Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 9 June 2011 (→‎:Discuss this: hide sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GoRight ban appeal

Original announcement

Questions:

  1. What has changed since the last appeal?
  2. Has GoRight copped to the socking yet?
  3. Has GoRight proven by working on another wiki that the problems with his editing are over?
  4. GoRight's 'get blocked, promise to do better next time, get blocked again for the same thing, repeat' pattern in the past has been eminently predictable. Why should we believe it now?

I suspect the answers are 1) nothing, 2) no, 3) no, and 4) we shouldn't. But I'm willing to be surprised. → ROUX ₪ 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight has admitted to socking with several accounts in correspondence with the Committee, yes. Obviously sock-free behavior is a considered requirement for an unblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the sock accounts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoRight is not exactly encouraging, although no socks have been detected in many months. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@David: When is the last time he said he socked? NW (Talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm (almost) always in favor of giving someone another chance. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely supportive of this, but if GoRight is to return, I would request that he be topic banned from any US political issue, broadly construed. NW (Talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, bearing in mind that GoRight spent so much of his time enabling disruptive behaviour in others and major league shit stirring I'd like to see evidence of a sustained period of collaborative work in another wiki before we considered unleashing him here again. I'd also like to see some evidence of understanding what it was that he did to get the community to ban him to ensure that he knows what to avoid as/when/if he is unblocked. Truly I see this as a recipie for trouble but other disruptive users have been unblocked and redeemed but something tells me this won't be one of them. If the BASC are considering an unblock I' like to see supervised editing, a ban on engagement in all controversial areas and an absolute ban from posting at ANI except to respond to reports about him. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't enough information to form a judgment. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a record of undisruptive editing elsewhere should be a requirement for GoRight's return, and that if he is allowed to return, it should initially be with a topic ban on all political topics, broadly construed, for at least 3 months. If he is able to edit productively then, the topic ban can be relaxed or removed. I am otherwise opposed to allowing GoRight to return, unless these or similar conditions are imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Spartaz and others that there does not appear to be anything which suggest it is suitable for this user to return. It would be an endless quantity of restrictions which are going to fall back on the Community to deal with, and editing the Community will have to supervise because apparently we should all consider turning from English Wikipedia to English Rehab Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many more steps the Community were expected to try before clarifying that there was no other way of dealing with this problem, and in the absence of new evidence which suggests otherwise, there still isn't. Probably the only step the Community managed to avoid was arbitration (though even then, there was a pretty strong case during CC anyway). If it's a "Hey, I've been a sockmaster, but I've stopped for now, so you should let me back (aka otherwise I won't have incentive to stop?)", I'm certainly not convinced at all. But here's some more questions then. What is the purpose of entertaining such an appeal? Out of curiosity, was it BASC who decided to bring it here despite all of the above or was it the entire Committee? Chase isn't even active so he obviously couldn't make this decision as a BASC member (so which arbs are on BASC currently)? Were there any other users who made recommendations to lift the ban (be it a climate change case participant or otherwise)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't a lot of action on-list one way or another, besides a general sentiment (shared by myself) that since it was a community ban, it should at least be open for discussion on the matter. Secondly, reading the last community ban discussion I didn't find the sort of complete and unanimous support for a ban that would most likely preclude another appeal. Ergo, defer in part back to the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the state of that discussion (like many of the other discussions involving this user) indicated just how exhausted the Community has become with expecting to have this issue addressed for once and for all. As far as the Community is concerned, ordinarily, its doors are open for appeal for a lot of things; if people prefer BASC, they're welcome to go there. But if the Community has indicated "go directly to BASC if you want to appeal", we expect BASC to deal with the issue and only bring it back to us if there is a good cause for accepting the appeal. Maybe you aren't aware of all of the context which came from last year; I appreciate that. But you also need to appreciate that if the Community is pissed off, it's because you are saying there is a good chance of the Community having to go through this perpetual cycle of tendentious editing and games again. And incidentally, we don't want to see you being played either. But back to my earlier question(s), you've mentioned that there was a general sentiment that it should be open for discussion - could you indicate which arbs expressed this sentiment or agreed with it vocally on-list? Was this the only discussion you looked at in relation to the ban (I mean, although you checked the Sockpuppet category linked above which is mostly socking post-ban, were there any other discussions you looked at in relation to conduct pre-ban)? Could you also specify which arbs are currently sitting on BASC (as the ArbCom page is not up to date)? Finally, could you specify how many other people (other than GoRight and the current arbs you'd mention in my previous question) have submitted comments on-list in relation to this appeal prior to this announcement)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have notified all of the participants in the ban proposal (not all of them may be following the normal locations and David appears to have questioned how complete/unanimous the support for the ban was at the time). As an aside, I note that my questions have not been answered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very minimum a ban from AN/ANI, maybe a ban from all wikipedia space unless it's a discussion directly about him. And a ban from from discussing anywhere the banning/unbanning of other editors. And a ban from Global warming, cold fusion, and probably other topics. He was told to do constructive work on other wikis, but his work in commons stopped after only a few days [1]. I think a non-disruptive record somewhere else should be a requirement before being unbanned here. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. A topic ban was attempted in 2008, and problems continued. The editor is clever and energetic. They will find ways to advance their agenda around any topic ban. Jehochman Talk 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing to look at is whether or not GoRight has conformed to the terms set out before he could make such an appeal - i.e. 3 months useful work on another Wiki, such as Simple or Commons, or 6 months total absence from en-Wiki with no sockpuppetry whatsoever. If these have not been met, we shouldn't even be considering an appeal. If they have been met, the it may be possible for GoRight to return, perhaps with a topic ban for a period of time to keep him away from any troublesome areas and give him time to show that he can edit collaboratively. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been better to link to the sanction discussions (2008) so people could understand why the user was topic banned. Is this the sanction being appealed, or is there another one on top of it? Jehochman Talk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the community ban discussion (2010). Prior problems included hounding, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP violations against another editor. Upon review, I think that this user has been highly troublesome over a long period of time. As I linked above, a topic ban was attempted in 2008, and did not work. Eventually a full ban was placed. We do not need ideological battles being imported to Wikipedia. This editor has shown through their actions that they will fight by any means possible: wikilawyering, endless appeals, and mud slinging. No thank you. We don't need your help. Jehochman Talk 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm leaning the same way you are, but a shred of AGF remained, thus my questions above. I find it kind of strange that an Arb showed up to answer only one of them. → ROUX ₪ 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it strange that there was no link to the history of this issue, as well as no rationale stated for the appeal. Why invite people to express opinions without informing them of the facts? Since you asked, and only got a partial answer, my read is that there is nothing good to say about the matter. GoRights wants another chance to play us the fools, and evidently some are willing to take on that role. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

