Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15


Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Original announcement

Statement on checkuser blocks

Original announcement

Just wanted to confirm one common exception that may have been omitted. There may be other circumstances where administrators may have issued a block marked "for Arbcom review":

  • Information whose disclosure would require breach of privacy of a user (statement only covers privacy issues "whose disclosure would identify anonymous users"),
  • Information whose disclosure would greatly affect counter-vandalism or other future efforts against serious disruption (doesn't say either way).

Rather than administrators guessing if IAR would apply, can someone advise if these kinds of occasional traditional cases are still covered? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this falls squarely in the "if in doubt, ask ArbCom first" category. — Coren (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Any answer is okay - as long as admins have some idea before any issue not after, they will be less likely to find themselves in an unexpected problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the announcement notes one reason for referring an issue to ArbCom is on the basis of "concern ... [about jeopardizing] a user's physical or mental well-being". I would strongly suggest to administrators with concern about an editor's mental health to be very careful before getting ArbCom involved. Any ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress, even in the best of worlds, so if an administrator can reach a reasonable solution without ArbCom involvement that may well be a better outcome for the editor. Further, we do not live in the best of worlds, and ArbCom's history in this area is (to put it mildly) not stellar. EdChem (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "any ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress". Arbitrators resolve dozens of such incidents a year, informally and without stress or drama.  Roger Davies talk 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Roger, that is your perspective, but how can you be sure it is true for all editors involved, bearing in mind that I referred specifically to cases where mental health issues are in question? What is being suggested is that an administrator should always and as a matter of routine refer an issue where mental health considerations are relevant / important to ArbCom... leaving aside the potential for anxiety if the editor is aware of the referral, the editor being referred is then going to have ArbCom approaching them on an issue with questions relating to their mental health... honestly, I don't understand how that can be anything other than stressful at minimum. It may be necessary at times, but I don't think advocating that ArbCom is the low stress / drama alternative in all cases is reasonable or wise. EdChem (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is much more complex than you might imagine. ArbCom looks after privacy-related issues (health included) by email, usually in one-to-one discussions. It's low-key and informal, and we balance the needs of the individual against the practicalities of collegial editing. Sometimes editors have deeprooted behavioural issues that can probably never be resolved by us and, as they say, Wikipedia is not therapy. Not much more I can on this really, I'm afraid.  Roger Davies talk 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am going to assume that you weren't trying to imply I am either too stupid, too unimaginitive, or too ignorant of mental health issues to be capable of understanding the complexity inherent in these situations. I am, however, disappointed that you choose to focus on the most problematic cases where I have already agreed ArbCom involvement is necessary and inevitable. These difficult cases do not justify a blanket advice to administrators to refer to ArbCom even in situations where there is a reasonable prospect that they could resolve the situation on their own in what would almost inevitably be a lower-stress approach for the involved editor. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
EdChem, I think I see where you're coming from and, in my books, you're on the right track here. I would dearly love to see administrators and longterm editors take the time to talk to editors and admins who appear to be "burning out", although only in situations where there's a prior positive relationship. I do believe that, if there's some positive early intervention from a trusted and respected colleague, we might not see as many serious overstress/mental distress situations. It's better for the user and the project not to have people become so distressed that Arbcom is put in a position where we have to act; and I know of a few cases where this positive intervention has been beneficial for all. Risker (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Risker, I do agree with you about early intervention being beneficial when stresses are mounting. I think it is interesting that we have an example going on at this very moment in the climate change case, where some editors are trying to calm things whilst others seem to only want tobait or provoke a reaction on the case pages. EdChem (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a complete misrepresentation. I will not clutter up this discussion other than to request that those reading this speak to me before taking any of the above comment at face value. ATren (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


