Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

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

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (clerk)
• 99.192.90.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
• Elaqueate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
• Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
• Daira Hopwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)

Remedy 4.1 of Sexology, "Discretionary Sanctions", states that discretionary sanctions may be authorised "for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification". This is mostly a set theory/syntactical question: does the remedy refer to the intersection of the categories, or the union of the categories? My view of it was the former, but Penwhale believes it applies to the latter. It may be prudent for the Committee to state what its intent was. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In sanctions, the word "and" generally refers to the union of the topics mentioned. Collect (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: I have added the names of the 4 editors I notified of the Sexology DS and have notified them of this discussion (as they're directly affected by this request). Now that's out of the way: That wording really is not the best thing in the world. (As Sceptre pointed out, it creates different interpretations.) The thing is that the intersection of the two clauses... In fact, I'm having trouble pointing out the intersection of the clauses, because I believe that such intersection would cover a very limited set of articles that the committee would have named those articles directly in the remedy. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Performed admin action related to this request, so recuse. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Penwale's construction of the clause is the correct one. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Penwhale, Collect and Salvio. NW (Talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} at 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Other remedies
2. Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Peter cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Peter Cohen notified
• Sandstein notified

Information about amendment request

• Other remedies
• The restriction against me that was issued by Sandstein is lifted.
• Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions
• A note is added below my warning and Peter's stating that the claims of misconduct underlying Sandstein's warnings were invalid.
• Furthermore I would ask that the oversighted edit I made on Sandstein's talk page be restored as it only contained public information available on the arbitration pages, a recent highly-trafficked noticeboard case, and a mention of an editor's previous username.

Note:Originally, I sought to appeal this restriction by e-mail out of respect for the privacy issues alleged by Sandstein, but was instructed to make the appeal publicly. My appeal below is a slightly altered version of that e-mail.

In the initial comment I made to Sandstein I noted User:Prioryman's previous account name was ChrisO (disclosed plainly on the ARBSCI page), pointed to a rather recent public discussion that concluded giving out Prioryman's real name was not outing, and described how the WP:ARBSCI case page itself plainly gives out Prioryman's identity in the finding of fact about him. The closest I personally came to giving out Prioryman's full name was noting his username.

Since Sandstein had blocked an editor for the apparent offense of noting Prioryman's name and conflict of interest regarding Scientology in the context of that editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article, this was all germane to the discussion. However, Sandstein's sanction against me did not even come at that point, but only after I responded to his warning. It appears the sanction was imposed solely because I mentioned Prioryman's previous username after Sandstein's warning.

At the AN discussion there was majority support, though not a clear consensus, for lifting the restriction against me. At the request for clarification several Arbitrators agreed that, in the specific case of Prioryman, even noting his real name was not outing and certainly not noting his previous account name. The one Arb who commented on my sanction directly said it should be lifted.

Seeing as all I did was note the name of a previous account and point to public arbitration pages and noticeboard discussions, the underlying charge of outing is invalid. A majority of those who commented say the restriction should be lifted and at least one Arbitrator said the same. The restriction should thus be lifted and the warnings, having been based on a false premise, should be noted as containing invalid claims of misconduct. My desire to see the suppressed edit on Sandstein's talk page be unsuppressed is to avoid the appearance of misconduct that goes with having an edit oversighted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio, as stated, my suggestion is to simply note the warnings were not making a valid claim of misconduct. It is less a questioning of "unissuing" the warning and more a matter of repudiating it. A note to the effect of "the warnings issued to The Devil's Advocate and Peter Cohen are found to be without merit" is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the background from memory (without links so as not to link to private information):

I indef-blocked Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for outing and/or harassment by unnecessarily and despite another admin's warnings publicizing private information about another user in the course of a WP:AE request related to Scientology. I understand Drg55 unsuccessfully appealed that block to WP:BASC, and remains blocked. I also understand that the other user at issue, who may previously have engaged in significant misconduct themselves, is at the center of numerous controversies related to Gibraltar and Scientology (which are topics subject to discretionary sanctions) and also the target of off- and onwiki harassment activities because of that.

On my talk page, The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen protested against the block of Drg55 and threatened community noticeboard discussions about it. To prevent such discussions becoming fora for continued outing and/or harassment, I warned both not to do that and to pursue private venues of appeal instead. Because of their misguided insistence, I also forbade The Devil's Advocate from engaging in public discussions related to this private information. Part of this talk page thread was suppressed by the oversight team because it contained private information. Nonetheless, Peter cohen launched a long and acrimonious ANI discussion which, as I predicted, did become a venue for outing private information, but did not achieve consensus about the appropriateness of my warnings and sanction. To understand how discretionary sanctions apply to such situations, I sought clarification by the Committee, and my impression of the tenor of their response was that discretionary sanctions may be used in the way I did, even if the misconduct by Drg55 might have been "only" harassment and not outing in the strict sense because the private information at issue might, as I then learned, have been indirectly acknowledged on-wiki years ago.