←Or, it's just my first rodeo dealing with this, and I wasn't really aware what response would be generated. Interpreting anything from my busy real-world schedule would be a bad idea. aMy apologies. Anyhow, I'll just quote from GoRight's emailed appeal, in part:

Now, in my defense for making a return I would like to point out that in my absence there was the Omnibus Climate Change Arbitration which resulted in many topic bans for many users. I explicitly avoided any attempt to get involved in that proceeding. I did not attempt to stir up trouble even though I would have otherwise been directly involved throughout the entire episode and in spite of the fact that others tried to pull me into it despite my current ban. I believe that this demonstrates my willingness to put the battleground mentality of the past behind me.

While not voluminous, in my absence I have had occasion to help out on Commons with a number of graphics related projects without incident. You can check my contributions history there to verify this. I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.

Finally, my on-wiki interactions on my talk page since being banned have been civil and without incident. The only item of significance is when I decided to unify my wikimedia accounts and needed to be unblocked briefly to do so. I behaved myself at that time and the matter was conducted without incident. I believe that this demonstrates that I can be trusted to keep my word.

Additionally, he has claimed TheNeutralityDoctor (talk · contribs), Absit invidia II (talk · contribs), and Copyright_police (talk · contribs) as his; he says the suspected accounts in his SPI archive that targeted WMC are not his, and he says he has not socked in more than 6 months and has no current or active socks. I believe that answers Roux's questions, although the final one is obviously open to interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Absit invidia II, one of GoRight’s admitted sockpuppets, did indeed "get involved" by editing a talkpage of the climate change case [2] Cardamon (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. GoRight was frankly and consistently dishonest about his use of sockpuppets. See User talk:Absit invidia II. See his edit summary here - "MastCell is lying with the clear intent to deceive" - when I correctly identified that account as a GoRight sock. Or see User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor#IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION, where he states: "I see that many editors around here have a hard time dealing with the fact that I am not actually GoRight." The fact that he now owns up to them, after they've been blocked, his lies have proven ineffective, and he's exhausted his avenues for claiming innocence, suggests a shift in tactics rather than a sincere change of heart.

    GoRight's claim that he avoided getting involved in WP:ARBCC is similarly false. Cardamon has pointed out his editing (via sockpuppet) to the case pages. GoRight's sockpuppet Absit invidia similarly lobbied Lar on his talk page (e.g. here) during the case, and his input was described even by ATren (talk · contribs) as "a bit over-the-top".

    While active, GoRight split his time between tendentious, ideologically motivated editing and acting as a self-appointed litigator on behalf of other disruptive accounts. On the constructive side of the ledger, we got zero useful contributions from him. On the disruptive side, we got hundreds of kb of timewasting, process-wonking, and wikilawyering, followed by extensive socking, again all in service of a political agenda. This is exactly what Wikipedia does not need.

    Assuming that a decision is made to unblock GoRight, allow me to plead for some mechanism of direct oversight of his editing. He has a nearly endless capacity for superficially civil wikilawyering, which makes him nearly immune to Wikipedia's normal disciplinary processes. Out of basic fairness to the people whose time will be wasted by him, there should be some sort of ready mechanism for reblocking him if he repeats previous patterns of behavior.

    But to reiterate: I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. I see no credible indication that anything has changed. His first paragraph of justification consists of the sort of misleading and untrue claims that were a staple of his earlier participation. As for the second, work on Commons projects, while admirable, has no bearing on whether GoRight will be able to subsume his political agenda to edit within policy. His final paragraph is again the standard misleading lies-by-omission; while he has been superficially civil on his talk page since being blocked, his sockpuppets have not exactly been models of decorum. MastCell Talk 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to say that Mastcell has stated a view that others should read and strongly consider. I for one read what was said and I too have to say I strongly oppose the return of GoRight. Well said Mastcell, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a simple, perhaps novel, solution. How about unbanning him but only allowing him to edit one article? Is there a movie, video game or TV show that GoRight has a particular interest in? Perhaps he'd be a good editor there? If, after 6 months, he hasn't returned to his old ways, we can expand his editing area to whatever topic space the article was in. Of course, he should be indefinitely banned from climate change and any political-related article. What does everyone think of my suggestion?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with MastCell too. There's simply no proof that anything has changed. If there's enough of a collective brainfart that GoRight gets unblocked, well, proposal below to make this easier to read. → ROUX ₪ 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an e-mail to GoRight asking him what he thought of my suggestion. He responded that he would accept it if this was his only path back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. While the blog post seems to be making some of the right noises, I cannot help but share the extremely strong reservations many of the other editors here have about any relaxation of GoRight's ban. It's not entirely clear what he does want to do here if he is unbanned in any way shape or form, and his past actions must necessarily speak very loudly compared to his current words. The cynic in me can't help but notice that that apologetic blog entry nevertheless carries with it some implicit canvassing:
"The committee has decided to ask for community input. The resulting discussion is [at WP:AC/N, WT:AC/N, WP:AN]."
Be aware that he is recruiting advocates to these pages from his principally-sympathetic audience. I note that he has not taken any steps to update the lies, taunts, and attacks in his previous blog entries about other editors who correctly identified his now-acknowledged sockpuppets, nor has he named his sockpuppet accounts in his blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades: He has responded to (at least some of) your points above.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: no change

  • GoRight remains banned from Wikipedia. One year from the date this proposal is enacted he may reapply for unbanning if and only if the following conditions are met:
    • Zero sockpuppeting for that year
    • Evidence on at least two other projects (Commons and Simple come to mind) showing continued behavioural change. That means contributing at or close to GoRight's normal average contributions to enwiki. It's really easy to be good for a little while; if he can do it for a year elsewhere maybe there's a there there.
    • A full and frank public disclosure onwiki by GoRight of all socks, and an honest assessment of where he went wrong and what he will do to avoid problems in the future