While I am glad to see the clarification regarding checkuser blocks vs checkusers making "ordinary" blocks, I think the committee needs to take it one step further - falsely claiming a "checkuser block" or a "should only be lifted by arbcom" block should be grounds for immediate desysopping. With the latter, if the issue is "a user's physical or mental well-being", that isn't particularly the reason to proclaim an arbcom-only unblock. I think the standard should be the same as for a checkuser block - there is private information involved that cannot, for whatever reason, be disclosed here. These two sets (blocking users who are a threat to someone's well-being and blocks dependent on private information) will contain a lot of overlap, but I think private information is the key reason for a privileged block. --B (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I broadly agree with you here though desysopping should probably be reserved for a second or third offence. My own view is that if there is any privacy issue involved it ought really not be alluded to in an edit summary. The key here is probably "if in doubt, contact ArbCom by email first".  Roger Davies talk 13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone might mis-post a template (it happens and is usually not malicious) and we certainly do not want to penalize admins who try to do right and consult on a sensitive concern and who state in the meantime do not unblock as they have believe it's correct but have asked Arbcom to also look at it for reasons not made public. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Requests for Arbitration is stressful, but most Arbcom reviews are not. A user has a concern, Arbcom looks into it and often can reply quite easily. The stressful cases are those where after review something does need explaining - there is a real concern that the subject has to be approached about such as evidence of admin socking or similar. That's stressful but not easy to avoid. It's not usually as long as RFAR though and because it's by email it doesn't cause community "pile-on" or stress for them on-wiki. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
FT2, I have seen ArbCom handle some cases involving mental health issues. You may safely assume I was stressed, appalled, and convinced that ArbCom needs to improve substantially in such areas. Some situations are going to end up before ArbCom no matter what, but I think trying to direct administrators to routinely send situations where mental health is in issue to ArbCom is unwise... and defending that it is in the best interests of editors with mental health issues is making a questionable claim (at best). EdChem (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Such cases involve private information of the user that often cannot be communally disclosed. Does the community have a better way to handle privacy-related issues? Second thought is, a lot of the time AC does a pretty good job.
Without assuming anything about people generally, it is sadly the nature of many people under stress or who have certain kinds of mental issues, that they will be their own worst enemies and will make their own bed of nails, sometimes fabricate or change stories, and so on. While Wikipedia is not therapy the community tries within the bounds of an encyclopedia project writing community to be supportive. I have no doubt sometimes we fail, and sometimes we fail badly. Do we have a better part of the community trusted to handle privacy issues like mental issues, real-world stressed users etc and to make decisions related to damage prevention, if the practical effect of their situation is disruptive? A tough situation. Perhaps no answer is truly going to be ideal. Arbcom for better or worse are our sole body for privacy and high-sensitivity issue resolution. Especially, consider how we should handle those cases where the user unfortunately having such a condition is also dealing with it by aggression, attacks, disruption, games, or other actively inappropriate conduct. Very tough issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other checkusers, but the large majority of my "checkuser blocks" are on the underlying IP of a disruptive user, where revealing exactly what account led to the block would be a possible violation of the privacy policy. Checkusers have previously been advised by the AUSC to err on the side of caution when linking IPs to accounts, even when it would be reasonable to conclude that the IP in question is not personally identifying and therefore not covered by the privacy policy. I believe that my blocks that are based on private checkuser evidence are quite clearly distinct from those that are not. For example:

  • 21:07, 16 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked 122.57.83.247 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
  • 14:23, 13 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Karlioos (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of User:Karlpoos, User:HighHorseKarljoos)
  • 21:26, 18 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Imafuckingninja (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

I'd hope it's quite clear which of these is:

  1. A standard administrative block.
  2. A block based on checkuser evidence that I've obtained through checkuser, but where the evidence is not confidential and as such is also a standard administrative block.
  3. A block made on confidential checkuser evidence that should not be undone without checkuser permission.

Hopefully other checkusers use similar standards. Either way, I'd like to thank the ArbCom publicly for making this statement. --Deskana (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I hadn't noticed this before, but there is actually already a policy regarding privileged blocks from non-checkusers at Wikipedia:BP#Confidential_evidence. The policy as it is written is, "don't do it". Is arbcom's intent to change this policy? Based on the policy as it is currently written, regular admins should not be making "contact arbcom before unblocking" blocks. --B (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has no plans to change this policy and, to reiterate, regular admins should not be making "contact arbcom before unblocking" blocks (unless it's part of an AE action, in which case wheel-warring provisions apply).  Roger Davies talk 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --B (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How does that fit with Wikipedia:Child protection? Admins there are specifically instructed to make contact Arbcom before unblocking blocks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Are they? The policy talks about neutral edit summaries with a note to the blocked editor to contact ArbCom. It doesn't say that the block may only be undone with ArbCom consent. I'd much prefer that the matter was simply referred to ArbCom.  Roger Davies talk 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser/Oversight election statement

Original announcement
What a load of crap. "We don't like what the community has told us (ie that they don't want those candidates in the roles) so we're going to ignore them". Total bollocks. I supported all but one of the candidates, FWIW. I also took the time to make several comments on the resulting RfC and I agree the posts need to be filled, but you can't just ignore consensus like that. Oh, wait, you're ArbCom, you can do what you like and bugger what the community thinks. Total bollocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, Arbcom is saying that they won't consider giving Checkuser/Oversight privileges to the candidates who failed to gain enough votes in the election; instead they are soliciting candidates for appointment by Arbcom fiat. I certainly hope that this change of process isn't used to appoint anyone who participated in the election and failed to be elected that way, but as long as that doesn't happen I don't see that your comments apply. You can dislike the return to appointments, of course, but that's a separate matter from disliking the appointees when no such appointees have been announced yet. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the general idea. Only one candidate met the criteria we set, so only one candidate was appointed. No one is eager to appoint people who lost in the election, which is why we are sending out a call for more applications. Cool Hand Luke 13:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You did see the bit about not doing anything else based on the election and rerunning things in a bit here to fill those spots? Are you saying we should create a policy out of whole cloth prohibiting folks from running for a position more than once? Since the community will have the same opportunity to disapprove candidates though in discussion form rather than votes, can't the community simply say the same thing if someone choses to run again? It looks as if you've made quite a few assumptions here. Shell babelfish 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom are attempting to follow exactly what the community has decided. As a reminder the whole appointments process was an Arbcom mandate (like it or not) being the body designated to manage privacy permissions by WMF. The elections were an Arbcom proposal and extension. They included provisions if sufficient places were not filled, to seek communal input. In the most recent election that is what happened. The community was consulted but the results were unhelpful. The view that AC should take back the reins for now at least, seems a not-unreasonable interpretation of how the community's wishes stated at RFC might be best met insofar as any direction can be discerned.
At any rate it seems the most sure way for now to ensure the Community's obligations to manage the privacy tools. The outcome of not having sufficient users able to deal with checkuser inquiries and privacy breach removals can be rather more serious and Arbcom's job includes managing and filling those appointments which is what they are doing. The statement says until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system... which is fair. The users rejected at election have not been appointed, though they may apply on a par with any others in future (which is the case for most roles such as RFA, AC itself, stewardship, etc). It's not at all clear that any "ignoring" or "not-liking" is involved nor is bad faith called for. If you feel any clear consensus was ignored or disrespected, it might be more productive to point to the link for it. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with what Shell said. Can I add a plea here for those posting here in response to this statement to please take the time to review the list of candidates (once it is posted in mid-August) and let us know if there are any concerns you have (it would be depressing if there was more comment here than on the list of candidates next month). This is not about running an election or who 'wins' an election, but about getting people to volunteer to do a role that is needed, and ensuring that candidates for that role get the necessary scrutiny. Both ArbCom and the community play a role in carrying out that scrutiny, and that is the key here, not how the scrutiny is done. FWIW, my view on the selection process is that the key is to get a mixture of people volunteering for these roles, both 'quiet' people and 'popular' people, 'technical' people and the 'less technical' who may have other skills to bring to the role. I think a mixture of selection processes (both discussion+election-led and discussion-led appointments) would produce a good mixture of successful candidates (some people who would never volunteer under an election system might be excellent in the role). Also, if you have questions about what criteria should qualify and disqualify people for this role, or are thinking of volunteering, please ask. It is people prepared to volunteer, and feedback on both the selection criteria used, and on individual candidates, that is needed for this process to work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There are naturally going to be complaints, but I for one, as a member of the community, strongly support this change. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And I, as a community elected and active oversighter, also support this. We can talk circles about governance, but that doesn't solve the issues we have with oversight requests. We have time sensitive issues that we deal with, and we need a couple more hands from particular time zones. Keegan (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The accusation that ArbCom is ignoring consensus is what is total bollocks here. There was no consensus. That was the problem all along. There was no discussion, just a vote. Candidates did not receive any useful feedback, just some numbers, and the RFC after the election turned into a circus with a thousand competing proposals, none of which had strong support. The idea that anyone who failed to achieve the 70% support required in this oddball election is now barred from ever running again is just nonsense. There was no good way out of this, and the positions still need to be filled. I certainly don't see it as some great honor to be attained, it frankly sounds like a pain in the ass, but it needs doing and there were only a few of us that put out names forward as being willing to do it. It is my opinion that it was the process itself that was flawed, not the candidates. Since I have still not received an explanation for any one of the 111 opposes I got, or the 138 supporters for that matter, how am I supposed to know what supposed flaw caused the result? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Beeblebrox, I think the crux is in the en.wp model.
We don't have straight up or down votes, based on the collaborative model, and the result is the process of discussion and bureaucracy. This is not necessarily a bad thing for everything else we do; it is in the best interest of a society if the governance moves slowly to prevent hasty and malformed decisions. On the other hand, other projects adopt models that seemed to work the first two times without secure poll: a straight up or down vote. ArbCom should be trusted to vet and then have a yes/no decision, and candidates should receive feedback. Short of this, applications are the only way to go. Just my two cents. Keegan (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has already made it fairly clear who their favorite sons and daughters are by allowing them to stand in the last election at all. It'll be politically awkward and, in some cases, downright hypocritical to appoint some of the people who they'll end up appointing, especially when the May elections were so recent and had such clear results for some of the candidates. However, making bad decisions is what ArbCom does best. Community be damned, election results be damned, everything be damned, the beast needs MORE WORKERS. OR ELSE. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. What makes a "good" checkuser? They surpass the requirements for "good adminship", they are seasoned and committed to the project's wellbeing, they have the skills to use and interpret the CU data, they respect that these are privacy based tools not to be abused, they respect privacy policy, and they are fair in determining cases when these tools are used. Arbcom's role is to select and appoint users likely to be of that character. I'd say looking at the users Arbcom have selected, they've done the job. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It was an unwise move to give technical rights-giving ability to a group of political wanks (or is it wonks?). ArbCom can't be blamed for being assigned this role, but it can certainly be blamed for not ending it. It isn't about skills to use and interpret IP data in the slightest—most of the people in the overlap between Arbitrators and CheckUsers wouldn't know an IP address if it bit them in the ass.
When you look at the people who have not been selected (to even run in an election), I think you get a clearer picture of ArbCom's motives and M.O. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe we had this conversation once before. I find the implication that everyone who was selected to run is some sort of ArbCom ass-kisser offensive as well as utterly baseless. I don't recall ever brown nosing the ArbCom. If you are trying to call out some particular users, it's time to put up or shut up. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Where did I suggest that [everyone who was selected to run is some sort of ArbCom ass-kisser] in this thread? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Chill out, guys. You're both being insulting and rising to each other's bait. Take it to your respective talk pages if you want to continue this line. Risker (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha, already on it. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As you imply, it was a previous thread on some projectspace talk page somewhere. Here is the diff I remember from May, and the thread is currently here. You still seem to be upset about that. Risker's advice to both of you is good. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(to MZM) I think you are unfairly treating ArbCom as a monolithic entity here. When we consider who should and shouldn't be granted such tools we discuss the candidates who volunteer for the positions and look at the concerns raised (by other arbs and by other editors). We can only look at the candidates who volunteer (some people who might make excellent checkusers and oversighters don't volunteer, but we shouldn't pressure them to do so and I've never done that). The question then remains how to select from the candidates that put themselves forward? Some are clearly unsuitable, while for some there is unanimous agreement that they are suitable for the role and will do a good job (though if they don't, the tools can always be removed). For candidates where we (ArbCom) don't agree, we discuss and make our opinions clear and come to a decision. The point being that even unsuccessful candidates often have the support of several or more arbitrators, but successful candidates need to have a high level of support within ArbCom. Some arbitrators disagree with the rejection of some candidates (just as some arbitrators dissent in arbitration cases), but we work as a group and we stand behind the decisions we take as a group. So to talk about ArbCom having a "group" motive is patently unfair. The rejection of some candidates does not reflect some conspiracy to keep people out, but often shows nothing more than failure to gain a high degree of consensus within the group. If you want to improve that process, why not write an essay detailing what criteria you would use to select checkusers and oversighters, and ask arbitrators if they use those criteria? You could also talk with those that are already checkusers and oversighters (including those who hold the tools on other projects) and ask them what criteria they would use. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a thought. When you spot a flaw in the logic, holler out.
You ran to be an Arbitrator without being pre-vetted, right? And you ran alongside non-admins, admins, and some people who are certifiably unfit to hold the position, right? It was an open election, at least in the sense that anyone who could sort of prove they were over 18 could run, right?
And being elected as an Arbitrator gives you the ability to request, at the Arbitrator's discretion, oversight or checkuser privileges, right? I don't know of any Arbitrator ever being denied access to such user rights, at least.
So, is it fair to say that there have been elections for checkusers and oversighters without ArbCom involvement already? And if so, what is the issue with having open elections when someone wants checkuser or oversight access, but doesn't want to be an Arbitrator? Arbitrators don't seem to be pre-vetted or pre-approved. It seems rather backward that you can have more access with no restrictions on who can run, but with less access comes a gatekeeper. There's no small body keeping out all non-admins or all users who have gained grudges or whatever else in the ArbCom elections, is there?
I find this a bit puzzling. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You're talking apples and oranges, MZMcBride. While the community is aware that arbitrators generally avail themselves of those tools, they also are aware that few arbitrators are seriously active in their use. There are usually specific questions directed at arbitrator candidates about the access to and use of those tools. In practice over the last few years, few arbitrators have been regular users of either the checkuser or oversight tool outside of reviewing case-specific information, although a few will "specialise" in this area just as other arbitrators work more closely with BASC or decision-writing. (Full disclosure: as the publicly-released statistics show, I use both tools on a regular basis.) This is just one aspect of the arbitrator job, however. My typical "arbitrator" week will involve reading voluminous evidence, deciding whether or not to take on new cases, considering modifications of old cases, making sure oversight requests are fulfilled and doing some myself, talking a user or two down from the Reichstag, blocking a banned user or two (with or without checkuser) and responding to emails, IRC private messages, and onwiki posts. Notice how only a couple of those tasks fall into the scope of either a checkuser or an oversighter. At one time, all oversight and checkusering was done by arbitrators, but as this became an increasingly onerous task, it was delegated to others who are (a) qualified (which includes more than just being able to hit a few buttons and interpret IPs), (b) trusted and (c) able to fill known gaps or service lapses. The community has pretty badly failed at (c), and hasn't really shown itself all that capable with (b) either, given the fact that there was no indication of trust issues brought up in the most recent election. Risker (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Your answer is basically: Arbs don't use these tools much (unless they want), so no vetting is required. Umm, not convincing. Sole Soul (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm, it would be somewhat circular for Arbcom to be vetting itself; however, perversely, we do so to some extent in that no arbitrator may post his or her own name at Meta; there has to be a request to the committee as a whole, and the posts are made by another arbitrator after any discussion. Risker (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Sole Soul's point is well made, especially in light of a recent claim from FT2 that former Arbitrators retain their CU and OS permissions after their terms end because they are trusted to use them... if no vetting is requred because Arbs hardly use the tools, and mostly only for their ArbCom duties, then why do they need them once their terms end? More to the point, why should they be entitled to them even once they are no longer on the Committee and even if they resign the Committee under circumstances where there is community disquiet about their fitness for office? EdChem (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Sole Soul put it more succinctly than I could. Everything that Risker said above is true (regarding activity level, job descriptions, etc.), but I don't think it addressed any part of the post that it was replying to. The issue is that one position has open elections and a lot more access; the other positions have closed elections and a lot less access. It doesn't make any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's because they're different positions, MZMcBride. Risker (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, I think the use of private voting as opposed to community discussion was a major contributing factor to the "unsatisfactory" result of the election. I also agree with part of one of MZ's earlier posts- that who wasn't selected to run in the election speaks volumes. I think the best way of filling the posts would be to allow any administrator who is competent to use CU and or oversight tools and can prove they're over 18 to put themselves forward tot he community. What's the point of it all if a candidate has no idea why they were opposed (or supported)? How are they or ArbCom supposed to know if an army of sockpuppets that met the voting criteria sabotaged the result (unlikely, but I've seen more surprising things in my time) or if the community feels they could be suitable for the role in future? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Responding to MZMcBride's 05:56, 20 July 2010 post, the logic breaks down at the there have been elections for checkusers and oversighters without ArbCom involvement already point (MZMcBride is referring here to the ArbCom elections). I never saw the ArbCom election I ran in as one for checkusers and oversighters. I saw it as an election to be an arbitrator. Like at least one other of my colleagues, I don't actively use the CU and OS tools myself, but I do check oversighted material and checkuser logs when it is necessary to do so as part of a case or when asked to judge whether a checkuser or oversighter has been using the tools correctly. The same judgment needed to decide whether a valid complaint has been made about a checkuser or oversighter, is used to decide whether someone should be selected for the role. Essentially, ask them questions and consider the answers given, and other evidence and then make a decision. There probably is a valid point to be made about whether those who don't use the tools are best suited to judge who should use the tools or issue reprimands to those using the tools outside the bounds set, which is why I've said (off-wiki) that I would not be a member of AUSC as I feel those on AUSC should have at some point have been active users of the tools. But I do think that the ArbCom election is a mandate to trust those successful in the election to (as arbitrators) exercise their judgment in several ways and roles, such as: (i) considering ArbCom cases, (ii) dealing with privacy-related issues, (iii) dealing with ban appeals, and finally (v) overseeing the CU and OS teams (and bringing in more people to cover the work that needs to be done). Essentially, as Risker said, the ArbCom and CUOS elections are for different roles, and the election of arbitrators is less about tool access, but more about taking on responsibility for a range of matters. The responsibility for the use of the CUOS tools lies with arbitrators. As part of that, we delegate the use of these tools to others, and then we oversee that use, though that management role now largely devolves to AUSC. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Having said all that, I do personally think that a mixture of elections and appointments would work best, and that the at-large members of AUSC should always be elected rather than appointed.