As a result of the clarification request, I wrote that the sanction regarding The Devil's Advocate could probably be lifted because it has proven unsuccessful in preventing the kind of problematic ANI discussion we then experienced, but that the two users at issue here, and others who participated in the ANI thread, should be warned that they may experience discretionary sanctions if they publish private information without compelling reasons. But I forgot to follow up on that - sorry. That is still what I think would be an appropriate course of action going forward. As for the warnings, I think they were appropriate and can, in any case, not be undone in any meaningful sense (though, if I may remind the Committee, we are still waiting on the result of your review of the rules about warnings and other aspects of DS). As to the oversighting, that is a matter for review (if needed) by the appropriate functionaries and processes, and probably not suited to onwiki discussion. All users should be reminded that our privacy rules must be taken seriously and that private information is not an appropriate subject of ANI drama fests, but that conflicts related to it should be resolved in the appropriate private venues.  Sandstein  09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Arbitration Committee come to the conclusion that my warnings and/or sanction were in error, I'd appreciate more detailed guidance as to how I can avoid such errors in the future. For instance, is the problem that it is an inappropriate use of discretionary sanctions to direct editors not to initiate public discussions (including public appeals) related to private information, or is it that the information at issue (the user's real name and the former username derived from it), which they want to be treated as private, should not in fact be treated as private? Additionally, I'd appreciate it if the Committee also considers whether additional warnings or actions are appropriate with regard to Peter cohen's approach to contesting his warning, which include numerous personal attacks here and in the earlier ANI thread.

I'd also appreciate it if the Committee could come up with a way to set up appeals against discretionary sanctions such that they are much faster and more conclusive. Because these sanctions are designed to be routinely and quickly used, we must expect that there will be disagreements concerning their application, and we should set up a dedicated, orderly process to handle these disagreements. Prior to this appeal, all users involved in this matter were forced to spend inordinate amounts of volunteer time discussing the same issues in an inconclusive and very lengthy and confrontational ANI thread.You should set up an appeals framework (whether before the Committee, the community, administrators or another authority) that has a defined structure, some degree of oversight, and is designated as the only place in which discretionary sanctions may be contested, much like WP:DRV for deletions and {{unblock}} for blocks. The present lack of structure contributes to the waste of our principal resource - time and attention - and contributes to an unnecessary personalization and emotionalization of good-faith disagreements that ought to be resolved in a professional and dispassionate manner.  Sandstein  07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, thank you for clarifying that an administrator may still modify their sanction even as it is being appealed. As I wrote above, I am of the view that the sanction can now be lifted. That is not because I think that it was in error (though like in the case of most actions requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, opinions may legitimately differ about whether it was in error) but because it has proven to be ineffective in reaching its goal, which was to prevent a discussion on public fora in which the alleged real name of a Wikipedia user was likely to be (and was indeed) publicized, in what I think is, on balance, a violation of our rules concerning privacy and harassment. Considering that several arbitrators have now expressed the opinion that the sanction was in error, but have not specified why (see my preceding comment), I think that if I were to lift the sanction now, this would not bring about the clarity which I think would be helpful in any future disputes regarding that name.

I would therefore prefer it that, if anything needs to be done regarding that sanction, it is done by a Committee decision about this appeal that authoritatively determines (a) which if any identifying information about the user at issue is to be treated as private under which circumstances; and (b) whether discretionary sanctions may be used to direct that issues related to private information are not to be discussed publicly.