Support

  • I guess I'll be the first to actually "support" something. Given that this proposal adds some wording along the lines of "one strike, no matter how grazing, and we go back to a siteban" (no escalating blocks, those have already been tried and simply do not work for this particular editor), I can wince and nod it. Strong emphasis on "reapply for unbanning" (as opposed to "will be unbanned"), "zero", "continued" (one year minimum), and "honest" (as opposed to "honest-sounding" or "politely-worded") - my support is entirely conditional on all of the above being met. GoRight has been a resource drain for years - on the AN/I crowd, sure, but even moreso on the good-faith editors who already have a hard enough time keeping the various global warming articles scientifically accurate in the face of stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from WP:RANDY after WP:RANDY. Even dangling the carrot of unbanning leaves me a bit uneasy, as - absent a rather large jug of Flavor Aid which I really don't feel like swallowing - I have no reason to believe this will lead to anything other than impassioned wiki-lawyering over the meaning of words like "honest", "continued", "reapply", "zero", and "year" (among others); this is about as far in this particular direction as I personally can reach. Allow me to restate, for emphasis: In the event, however likely or unlikely it may be, that GoRight satisfies the conditions and his application for unbanning is successful, there will be no warnings, no bickering over whether his edits were intended to be disruptive, no accusations of a "mainstream scientist conspiracy", no "a pox on both your houses", no invitation for the anti-science fringe to come crawling out of the woodwork in support - the onus will be on GoRight to collaborate the way others wish him to, and if the bridges he's burned in science topics mean he can't even add a comma without being taken to the noticeboards, then it's up to him to stay out of those particular topic areas. Badger Drink (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I've read over the past few hours everything I can about GoRight's previous blocks and bans. I don't think this editor is capable of making a sincere assessment of where he went wrong, because it appears to me that he is incapable of knowing what "going wrong" means. I get the impression that he defines "wrong" not as "factually inaccurate" or "against community consensus" but as "not what I believe". This sets him up to be contradicted by editors who don't see his beliefs as equal to fact, which again makes him the victim in his own mind and sets off all kinds of defensive responses that end up disrupting the project. I simply don't trust this editor to be able to detach his ego from his opinions, or to fully comprehend the difference between his personal opinion and fact. I guess I have to support this option as the closest to what I would prefer - a truly permanent, irrevocable ban. --NellieBly (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • This won't work. Also you risk that he will return a year later with what looks to be a good C.V. He would then be allowed to edit without restrictions, while still "unreformed". Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Count Iblis. Like last time, GoRight is not someone I'm personally against. I've never had a dispute with him myself, and I admit he has also done good things. But I can't trust him and I don't think I ever can. What makes GoRight so dangerous is what Jehochman said earlier, "The editor is clever and energetic." Those same traits that made him a good editor at times also made him very disruptive. I wouldn't put it past GoRight to show wonderful behavior, then came back to Wikipedia and start causing problems again. At this point, to me, he's like the boy who cried wolf, he has had so many chances and has been sincere about changing so many times and each time he goes back to his disruption. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Unban with severe restrictions

  • GoRight is unbanned from Wikipedia under the following conditions:
    • Required to have a mentor uninvolved with the situation. (Should be an admin, to deal with blocking issues);
    • Complete topicban from all discussions in all namespaces relating to climate change and politics, broadly construed. This includes his own talkpage; he will be expected to simply ignore or remove any commentary left on his page;
    • Banned from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, Arbcom, or any other noticeboard/complaint pages except as a respondent. Even in such cases, is limited to responding through his mentor, who may impose limits on length and/or number of comments;
    • Restricted to using only the GoRight account. Leeway granted for occasional and accidental logged-out editing if and only if the edits are reconnected to the named account by GoRight;
    • Restricted to a handful of articles unconnected with previous editing problems. Such articles to be determined by the mentor in consultation with the community;
    • Infractions to be dealt with via escalating blocks: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, permanent, with no chance for block reduction;
    • Conditions may be appealed to the community one year after enactment, through the guidance of the mentor. Time resets at the conclusion of each block duration;

Support

Oppose

  • Per what I said above and at the original ban discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe restrictions have been tried. I have yet to be convinced that GoRight views these restrictions with anything other than excitement at the prospect of getting to play Wiki-Lawyer for another go-round. Badger Drink (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe restrictions haven't worked and won't because he's just going to feel victimized again when editors fail to put his personal beliefs first. That's what I meant about his defensiveness causing disruption: the wikilawyering is one of his defense mechanisms. --NellieBly (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I generally promote second multiple/many chances, I think the onus should be on GoRight to prove through nontrivial, positive effort elsewhere that they are capable of having a net positive influence on a similar project. In particular, WP:KISS comes to mind — if we were eventually to unban them then *any* violation (including WP:LAWYER) should result in an immediate reversion to an indefinite block. -- samj inout 10:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: Unban with restrictions

  • As in Proposal 2, minus the restriction to a handful of articles

Support

  • Second choice. GoRight must be subjected to quite severe restrictions, but exactly which one must be up to the mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While my gut instinct leads me toward the "no restrictions" area, the obviously strong community opinions compel me to place the project over my own personal thoughts. I think the user has value to offer to the project, and I'd like to see some of his contributions incorporated into our efforts. However, with respect to the community as a whole, I agree that some restrictions should be a first step. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Proposal 4: Unban with mentors imposing restrictions

  • GoRight will be allowed to edit under the following restriction. By default, GoRight is topic banned from editing Wikipedia, except his own user pages. If he wishes to edit an article, he discusses that first with one of his mentors there. GoRight can then edit the article if the mentor agrees. The mentor can impose restrictions on GoRight for that article, like e.g. 0RR or 1RR. Also, the mentor can delegate mentoring as far as editing a particular article is concerned, to another editor. The primary or secondary mentors may be involved in the articles GoRight is editing. After a year of editing under this restriction, GoRight may appeal to get the restriction lifted or modified.

Support

  • This is a practical way to actually "reform" an editor like GoRight. It all has to do with imposing restrictions on a case by case basis. An editor who edits Wikipedia without causing trouble is able to impose such restriction on him/herself. The best way for an editor who is unable to do that to learn to do this, would be to be confronted with his shortcomings promptly. In a mentoring agreement like this, GoRight will receive direct feedback as he edits. If his editing improves, the mentors can allowe him to edit more articles with less restrictions. If after a year, he is de facto editing without much restrictions, that would be proof that the restrictions may no longer be necessary.

While GoRight may be a difficult problem for Wikipedia to deal with, Wikipdia will be better of if we can implement a solution that works. Such solutions can then be used for other editors who would otherwise have to be site banned. It will then be more difficult for the critics of Wikipedia to say that Wikipedia is censored, that not everyone can edit Wikipedia etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note
I just received an email from GoRight (forwarded to me by another editor, GoRight didn't have my correct email address), he accepts conditions like this, he says that he is willing to work from his userspace, so I guess he could accept more rigorous restrictions along the lines in this proposal (I have not discussed this with him any furhter, I have yet to reply to his mail). Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Absolutely not. Mentorship was tried in the past, with neither TruSilver nor 2/0 managing to make even the slightest dent in GoRight's seemingly impenetrable wall of "I'm Right, Everybody Else Is Wrong" - 2/0 was in serious, intense discussion with GoRight for three weeks and managed to accomplish nothing. The only mentor GoRight is going to listen to is one who tells him exactly what he wants to hear, and while I'm sure that's nice for GoRight and lets his ragtag motley crew of supporters and enablers pay lip service to reform while ultimately not compromising at all, it's not going to help the project. Absolutely, wretchedly ridiculous non-condition condition. Badger Drink (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but under that arrangement, the mentorship was advisory, in this case it is restrictive (in a rather absolute sense). I guess that "mentorship" isn't the right word for this proposal... Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wasn't GoRight previously to mentor User:Abd (now also banned indefinitely for similar disruption), or vice versa? In any case this sounds like a great way to divert the positive energy of a constructive editor into a blackhole. -- samj inout 10:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5: We take a fraction of the time and effort we're willing to spend on this rehab project, and instead spend it on supporting, encouraging, and retaining constructive editors

Support

  • As proposer. This is something I'll never understand. We have good, constructive contributors who burn out every day for lack of support, encouragement, and positive feedback. Instead we're willing to expend a huge amount of time and effort thinking up ways to rehabilitate someone who - it could not be clearer - is a poor fit for this particular project. If you want to know why the community is dysfunctional, consider that set of priorities. Seriously: take whatever time you're spending on this thread, and use it to leave a constructive editor a word of encouragement, or a barnstar, or a friendly note, or welcome a newbie and help them figure out Wikipedia. It will be a better use of time, I can guarantee, and better for the project as well. MastCell Talk 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd argue your average editor shouldn't require "support, encouragement, and positive feedback", they also shouldn't have to deal with the time and energy sapping process of dealing with problematic editors. WP:DNFT comes to mind. -- samj inout 10:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, even now GoRight is wasting our time. -- Atama頭 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the stipulations I made in my support of "proposal" #1 above (in short, "GoRight remains banned as long as he's a poor fit for the project"), it basically amounts to this. MastCell speaks words of wisdom - though I am not usually a fan of the "this discussion is wasting our time" meme, in this case it does feel suitable. Badger Drink (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yup this is the correct approach William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncontroversial, and undoubtedly the best way forward. GoRight is, IMO, constitutionally unable to work productively in this environment. That does not make him evil, it just means that every hour he spends here creates many more person-hours of dispute resolution, fixup or whatever. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awestruck agreement—the community should focus more effort on keeping constructive editors who have demonstrated an ability to work collaboratively without undue POV pushing. Endless discussions about the best way to rehab a proven problem editor is a waste of time and energy, with very little likely benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best solution. Some editors are time sinks for the community. The editor was not noticeably productive, and has mostly distracted editors from better tasks. Editors who've made a habit of lying and cheating seem to find it very difficult to give up those behaviors and do not belong in a collaborative project built on mutual respect.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. I definitely agree, our priorities as a community do need to change. So much of our time is spent on drama, ANI, RFAR and the like, as well as working on rehabilitating users with long histories of disruptive behaviour, where we could be spending on the new and experienced users and admins that slip through the cracks, due to either a) Being bitten for creating a poor first article, and them leaving Wikipedia, where all they needed was a friendly message explaining what they did wrong and how to improve it in future. And that takes sufficiently less time than posting on RFAR (call me a hypocrit but this still had to be said). Experienced users leave due to stress or burn out, and admins even more so. I think our time should be put into positive pursuits, and less so discussions like these. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this first and I have to say leave GoRight banned. The major problem I am having is the little bit of comments that the arbitrator released from GoRight's email was found to be a lie. He said he didn't get involved in the ARBCC, a lie. He called Mastcell a liar when his sock was found out which GoRight denied totally, another lie. His whole comment here contains untruthfulness. Maybe something will be said to change my opinion here but I think from what we have been shownn from the arbitrators is that we are going to be played, nope not supporting that in anyway. I do have a question though, why isn't he using his talk page for messages about this? As far as I can see, his talk page is still available for use. If I missed something then an administrator should make it possible for GoRight to comment on his talk page, instead of his blog, for easier access and for less soapboxing. I am adding this final thought, GoRight admits to 3 socks but denies the others, how can we believe him with what he has said so far in the partial comment released by the arbitrator? --CrohnieGalTalk 10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer. Per Will Beback mainly: Wikipedia is not therapy, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. This editor is a net detriment to that aim, so goodnight. Could he be reformed? Anyone can be. But the effort in trying, the disruption in failing, and the low chance of success, and the probable low gain in the unlikely event of success, don't make the rehabilitation project one worth doing.--Scott Mac 12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arbcom injudiciously overturning GoRight's ban would simply require the community to immediately re-ban him. Please save us the trouble, as this extremely disruptive editor should not and will not be permitted to return under any conditions, for any longer than necessary to hold a new ban discussion. Chester Markel (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, noting that there is nothing new under the sun. Four years ago User:Tom harrison wrote: "The community has built a system that accommodates people whose net contribution is negative, while alienating some of our best volunteers... What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, quickly dump those who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community." Nor, one might add, against the opposition of the Arbitration Committee. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While editors shouldn't require massaging to make positive contributions, they also shouldn't have to deal with disruptive editors. I found GoRight's disruptive and tendentious editing to be particularly problematic, ultimately making editing a chore rather than an enjoyable passtime. I'm sure I'm not alone, though your average editor is more likely to avoid confrontation and walk away quietly. What was particularly problematic was that they enabled other problematic editor(s), and vice versa, as well as setting a bad example for others. Ultimately the onus is on them to prove they are capable of making a net positive contribution to the community (for example, by making sustained, nontrivial and positive contributions elsewhere) before being allowed to return. -- samj inout 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Practical, honest, recognizes the reality that GoRight shoul never edit here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - disruptive user that is a clear net loss to the project. If it was shown that the user has been contributing to another project constructively then I would reconsider allowing the user to contribute but only with a complete editing restriction on all the areas they were previously disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the email posted here, GoRight points to his edits in Commons and says "I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.". However, GoRight only made a few edits for a few days, 16-21 September 2009. This is very deceptive, and it shows that GoRight hasn't really changed his style. He has to show real reform before the community considers even a restrictive unbanning. Also, naming a mentor would be a total waste of time for the mentor: wikipedia is not therapy, and I still have to see any real indication that GoRight is trying to reform for real. As for now, I only see him feeding false information to arbitrators in order to get a quick unban. He should go to some sister project and spend his own time in learning to work collaboratively and learning to not feed b*llsh*t to other editors in order to achieve the desired results. And that means actual real collaborative work over a period of time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catering to persistent trouble makers seems to be a pointless waste of time. --B (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I recommend that the Committee stop wasting its time, and the Community's, on trying to rehabilitate persistently disruptive banned users, and instead address the disputes that are submitted to it (you know, your actual function?) in a timely manner.  Sandstein  05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Of course. Another good use of the time saved might, perhaps, be editing articles \o/  Chzz  ►  09:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support these sentiments. Neutralitytalk 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Users who are net negative to the project should not be coddled. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What in the world is the arbcom thinking, even for one second entertaining this idea? Goright is one of the most disruptive editors in the history of Wikipedia. He made thousands of edits, yet not a single good one among them. He encouraged and provided cover for other highly disruptive users - notably Abd. He directly or indirectly caused numerous good editors to burn out. He should never, ever be allowed to edit again. Raul654 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GoRight's shenanigans with Abd were extremely disruptive and time-wasting. With actions like those he indelibly blotted his copybook. Mathsci (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Taken literaly, one has to agree of course. However, what is meant between the lines and clearly expressed in some the comments above, is that we don't need to do an effort to figure out how to deal with problem editors. I think that's the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, because we should take serious that everyone can edit Wikipedia. So, if an editor poses a problem, we should try to see if there is way that editor can contribute. If this really can't be made to work, then we can ban that editor. Otherwise, we shouldn't say that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". In the case of GoRight, simply confining him to his userspace and allowing him to contribute to Wikipedia from there via a mentor seems to be a rather simple solution. So, it shouldn't be very time consuming to get this implemented. What leads to the waste of time is that we try to use remedies that do not work and then have lengthy discussions when these fail. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what is meant between the lines and clearly expressed in some the comments above, is that we don't need to do an effort to figure out how to deal with problem editors. I think that's the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, because we should take serious that everyone can edit Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a collaborative therapy project for people who are unwilling or unable to contribute productively to an encyclopedia. It's not our job to "fix" people. If someone can't edit here productively, that person needs to be kicked out. And for someone who did as much damage as GoRight did, I can see absolutely no justification for ever letting him come back. There's lots of people on the internet, and there are plenty of them who would be a better investment of the time and energy it would take to "fix" GoRight. Long story short - the status quo is working, and Wikipedia is better off without him. Raul654 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can edit" is a statement of technical functionality, and does not imply that every person on the planet is able or willing to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Stating that "anyone can edit, unless shown to be harming the project, and not amenable to reform" would be more accurate, but would discourage many potentially valuable users. Chester Markel (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Letting GoRight contribute via his userspace would not guarantee non-disruption. Let's consider the various ways he would be able to cause more trouble, just by editing his own talk page:
  1. He could add massive copyright violations from offline sources to articles.
  2. He could slander living people, with the defamation cited to counterfeit references hosted on his own websites.
  3. And lots more...
When an editor is this determined to disrupt Wikipedia, he will probably find a way to do it if readmitted under any conditions. Chester Markel (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He could, but only for a few hours at most. The party will be over when the mentor checks his userpage :) . Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The determination of whether a user has introduced a copyright infringement from an uncited, offline source is quite difficult. Similarly, many editors' due diligence in checking online references is limited to determining whether the cited source supports the claim, and whether it is of similar appearance to a credible media organization. A user's personal website can, with a little programming and formatting be set up to look just like the sites operated by real newspapers. These examples, and similar activities which I leave to the imagination, should suffice to show that not all disruption will be immediately visible. Bad content can be copied into articles without the mentor realizing it. Wikipedia's survival is dependent on the good faith of most of its contributors. For that extremely small percentage of users who are here to cause trouble, and have made the fact plainly obvious, the only appropriate response is to eject them from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these points, except that we must make sure that this indeed applies to anyone who is booted out. I'd rather have GoRight contributing to Wikipedia to certain articles that are on the watchlist of many and edited by many, so that this issue doesn't arise, than keeping him banned (unless such a set-up fails, of course).
Suppose FOX News were to criticize Wikipedia for being biased by pointing out some editors who are banned and then pointing to other editors who aren't banned, who seem to have caused problems too, but who edit with different POVs. Then there should always be a simple convincing argument available to Jimbo, explaining why such editors are banned making it manifestly clear that this has nothing to do with us being biased here. If he has to appeal to community consensus today not being in favor of him returning, then that's simply going to confirm the bias promoted by FoX News about Wikipedia (because they would say that community consensus here = liberal bias). Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. This editor lied about his socks, ok maybe that could be excused with an apology but he lied in his statement to the arbitrators in the partial released email above. Nope, not exceptable. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GoRight is banned for disruption, sockery, and lying, not a political disagreement. While Fox News can spin that however they want, the purview of their role in project governance is vanishingly small. Chester Markel (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that ArbCom can take this into account and then decide not to unban him. However, it should not be the case that the community vetoes his return based on vague perceptions about how he will behave, based on his past behavior alone. Of course, there are concerns stemming from his past behavior that GoRight has to address; if he is not truthful now, that is a relevant issue. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not been truthful. Did you see the difs for showing that he did go to the ARBCC plus to Lar's talk page about the same case even though he says he stayed away? Did you see where he told Mastcell he was a liar about a sock that he now admits is his? There is more that was found not to be true. This is not past lies, these are lies from now, him asking the arbitrators to unban him. He has the nerve to lie like nobody is going to notice? What kind of respect does that show him having of this project or the editors here? No, he needs to stayed banned and prove himself on another sister project. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer that we decide that this unban request has at least some merit (which it probably does), the Committee unban him accordingly (and with appropriate restrictions), and we get on with our own business. I don't know what all the fuss is about, really. If the unban request is credible, then the worst that can happen if we accept it is that he messes up, and we re-block and re-ban him. Basically, this isn't a rehab project, and if it becomes one then we have made a bad decision and should at that point move to reverse it. AGK [•] 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're making a personal commitment to be the admin-on-call every time he causes disruption? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, AGK is just being honest. The worst that can happen to him is that GoRight causes disruption and someone eventually re-bans him. Of course, the worst that can happen to content editors who have to actually deal with GoRight is that he wastes another hundred hours or so of their time. Historically, the time and effort of constructive editors who stand to be directly affected has been discounted and undervalued in these sorts of discussions, a trend which AGK's comment exemplifies. My proposal was intended to highlight exactly this concern - a lack of empathy for the editors who shoulder the burden of these projects, whatever one chooses to call them. MastCell Talk 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • MastCell: I didn't think about it from that angle. I guess there is always the danger that he turns up at an article that I'm editing, and starts misbehaving. Perhaps the best way forward would be to write a provision into the unban agreement that would make it easy to have him re-banned; something like a vote supported by 50 editors results in GoRight being re-banned? Short Brigade: Don't be obtuse. AGK [•] 14:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This proposal is disingenuous-- it's phrased to appear as though it's uncontroversial, but it's actually a proposal for a permaban with no opportunity for reform. At least have the courage to be upfront regarding the proposal-- it's severe, drastic, and represents a failure on the part of Wikipedia. Do you really want to change the Main Page to read "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (except GoRight)"? I'd hat this proposal if I wasn't so sure that I'd be accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry for doing so. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Draconian solutions have been shown repeatedly not to work, and this sort of "put a pie in his face" sort of proposal does Wikipedia no favour at all. The final decisions should not be based on any of the arguments that :he never did anything good for Wikipedia so show him the door" sort of position from folks who have had content disputes with him is silly. The fact is that Wikipedia is better off with people inside the room than with folks who feel, rightly or wrongly, shut out on the basis of personal positions on content disputes. I suggest that the ArbCom members calmly and without regard to some of the intemperate comments on this page discuss the issues at the real heart of all this. Cheers. I know that the "consensus" is to hang Goright by the neck, but sometimes "a majority of one" is what is called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 6: Unconditional unban, and limit editing solely to article space

