTalk 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]] 

message: *Recuse. I have prior involvement with Privatemusings, although outside of the scope of this case. Anthøny 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :#Support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: #:Support adding Jayvdb also. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: #Support Paul August ☎ 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: #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)

text: # Support as presently written. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: # Support. Kirill (prof) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: # Support. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  misuse of authority 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)

text: @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)

text: @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)

text: @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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question from [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Lar]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:WAS 4.250]] 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Troikoalogo]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tom harrison]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Gladys_j_cortez|Gladys J Cortez]] 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: just checking in - haven't heard anything directly at all :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no news? - 1 week down.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: my money's on christmas coming first ;-) - no news. Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  status quo 

message: ; Case affected : 
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# 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.
* 
===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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Recused MBisanz talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Recused MBisanz talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendment 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Septentrionalis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Will Beback 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by RexxS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Privatemusings]] 

message: :This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Recused MBisanz talk 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Original request
Initiated by  Ponjuseme (talk) at 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Amendment request: Privatemusings (October 2014) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Original discussion
Initiated by CypherPunkyBrewster at 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (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)

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

text: Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity (), perhaps this ought to be closed. BMK (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @NE Ent: Blocks are for people, not for accounts. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification request: Privatemusings (December 2015) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by CypherPunkyBrewster 

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

text: Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity (), perhaps this ought to be closed. BMK (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @NE Ent: Blocks are for people, not for accounts. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement Rich Farmbrough (CPB)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Answer from NE Ent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Callanecc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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.
: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Beeblebrox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by isaacl 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Nosebagbear 

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

message: *Is there in fact a desire among the community to revoke/reword PROJSOCK? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion