Revision as of 23:21, 17 April 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Longevity Notifications

Initiated by CalvinTy at 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• CalvinTy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Per template instructions, EdJohnston was notified here.

Statement by CalvinTy

My apologizes for making this request for clarification several weeks after the fact. Only today, I came across this discussion between Amatulić and Sandstein about the ArbCom Longevity case. There was a link to the ArbCom case, and there's where I saw the Notifications section here showing that the admin EdJohnston gave me a notification on 6 March 2011. The ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011, and I was not active on Misplaced Pages until 25 Feb 2011 and onwards.

EdJohnston and I did discuss the necessity of the 'notification' at the time (on 6 March 2011):

• RfE against NickOrnstein
• His original notification to me at my talk page
• My first reply
• His response to my reply & striking out "further" in the phrase, "inappropriate behavior" in the notice template
• Per his request, "It would help to clarify matters if you could explain why you happened to choose this moment to begin editing Misplaced Pages (right after the Longevity case closed)", I provided a lengthy reply.
• My request for clarification on his talk page about his "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Misplaced Pages' ought to receive this message." comment
• His reply answered the other part of my clarification, "Please be aware that blocks and sanctions may be appealed, but not notices."
• My reply indicating this, "Apologizes as I did not know that I cannot appeal a notice even if an administrator may have done it after coming to an incorrect conclusion that a notice would be needed (where one may not be needed). I will keep that in mind in the future and hope to be able to recommend somewhere that a notice can also be appealed."

That's the reason I'm here today. I hope I'm at the right place. For starters, I have learned a lot since 25 Feb 2011 and am now better educated in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. At the time, and still today, I am of strong opinion that I should not have received a notice considering that I was not engaged in any inappropriate behavior.

I thought I had not, but I see that I did tell EdJohnston here where I quoted the ArbCom case, Finding of Facts #3, "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."

In that RfE case against NickOrnstein, which was expanded to include The 110 Club members (of which I'm an administrator/member of) due to possible off-wiki canvassing by some forum members, I had suggested a potential compromise here. I asked any admin this: "first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?"

• EdJohnston replied to my talk page that he feels, "It is possible that the AE request might close with no specific action toward members of the 110 Club, though I believe that a warning is likely. "At a minimum, the AE will end with all of the members notified of the discretionary sanctions."
• I gave a response on my talk page: "My point is that I could have not known that some forum members could have been in violation of WP:CANVASS, regardless of whether I am an admin there or not. Like I have said repeatedly, I only became active as of 25 Feb 2011 (no matter how "soon" it is perceived after the Longevity ArbCom case -- that's an unfair assumption.) I wanted to get your response and hoped to see you agreeing with my point of view, and voluntarily retracting the formal notice. You haven't indicated why you have associated me with the possible canvassing going on by some forum members, do you understand what I'm trying to say? In light of that, you have perceived me as a "guilty party" without due process by sending me that formal notice. That is inappropriate. I now respectfully request you to retract the formal notice that you sent directly to me until there is a new (if any) RfE regarding any possibility that I have been involved with any violations of any Misplaced Pages guidelines."
• As mentioned earlier, EdJohnston had replied to me through his talk page, so I never got the chance to get a response from him on that particular formal request from me for retraction of the formal notice, which would have been helpful.
• Though, the day before, EdJohnston even stated to another admin, "The meatpuppet issue is in a gray area, and one could argue there is not enough evidence of on-wiki mischief due to the off-wiki coordination. The arguments of the 110 Club that they are not canvassing seem to misunderstand policy."
• EdJohnston closed that RfE against NickOrnstein with the comment, "Admins may choose to notify forum participants of the discretionary sanctions."

To date, I still don't feel that I along with several other forum members should have received any notice unless there were diffs to provide evidence against each one of us (as far as I know, none were supplied by any editor against me). Yes, there were several diffs providing evidence against some forum members, which were quite convincing, but EdJohnston may have acted erroneously in good faith when he came to the conclusion that "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Misplaced Pages' ought to receive this message.".

Finally, I apologize again for my chatterbox habit, but to sum up, I just feel that a formal notice was given to me by mistake, and I want to find out how I can have this formally retracted, if possible. I just am the type of person who abides with policies and guidelines, whether on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, and I still feel that formal notice is a negative connotation against me and who I really am like. Seeing my name in an ArbCom case did upset me so that's why I'm following up on whether I am able to have a notice retracted, hopefully by EdJohnston himself. Best regards, CalvinTy 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by CalvinTy

@EdJohnston, that was a good analogy about "taking back a notice is like unringing a bell". @SirFozzie, I did understood that "Notification does not imply any wrongdoing"; I guess I was just taken aback when I saw my name appearing in an ArbCom case that closed before I even became active here (even if it's just a notification). By 6 March 2011, the date of the notice, I knew that Longevity articles were being watched due to the recent ArbCom case. Yet, "notification does imply something" and the notification appeared not to be sent to every The 110 Club forum member that is also a Misplaced Pages editor (we can see a larger list of duplicate members in the ArbCom case) -- so naturally I felt "singled out" and that it was implied that "I was engaging in inappropriate behavior solely because of my The 110 Club membership" even as EdJohnston did strike out the "further" part of "inappropriate behavior" of the notice template, which was appreciative. That notification just didn't seem to jive with the ArbCom's statement about membership affiliation, that was all.

In any case, I certainly do not want to make a big deal out of this; just wanted to see whether there was an appeal process for getting a notice. Since there isn't, so SirFozzie or any arbitrator, please feel free to close this request for clarification. Regards, CalvinTy 11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up comments by CalvinTy

I read some great points by everyone who commented to date. Since they have made the effort to comment, I'd like to follow-up here:

• Jclemens said: "I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted." I couldn't say anything better than that.
• Jclemens also said, "The options for that are twofold: those doing notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification." Sandstein commented along the same lines, "But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the {{uw-sanctions}} template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place." Perhaps that was all I was seeking at the time of the notice.
• SirFozzie mentioned, "...a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say." That might be the precise concern I was trying to convey here as that is a dangerous slope thinking like that. Again, I agree that I saw potential canvassing evidence -- after the fact -- as you have mentioned the topic banned editor doing that. Just because "CalvinTy and RYoung122" are members of the same longevity forum, therefore, to paraphrase you, "anything CalvinTy (and/or others) may say should be viewed in a skeptical manner". Is that fair to me? ArbCom made it explicitly clear that membership of any group "does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." I think it comes down to the fact that it's not the actual notice that bothers me, but it's the perception BEHIND the notice. Sure, some members of The 110 Club had been potentially guilty of canvassing, but a blanket warning to any/all forum members shouldn't occur without any justification & supporting evidence.
• To conclude, I quote Jclemens: "is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me." I have no qualms about the interpretation that a notice does not mean that any inappropriate behavior has already happened, that's fine with me, I only ask that the notice is given when it's due ("relevant, recent, appropriate and targeted"). Regards, CalvinTy 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• (Reply to SirFozzie) I understand your opinion, though it's just an opinion on your part. All I can say is that I am here on my own accord, without influence of anyone else, and that I form my own opinions of everything here on Misplaced Pages. I also have casually (as in a couple of times per year) edited longevity articles since my first edit on 4 Aug 2009. See here. I only got involved in discussions in Feb 2011 as I educated myself about what the acronyms all meant such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and so forth since they were overwhelming to me as a "still-new casual user". Since then, I have worked collaboratively with editors who have shown differing opinions in longevity articles such as David in DC and Itsmejudith. RYoung122 feels they should be banned, and he has mentioned that recently as you know. It's disappointing that you feel that anything I say would have a cloud above me, SirFozzie. Maybe that's precisely the problem here -- administrators or arbitrators looking at me in a negative light because I'm a member of the same forum as a topic banned editor (RYoung122) & because of the "timing" of my contributions to Misplaced Pages. That is... just not right and unacceptable. An apology would be appropriate from you, SirFozzie. I think I have said everything I can on this request for clarification. Best regards, CalvinTy 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• (Reply to Newyorkbrad) I would like to be sure that I did not misunderstand you. You were explaining that the second purpose of the notification is because in someone's view, an editor may have been in violation of a guideline, etcetera. Then you felt that a "preemptive" notification (to all editors of a topic) does not meet that second purpose? In other words, if someone (like I did) received a preemptive notification, then there is another incident where I knowingly violated something, an admin or arbitrator could impose immediate sanctions on me because there was a prior "notification"... you feel that there should be an appropriate intermediate step in between instead? I think I got it. That may be what I was nervous about as well.
• (Reply to all) After this good discussion, I am of the thought that I understand that a notice can be given to a particular editor if a "behavior" in a sensitive topic like Longevity may become problematic, even if no misconduct has taken place yet. I accept that, as we certainly do not want to restrict an admin/arbitrator's ability to maintain discussions and administer them. Note I underlined "particular editor" as it now comes down to whether a preemptive notification to a group of editors was/is appropriate, keeping in mind once again, the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case clearly states that a membership of Group A or Group B does not rise to COI in editing longevity articles. Apologizes to using SirFozzie as an example (but to be fair, EdJohnston was of the same opinion when he gave the notice), but he was providing his opinion that the notification was justified solely on those grounds:

1. I'm a member of the same forum as the topic-banned editor, RYoung122,
2. There were evidence of canvassing by some forum members over there,
3. I began contributing actively on Misplaced Pages "shortly" after ArbCom Longevity case closed,
4. Therefore, a preemptive notification to a group of editors, including me, were appropriate.