To ArbCom... the following should be a statement of the breath-takingly obvious... if you are considering any candidate who is presently or has recently been involved in a case, and that involvement has included questions about the objectivity / impartiality as an administrator of that candidate, then there is at least a significant group within the community with doubts about the fitness of that candidate for CU or OS or any other office of trust. This remains true even if ArbCom did / does not find that actions needed / needs to be taken against that administrator in the resolution of the case. The Committee should take into account all expressions of doubt from the community - including the expressions delivered by the votes in the recent elections. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Brief answer - yes and it is, although a specific fault of the recent elections was that no information related to supports and opposes was gathered by the voting structure.
Slightly longer answer - It's been a while since I was on Arbcom and hearsay says if anything it's tightened since then. As of 2 years ago, any concerns were taken seriously and investigated. If they showed a possible problem to the committee then that was taken as a likely disqualifier (a number of concerns might include misinformation, misunderstanding, misreporting, good cause, or emotion rather than fact, when checked out). The scrutiny is to understand the user's likely suitability for the role to the standards required. So conduct might indeed be noticed and taken into account which would be comparatively small as an admin or where no action was taken by anybody, but which could show a tendency or risk of weak area not quite suitable for rather more demanding and stringent standards needed. Also if a larger number are suggested than needed, then not being appointed might just mean someone was suitable but insufficient positions were open.
Per Arbcom's notice, once a candidate list is posted any concerns (or indeed commendations) should be sent directly to the Committee to be looked into. However I would imagine it will be expected that users should be prepared to explain and discuss them thoughtfully, and if applicable show any evidence, not just make bare claims. Example how this used to work (see 1st paragraph of Aug 2008 appointments describing the responses received). FT2 (Talk | email) 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
FT2, I am 100% in agreement that the lack of reasons in the recent elections where a significant flaw in their design - a flaw that will hopefully be rectified before this year's ArbCom elections. I also understand and appreciate your point about non-sanctionable actions which ArbCom migh note as they consider evidence and observe conduct during cases. However, from your response I am unsure whether the point I was making has been missed. Almost any case will include some evidence of alleged administrator misbehaviour, likely with some editors supporting the administrator and others voicing concerns / criticisms. Except in the unlikely case where all concerns and criticisms etc voiced are utterly without merit, these community-expressed concerns are factors ArbCom should be including when deciding about an administrators potential fitness for an office of trust such as CU or OS. I appreciate your point about the factors that ArbCom might notice on its own, but I also hope that my point about looking for any and all expressions of community input, even those occurring outside a formal invitation to provide input, is recognised. EdChem (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As best I am aware (and I'm very sure of this point), all known evidence that might speak to trust or suitability is considered. Even anecdotal evidence of concerns from seasoned users may be valuable. Anything raised by the community is likely to be reviewed and if it might show a concern is likely to be discussed and examined. Evidence related to trustworthiness and reasoned support are also valuable too. Arbcom may in the first instance filter out some candidates from their own knowledge and assessment, but the community acts as a vast collective memory and user/s are invited to submit reasoned observations, concerns and endorsements before any given appointment. There isn't much benefit in input at other times because the community won't have any names of possible candidates to comment upon, but incidents that take place are usually remembered in future. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Right on. These are important technical jobs, that should not be decided as a popularity contest. Pick administrators who have time and are competent. The community already selected them as administrators. Jehochman Talk 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't you see the contradiction between "should not be decided as a popularity contest" and "The community already selected them as administrators [by a popularity contest]", (the words in italics are mine). Sole Soul (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is true that the community already selected them as administrators. The problem is that passing the vetting process to select an administrator (once) is not the same as receiving a carte blanche from the community to use all possible tools. In particular, administrators have vastly less access to sensitive information covered by the privacy policy than do Checkusers. Checkusers operate with vastly less supervision than administrators, as well. As an admin, there are millions of editors – heck, anyone on earth with an internet connection – who can scrutinize the completely-open logs of all my administrative actions. There are close to two thousand other administrators who can review the contents of files I've deleted, and who can undo any of my administrative acts if they were in error. Like it or not, we do extend a much greater degree of trust and responsibility to our Checkusers than we do to our admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, there's an interesting question. As an editor in good standing, and as a straightforward matter of checking to see if my privacy was being properly protected, would I even be able to get a direct answer (from ArbCom, the CheckUsers, the AUSC, or the Ombuds Committee) to the following simple questions: have I been Checkusered in the last year? If so, why, and by whom? And if I couldn't get those answers, why not? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    I'm fairly certain that AUSC has responded to queries of this sort in the past, and I see no reason to believe that this would not be the case in the future. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Two other issues come to mind.
Users often share IPs and any user turn up on multiple IP ranges. Any user might turn up on an IP check, along with possibly many other users. Usually it's completely innocent - it's a shared CIDR range - but still may need consideration (we've had bad faith users at all levels including some of unimpeachable record so Checkusers cannot dismiss that point). CU results are not logged so no checkuser could be certain whether your edits and IPs were examined as part of any check or in any case if you did ask.
The second more serious reason is that it would cause breaches of privacy. Example:- an SPI investigation of user X, a likely sockmaster, shows he/she has used a narrow IP range where users Y and Z edit as well. Checks may be needed on Y and Z to evidence whether or not either is implicated as a sock, or whether they seem to be chance users of the same IP range (checks are as often to eliminate as anything else). Disclosure of the existence of checks on Y or Z, possibly with rough dates or the checkuser name, could lead to the SPI case of user X and may well allow Y or Z to learn IP or location information about X (namely that X is close to where they are or uses the same possibly localized ISP/college/workplace). Disclosure of checks made on Y or Z could also be collated with other users' disclosures or used for "fishing" purposes (Y asks for details so another editor in the same area does too, to see if their name appears to have come up in the same case as Y), both leading to further risk of privacy breach.
Put simply there isn't and probably shouldn't be a general facility to learn about the actions or logs because of the potential for privacy breach, although as Kirill says in some cases where it is innocuous it may be possible. (Of note, the oversight log was originally public but had to be made non-public early on because of privacy issues). FT2 (Talk | email) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I fully agree that caution must be employed to sanitize the data; we wouldn't want to inadvertently cause breaches of privacy in the interest of auditing to prevent breaches of privacy. Still, this does make my point about the different levels of community trust implicit in the roles of administrators versus oversighters and checkusers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