Support

  • This proposal may sound strange but please indulge me for a moment of explanation. First, if we do not unban GoRight it is virtually certain that he will continue sockpuppeting. It's easier to keep tabs on him if he's using his main account. Second, the unban should be unconditional because any conditions will be gamed, disputed, and wikilawyered to death. This is only in part because he will want to have the conditions removed. More to the point he sees wikilawyering as an end in itself, an amusing diversion. The third point is related to this: if we limit his editing solely to article space we will remove the opportunities for wikilawyering in project space, taunting in talk space, and so on. His edits in article space would then have to stand on their merits and sourcing, not simply be a means to promote squabbling (as his article space edits have mostly been in the past). For this to work the limitation would have to be absolute, with no exceptions whatsoever -- not even his own Talk page would be excepted. So, odd as it may sound, this proposal is offered as a pragmatic route to minimize disruption to the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the community finds a good way to deal with socking, the best way to handle situations like this is to unban but keep them on a short leash. checkuser frequently for socking and editing on proxies or tor, and give a timeout if they are. permanent bans are counterproductive because they encourage socking with no repercussions. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't do a permanent ban, then. GoRight's block/ban could be converted to two years, but reset after any incidents of socking. This expresses a strong community disapproval of sockery, while giving him a light at the end of the tunnel if he can behave himself. This should probably be done for many community bans, with the exception of certain extreme situations. What we should not do, ever, is allow a banned user to sock us into submission, since it rewards disruption and encourages similar misconduct by other banned users. Unbanning GoRight because he's created a sufficiently serious sockpuppet problem sends the wrong message. Chester Markel (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also point out that if a user is banned, but he continues to edit, then the moment a sockpuppet is discovered and blocked, any disruptive edits and comments can be reverted mercilessly. We don't have to argue with him about why his edits damaged articles, or why his talk page contributions aren't helpful. The reversion process shouldn't be applied mechanically, since we don't want to restore vandalism, BLP violations, obvious errors, or similar problems simply because a banned user happened to correct them. But the bottom line is that any edits made against the ban that are judged to be problematic by any good faith editor go straight to the garbage can. But if GoRight is unbanned, then
  1. We can't block his accounts to slow him down.
  2. We can't protect articles just to keep him out.
  3. We can't revert any disruptive edits in disregard of WP:EW.
  4. We can't use range blocks to stop him from creating more socks.
  5. We have to politely discuss every single dispute with him.
Based on the comments in this discussion, many editors are sick and tired of dealing with GoRight as a user in good standing. We like him much better banned, since his editing can be impeded by every feasible means, and any garbage can be properly disposed of. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that you could allow for a maximum of, say, 150 words talk page text per article space edit. A constraint on the number of article space edits per day should perhaps also be imposed in that case. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • We do not negotiate with trolls trying to sock us into submission. Allowing GoRight to do this would encourage more bad behavior. While we could "limit" his editing however we want, conceding our factual inability to ban him would render such restrictions impotent. Chester Markel (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A novel rationale, but unfortunately it boils down to "blocking you doesn't work, so we'll unblock you with restrictions, and if you break your restrictions we'll... block you?" Unblocked, I have no credible reason to imagine that he'll do anything but return to the same global warming articles with daily bad edits which will then be wikilawyered to death - if not by him, then by his proxy supporters/enablers. Will still result in a massive timesink, even if GoRight's name isn't at the end of all the combative posts. Badger Drink (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you have to use the talk page to explain why an edit was made. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewarding trollish behaviour is a tremendously bad idea. Not to mention the probability that socking would continue unabated with the GoRight account serving as the good hand to the socks' bad hand makes this not worth it. Resolute 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some background information

Just a note about the process here, as a couple of the commenters above seemed to be unsure why the committee has raised this issue on-wiki at all.