As I wrote above, I would also appreciate it if the Committee would determine if the approach taken by Peter cohen in contesting their warning here and at ANI was appropriate and, if not, what consequences should ensue. I imagine that it will materially impact the willingness of administrators to engage in arbitration enforcement tasks if they must anticipate that their actions will be contested, without reaction by the Arbitration Committee, in the manner they were contested in this case, rather than in an orderly and disciplined appeals procedure. A reaction by the Committee appears particularly necessary because, in such cases, administrators face the dilemma of either having to ignore unseemly and disruptive conduct such as personal attacks, or (by acknowledging them) creating the appearance of bias and personal involvement, which may disqualify them from future enforcement actions – which may well be the goal of those engaging in inappropriate conduct. Such conduct should not be incentivized by Committee inaction.  Sandstein  16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Thanks for clarifying your views about the matter. I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on Peter cohen's conduct any more than I already have. Could you please also clarify whether, in your view, the other user's alleged full real name should be treated as private? That is, I think, a more clear-cut privacy concern than the username, and the publication of that alleged full name by the editor I blocked was the principal basis for my restriction when a noticeboard discussion was threatened about that block.  Sandstein  11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the warnings can be undone -- it's a wiki. We just go to Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Other_remedies and Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Log_of_warnings_about_discretionary_sanctions and remove DA's and Peter's name with an edit summary linking to the AN discussion. NE Ent 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: the warnings cannot be undone in any meaningful sense because the users cannot be made unaware of discretionary sanctions. The word 'warning' is the confusing part. It was never meant to imply wrongdoing. It was meant to notify of stricter rules. At some point down the line, someone altered the warning to imply wrongdoing. While well meaning, that only confused things. Removing their names in the way you describe would not make a practical difference since proof that the user is aware of DS can and has been used in place of the 'warning'. As Sandstein notes, we are still awaiting Arbcoms official review concerning that knot. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had been about to exercise my right to vanish having demonstrated to myself the ability to keep away from Wikipedia for a month. This was as a way to disassociate my real name from a subject (Scientology) with which I have had nothing to do and with which I intend to have nothing to do. Sandstein's arrogant refusal to examine his actions and most of Arbcom's failure to answer the questions I put not once but twice in the previous thread about this matter on this page having persuaded me that I want nothing to do with a project that is run by people such as you who are willing to give Sandstein free reign to bully anyone who points out that he has made a poor decision.

The matter of Prioryman's name and previous id came up last year in this long ANI thread. The closing summary mentioned that "There seems to be or nearly be a consensus that YRC did not violate WP:OUTING.". In short the community's judgment was that calling Prioryman by his real name, as User:Youreallycan did before the ANI thread and which User:Drg55 did before his ban, was not outing. It follows that Sandstein's decision to use WP:OUTING as a grounds for banning Drg55 went against the majority, consensus or near consensus of the community.

Both TDA and I referred Sandstein to the AN/I thread. (Although Sandstein's use of revdel meant that I was not clear of what exactly TDA had done.) Sandstein's response was to slap us both with Arbcom enforcement warnings on a subject with which I have had nothing to do. He also slapped an enforcement action on TDA. How Sandstein can be surprised that I went straight to ANI as my next step after his repeated abuse of admin power as a means of protecting his ego from being questioned by non-admins, just shows what a fool he is.

Returning to the AN/I thread that I reference above, you can find the following piece of dialogue

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that I referred to "User:ChrisO in my posting on Sandstein's page is of no import.

So, Arbcom, are you prepared to do something to retain an editor who has contributed a moderate amount of featured and good content or would you rather let Sandstein continue as your bully boy taking admin actions against anyone who points out that he has gone too far. If the latter, then please delete my user and user talk pages and rename my account to vanished user something or other.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sandstein still wants his pound of flesh so that he has some way of pretending that he was in the right. The thing is that if you act like an arrogant piece of shit whose immediate reaction to non-admins telling you that you've got something wrong is to slap them with warnings and sanctions without bothering to read the links that they refer you to (and Sandstein has previously admitted that he could not be bothered to read the threads in questions) then you should not be surprised when people say that you are an arrogant piece of shit. And the fact that I am not the first person to criticize Sandstein with strong language just shows that he is a repeat offender who regularly acts like a piece of shit. Having decided that Wikipedia does not reward me enough to make it worth putting up with Sandstein then I see no reason to mince my words. He has had plenty of time to apologise to The Devils Advocate and to me for not assuming good faith in our actions and that convinces me that there was malice in his. And as I'm intending to exercise my right to vanish I don't care whether Arbcom tut-tut me or not. So can someone vanish me, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why The Devil's Advocate's request should not be granted. The only question is whether Sandstein's warning to TDA was a warning or a notification. If it's just a notification, it cannot be undone since TDA is obviously aware of it. OTOH, if it's a warning, of course it can be undone. As NE Ent aptly points out, this is a Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that although Sandstein acted in error in how he initially handled this, to his credit he is now asking for feedback on what he should have done. Since ArbCom presides over WP's administration, you need to give him that feedback that he is asking for. Also, contrast the maturity of Sandstein's request with Timotheus Cannens' (TC) response when his administrator actions on the enforcement board regarding Mathsci's multiple conflicts with other editors, including yours truly, where he threatened to undo all of his previous enforcement actions if you undid one of his decisions. So, TC, should Sandstein do like you did and threaten to undo all of his previous admin actions if you guys decide he was incorrect? Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a query. It's still not clear from any of this whether or under what circumstances I may point out to another editor Prioryman's previous username. Do you think that should be made clear, or is it best to leave it ambiguous so Sandstein may sanction people, or not, at his discretion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lift sanction, delete warnings from ARBSCI page as a courtesy. Courtesy blanking is commonly done, and in this case it is fairly clear that the warnings were inappropriate: by the standards Sandstein applied, several arbitrators – who in their comments said the same as TDA and Peter cohen the last time this matter was before the committee – would have to be "warned" and logged on ARBSCI as well. Andreas JN466 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this during a long wiki break. I wasn't aware of Prioryman's previous account but found it immediately with my first Google search: An edit by the Prioryman account itself put an old barnstar with the old user name on the account's awards page. It is still there.