• That would appear to be against the spirit of the ArbCom Longevity case where, generally, editors should not make the attempt to "associate" similar editors together as being part of a "rogue forum" or something to that effect. As I told David in DC once, RYoung122 and I are quite different editors as I essentially summed up in this sentence, "I think Robert and I are two sides of the SAME coin... different personalities but having similar interests such as longevity.". I don't want his actions or anyone else's actions to reflect poorly on me. That was what I feared with the preemptive notification. Best regards, CalvinTy 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

At present there is no appeal process for those who receive notices of discretionary sanctions and feel that they do not deserve them. Since notices are intended to head off future trouble, it seems unwise to make them into a major deal. The notice gives the recipient a link to policies and past decisions so they can see if they think they are OK. Taking back a notice is like unringing a bell. I am not aware that any recipient of a notice has ever been un-notified, and I don't see why we should began that now.

The major concerns raised at the AE regarding Nick Ornstein was that Nick was edit-warring against consensus, and that an offwiki group called the 110 Club was trying to manipulate the longevity articles on Misplaced Pages. CalvinTy made it known that he was an administrator of the 110 Club. As a result of the AE, Nick agreed to change his approach, and that issue appears resolved. It was decided not to take any action regarding the 110 Club. There were no sanctions against CalvinTy as a result of the thread; he was merely notified of the discretionary sanctions. User:SirFozzie may recall some of the details since he participated in the admin discussion at the AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'll only comment about my understanding of the warning requirement, as the longevity-related matters are WP:TLDR.

WP:AC/DS#Warning says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

The wording of this provision does not require that the editor being warned has already done anything objectionable, or even (as some remedies do) that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator. With this wording, my understanding of the warning is that it is simply a procedural requirement to ensure that people who edit troublesome topics are aware that higher conduct standards apply to editing in these areas than elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. As such, I see no need to question, appeal or undo a warning under any circumstances. But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the {{uw-sanctions}} template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place.  Sandstein  15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Looking at the AE section to refresh my memory. I think there was a valid concern that there was canvassing happening there, that the blanket notification of possible sanctions for issues in this area. In fact, Ed went so far to say in the formal closing of the AE request: Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources. It's good that we haven't had any further issues after the warning was issued, but I don't see any reason to say that means the blanket warning wasn't necessary and/or a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• This raises a gaming issue--is it appropriate to simply notify every editor who has ever edited in an area about discretionary sanctions, thus fulfilling the requirement and taking the "Safety" off for an insta-sanction should they cross a line? That doesn't make sense to me. I would like to see notifications that are relevant, recent, appropriate, and targeted. I don't see them as a way to avoid "ignorance of the law is no excuse" conversations, but rather as notifications that one or more specific behaviors are trending problematically. The options for that are twofold: those doing notifications can take it upon themselves to keep warnings appropriate... or ArbCom can draft more constraints around what constitutes an effective notification. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's an issue in THIS case.. the activities around the last request were deeply problematic to me: a topic banned user canvassing off-wiki to "rally the troops" to AfD and other such locales, thereby putting a cloud over what 110 club editors would say. Again, it's a good thing that AE admins haven't had to follow up with anything, but it doesn't mean that the warning were not needed and/or a good thing. SirFozzie (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • (reply to Calvin) Quite frankly, when the users showed up A) Without having a track record of participating in such discussions previously, and B)After the "call to arms" done.. yes, it puts a cloud over their participation, per the canvassing issues we discussed previously. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree with SirFozzie here. Regarding Jclemens's comment, there's nothing wrong with notifying editors - where appropriate a reminder or warning can be issued at a later date. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, to be sure... everyone should be notified... but warnings that sanctions are in the future if changes aren't made should be proximate and specific to the problematic behavior. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Notification serves two purposes. One is to make sure that the editor is literally aware of the issues with the article and the discretionary sanctions regime applicable to them. The second is to make sure the editor is aware that he or she has, in at least one person's view, violated policies and guidelines in editing these articles. My view is that before a sanction (topic-ban, revert restriction, whatever) is imposed on an editor under discretionary sanctions, unless he or she has really misbehaved in a gross and obvious way, the editor should have the benefit of both types of warning. A "preemptive" notification to all editors on a topic, including those who aren't misbehaving (or aren't even active at the time) serves the first purpose but not the second, so I think that it may be helpful to do sometime, but should be followed up by a more formal warning that there are problems if and when that becomes necessary, wherever possible. In other words, from "everyone in the world is on notice of sanctions" to "you have been sanctioned" is a long jump; "you are in danger of sanctions if you keep this up" will often (perhaps almost always?) be an appropriate intermediate step. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)