As indicated in the original announcement, GoRight has appealed his community ban to the Arbitration Committee, he has the right to do so under the banning policy. In fact, requesting ArbCom review is really his only avenue to request an unban at this time, since he can't ask the community because he's not allowed to edit.

In a recent case, the Committee unanimously accepted this principle:

The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

As you can imagine, we receive a lot of unblock/unban requests that are rejected without much ado, and once in awhile we receive an unblock request (not necessarily an unban request) that deserves to be accepted. In this case, it wasn't a blatantly meritless request because of the time that has elapsed, and yet because this was a community ban that followed a long history of problems, it certainly wasn't a clear case to grant the appeal, either. Therefore, some arbitrators thought it would be useful to provide an opportunity for community input on the request before we address it. This is something we've often been asked to do in connection with complex unblock/unban requests.

I am not meaning to cut anyone off from commenting in whatever way they feel is most productive, but I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion and provide input at this stage.

I haven't reviewed this appeal in any detail yet, but I thought this background might be useful in explaining why we're having this discussion. My thanks to everyone who has commented so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion" - with all due respect, Brad - and while I hope I don't come across as a kiss-ass, I also hope it's clear that there is a lot of respect due - I think you're processing the "vote" a bit too literally. For my tastes, it offers a much more clear-cut way for members of the community - such as myself - to express where they stand without getting sucked into a long-winded, multi-threaded discussion using software that doesn't automatically make it obvious just who is replying to who. ArbCom solicited the community's position. I, as a member of that community, expressed my position through my statements in the more-organized, better-delineated section. Let's all try to focus on the substance, the "what", of the various messages, rather than the style or the "how" - this is a problem that far too often stifles discussion on Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my concern is that members of the community may be spending extra time on this request unnecessarily. If (hypothetically), the committee's decision is to leave the ban in place, then there's no need for discussion about what the terms of an unban would be, etc. Anyway, I was just offering my two cents, and everyone commenting should proceed as they think best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out (again) that badger Drink summarises my intent quite accurately. My only purpose was to focus discussion, given the wall of text that already existed. → ROUX ₪ 21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If others think this format is a more useful way to focus the discussion, I bow to the consensus. Regards (and signing off for the holiday weekend), Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may ask a question of the ArbCom; on what grounds has GoRight requested relief from his current situation? I am going to be honest - I do not care to support nor oppose any of the proposals made or that may be made, but I think that providing a little more information as to the reason why GoRight wishes to be allowed to return to editing may effect the judgement of some respondents; if there is an article or subject that they have expressed a desire to work on, it may be that some editors will be inclined to allow a limited return to that area only (or not, if they see potential issues arising). It may be that GoRight thinks they have served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more "responsibly" in future, in which case editors may feel differently. Like I said, I am not going to be moved either way personally but perhaps a bit more clarification may help this process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[...] served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more 'responsibly' in future" is pretty much it: when an editor spends no less than six months complying with their ban, the committee will always consider the appeal. In this particular case, GoRight's community ban was at the end of a particularly acrimonious series of incidents and we felt it was important to see what support or objections members of the community would have to a possible return before we made a decision.

      All that said (and this is probably something we should have been more explicit about in the original announcement) this editor did express understanding of what they did wrong, state that they will endeavor to keep their behavior within community norms in the future, and agrees to follow eventual restrictions going forward (editing from exactly one account being one). We would not have heard the appeal at all unless those conditions had been credibly met in the first place. — Coren (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain why the arbitrators, whoever did the checking, didn't find that there were lies in at least the two paragraphs released above? He said he stayed out of the ARBCC but he socked and commented, a sock he admits is his. He also went to Lar's to talk about it the ARBCC. Difs for these are above. He adamantly denied socks, going so far as to call Mastcell a liar, and now he calmly admits it's one of his socks. Why were so many lies not seen? Why isn't GoRight using his own talk page instead of his blog? Someone can bring his posts over plus it keeps everything recorded on the project. I just don't understand how or why we should allow an editor to return who is not truthful when asking for a return. Sorry, I am sad to feel this way but I do and I would appreciate some answers too. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MastCell's statement above, but would note that the chaotic nature of the above thread appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of those commenting here, along with the way the discussion was restructured by roux. All the arbitrators were asking for (as Newyorkbrad said) was a short statement from anyone who felt the need to comment, to inform the decision the arbitrators need to take (i.e. to send a formal reply to GoRight). I agree that links to the previous ban discussions should have been provided.

    On the specific case here, IMO, appeals have been heard from (and even accepted) from editors at least as controversial or disruptive as GoRight. The difference here appears to be the larger number of editors with an interest in commenting and opposing any appeal. i.e. Be disruptive in a heavily trafficked area and you will be ostracized far more than elsewhere.

    My view is that the only way back for such editors is a long period of productive work and high-quality content production elsewhere as a precursor to an appeal strictly limited to working on a very small set of articles completely unrelated to areas worked in previously. There has to be a visible benefit to weigh against the potential for future disruption.