Sandstein has an unfortunate tendency to alienate valuable editors. He makes mistakes like every other admin does, but blows them up ridiculously by not correcting them unless directed to do so by a higher authority. (As the evidence is a number of previous appearances of Sandstein before Arbcom, I feel I don't have to go to the trouble of researching and linking them.) If he gets away scot free each and every time, no doubt this will continue. Hans Adler 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I frankly wouldn't mind if I never had to read another word about Prioryman's former username. However, the reminder that it's time for the Committee to post the proposed clarifications as to how discretionary sanctions should work is well-taken. Several of my colleagues have made this a priority task, though our attention has been diverted to finishing the active cases recently; I hope we can post something for comment soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vacate the sanction and lift the warnings. The latter is a purely symbolic gesture, but this whole fiasco isn't worth losing editors over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent Sandstein accepts that he issued a sanction he should not have, it would be in order (and would save everyone a lot of trouble) if he would simply lift that sanction on his own initiative. In case he has any doubt whether he is authorized to take that action at this stage, the answer is yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially grant appeal. As I've said the last time we discussed this issue, I believe that, in this case, the sanction Sandstein imposed on TDA is unreasonable and, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion. For that, I think it should be lifted. On the other hand, warnings, once issued, cannot be unissued in any meaningful sense and, so, in that respect, the appeal should be declined. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein:, as a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you believe an appeal against a decision you make should not be heard by the community, then the best approach, in my opinion, would be to refer the issue at hand to people who can legitimately make a decision and then say "the action de qua was taken as a result of evidence which we may not disclose" (basically, functionaries and ArbCom).

    Also, I see that you still think your decision was not wrong; frankly, I find it unreassuring that, all else aside, you still fail to see why your actions could give the appearance of impropriety: an editor comes to your talk page explaining why he thinks you were wrong, providing evidence, and you sanction him. Now, that surely wasn't your intention, but you should have considered how your actions could be perceived by an involved observer, particularly considering how serious an AE sanction is and how difficult it is to overturn it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree entirely with Salvio,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For information, the long-awaited draft update to Discretionary sanctions procedures has now been posted for scrutiny and discussion here. If adopted, the new procedure would downgrade all existing warnings to alerts (or notices) and thus remove the perceived stigma and finding of fault sometimes attaching to them. The discussion page is here. In the light of this, there is probably no reason to rescind the warnings. Roger Davies ^talk 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed this situation in detail, hoping to find some piece of information that had been missed, but I must also agree the sanction imposed on TDA is unjustified. (With the same thinking as Salvio, I would however do nothing about the warnings.) I will shortly propose a motion to this end.

  In response to Sandstein's questions, (1) Administrators are permitted to direct appeals to be submitted privately to the committee if they think it is necessary. In this case, although we overruled your direction, I do agree it was justified that you directed TDA to appeal privately to the committee. Needless to say, the unnecessary imposition of conditions on appeals by an administrator would be grounds for remedial action and could not be tolerated, but that is certainly not the case here. (2) The community's consensus appears to hold that Prioryman's old username is not private information. I do not see any reason to object to that consensus, but at the same time I cannot think of a situation where it would actually be necessary to refer to his former username; all else aside, it is simply discourteous. (3) I do not think I see any actionable misconduct by Peter cohen in this clarification request. If there has been any elsewhere, and it can reasonably be attributed to frustration with what my colleagues and I have agreed is an unwarranted sanction, then I would recommend excusing it. If it cannot reasonably be excused, then I still cannot see evidence of it in this thread, so a better evidence submission would be required. And in any event his misconduct would not be a subject that falls under the scope of this request. (4) Recommendations as to reforming the appeals process are welcome, as Roger Davies said, at the Discretionary Sanctions Review. I think this answers all your questions, Sandstein. AGK [•] 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

For reference, the current sanctions (logged at Scientology on 9 July 2013) against The Devil's Advocate (TDA) are:

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) is banned from all discussions or other material concerning or related to the identity of a particular editor, per this notification.

Proposed:

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

Support:

1. Proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion does not affect the imposition of future sanctions, and does not confer a conflict of interest on Sandstein with regards to Scientology or TDA. AGK [•] 10:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. See my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments by arbitrators:

---