    On a more general note, it might be simplest for the Committee when receiving such appeals and posting a notice here to limit the question to the following: "Community-banned editor ABC [links to ban discussions] is appealing their ban - is there a need to open a community discussion regarding this appeal, or can this be referred to the ban-appeal subcommittee?" People can then post "open community discussion" or "refer to BASC", as needed, and things can then progress from there. The point being that such community discussions need some degree of structuring by uninvolved editors to avoid the initial set-up being less than optimal, or skewed, or hijacked for other reasons, or added to randomly later by others. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I for one very much appreciate the comments that are coming forward from the community, not just on this matter specifically, but on the more general issue of banned users. As a rule of thumb, I think the Arbitration Committee has tended to check in with the community when an unblock/unban request relates to a community-initiated sanction, if for no other reason than to verify that the community's opinion isn't changed. I am interpreting the commentary and responses to this specific request as "no, the community has not changed its collective mind", which is just fine by me personally. In particular, I note Mastcell's Proposal #5 and the number of editors supporting it, which may guide us in the future when similar requests come to our attention. Risker (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal by MastCell is defective, because it wrongly suggests that the unban proposal is a 'rehab project'. It is actually a proposal to allow GoRight to return to normal editing, with the understanding that if he again becomes a problematic influence (and this does become a 'rehab project'), he will be re-banned. I do wonder who understands that among the people who supported the proposal. AGK [•] 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I've said this before but I guess it needs to be said again. An arbitrator above released two paragraphs of an email from GoRight. After that release above you will see that GoRight lied to the arbitrators and well to all of us. Now I for one can't forget that he lied while trying to get unbanned. How do you ignore such behavior? I don't mean to sound unforgiving or rude but seriously, this is something that should definitely prevent and prove he doesn't have any respect for the project or the editors that volunteer here. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How you handle other editors lying or deceiving or being economical with the truth or telling white lies is part and parcel of editing on Wikipedia. You would hope that other editors would hold themselves to the highest possible standards, but that doesn't usually happen. There are those currently editing (probably even some admins) who to varying degrees 'lied' to others or abused the community's trust in some way (including socking) and were admonished/blocked/sanctioned/desysopped and so on, but were subsequently forgiven/allowed back, and are now editing productively (hopefully). i.e. Some editors do manage to come back from astonishingly poor past records and reform.

    So while AGK is right that this isn't a 'rehab' project, it is important that the principle of unbanning is available to banned users, even if it is declined in specific cases. As others have said, that is important because otherwise those socking will just carry on regardless. At the end of the day, banning is a social construct and is about community trust. It is trivially easy to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion to Wikipedia in an obscure corner (avoiding controversial pages and avoiding talk pages and avoiding project-space pages and so on), but if you do that you don't get any of the 'attention' (of other editors) that many disruptive editors seek. What it is generally more difficult to do is edit in the areas where disruption occurred and where people will 'notice' you.

    In my view, most banned users seeking to be unbanned are either: (a) trying to get their foot back in the door and resume disruption on the pages where they were active, because their socks are being detected too easily; or (b) they want to prove to the community that they can reform and conform to the standards expected. Judging which is these two applies in specific cases is not always easy. It is rarely about wanting to edit, and usually more about wanting to be let back into the "community". Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very useful to us, as the Committee, I'd say. 90% of the ban appeals (topic or site) the Committee handles are pretty cut and dried. Either they're an easy yes (very few, agreed, but those who've done good work elsewhere, and show they understand where they went wrong and understand they'll be on a short leash), or an easy no (continuing to blame others, make excuses, and think that time heals all wounds without doing the work necessary). I'd say another nine percent are those where it could go either way, but the Committee comes to a decision. That still leaves the one percent. That's why this is useful. Not only do we get to look at the comments from a greater number of editors than just those on the Committee who worked the appeal, but we also get a sense of "the community" as a whole as to what it takes to allow problematic users back into difficult topic areas, or coming back to the site as a whole(using the Community term very loosely, I don't know if even 0.01% of the active editors on WP contribute to these discussions, but they are still helpful). I think the guidance we have gotten here will be useful and probably result in a more jaundiced eye being applied to long term problematic users appealing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank the arbitrators who are now active and even those who took the time to comment here who are inactive. Thank you very much, it's nice to know when editors are read. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order

ArbCom should not substitute their judgement for the community's, except for very specific circumstances (e.g. small discussion with few editors participating, or secret evidence that can't be discussed in the open). If an editor wants to be unbanned, they can email a request, and the matter can be referred to a community discussion, as has happened here (though circuitously and in a bad venue). For the sake of the editor wishing to be unbanned, their request ought to be posted at WP:AN with links to the ban discussion. Lay the facts on the table.

We should offer editors a path back to good standing, because this discourages socking. As a suggestion to GoRight, please make a list of articles you'd like to improve. Specifics will help you. Perhaps the community would authorize probationary editing of just those articles, and then evaluate the results. There would have to be an understanding that the account could be reblocked at the first sign of disruption. Yes, what Mastcell says is correct: we do not want to invest a lot of effort in this; but we could invest a little effort because that will be cheaper than hunting sock puppets. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but GoRight needs to explain himself on his talk page. He needs to explain what went wrong and what he's going to do to change that but more important is he needs to explain why he lied to the arbitrators. Did he lie just to get unblocked thinking no one would notice or is there another reason? I would love to agree to him re-entering the community but he has to first explain himself truthfully. Just my opinion but I think others agree with me at this point. If his talk page is protected, which I didn't see, please unprotect it so he can talk to us through he talk page. I'd be more than happy to bring over what he says, as I'm sure others would too. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jehochman makes a valid point. GoRight has a history of socking. I understand people not wanting to waste time on GoRight, but we don't want him to return to socking either. That will waste people's time, too. We have to provide some path back. Again, I would suggest a limited set of non-controversial, non-political articles to begin with. We could even make it a requirement that he takes one of these articles to WP:FA status before expanding his limited set of articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should set a precedent where, if a banned user creates enough sockpuppets, we decide it's less trouble to just let them back in. You can see the sort of perverse incentive that creates. Yeah, it's a pain to deal with socks, but it's actually a much bigger waste of time for the sockpuppeteer. It actually takes a large investment of time and effort to sock on a large scale, and in return you get basically zero lasting impact on our content.

If GoRight keeps socking, I'll be annoyed, but mostly, eventually, sorry for him. None of us has an infinite amount of time on this many-splendored Earth, and devoting large parts of one's stay to (ultimately fruitless) sockpuppeteering on Wikipedia inspires a profound sense of pity. I think GoRight has already figured this out - that's why he's stopped bothering with the socks, and switched to Plan B. He might start socking again if this is turned down, but I think he's already perceived that it's not a productive long-term use of his time. MastCell Talk 23:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell's excellent comment speaks for itself and needs no support, but it may be necessary to emphasize that the suggestion of unbanning someone because they are causing too much disruption while banned is extremely unhelpful: rewarding bad behavior is a self-defeating strategy. Problem editors will find new ways to exploit any weakness. The only effective defenses are WP:RBI and WP:DENY (re DENY, the sooner this pointless discussion is closed the better). Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we have willing volunteers to deal with possible sock puppetry, that's fine. He didn't edit any of the articles I'm currently working on, so this doesn't really affect me. Have a good one, everyone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding User:Barong

Original announcement

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

Original announcement
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=433341300"