Original announcement

While I understand the practical issues that limit this to Administrators, I remain concerned that power continues to accumulate in a small pool of editors. ElKevbo (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have to remedy your concern? NW (Talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there are any remedies for this particular situation as time is of the essence and there are indeed pressing issues that checkusers and oversighters need to address.
In the long term, it would be nice if we could move away from RFA being the exclusive way of measuring community trust and confidence in an editor. It's not intended to be an omnibus test but it's become that. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If a checkuser is not an administrator, then they cannot place checkuser blocks. A checkuser that cannot make checkuser blocks is all but useless. As long as we want checkusers that are actually capable of fulfilling their duties, they'll need to be administrators. As far as oversight is concerned, I don't know how that user right would function if a user is not an administrator, given that it is essentially an add-on to the normal revision deletion abilities of an administrator. You'd need someone more familiar with MediaWiki to tell you whether the Oversight right could function without the user account also being an administrator. Either way, I find it highly unlikely that the community in general would approve of a non-administrator being given checkuser/oversight rights. --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand there are considerable logistical issues; that's why I'm not proposing anything change immediately. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't actually seem to be proposing anything at all... Call me crazy, but doesn't it make sense to give the most powerful admin tools to users who have already shown an ability to use admin tolls responsibly? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not proposing anything concrete at the moment. Editors are allowed to have opinions and express concerns here, right? ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, but we generally hope that such concerns have something vaguely resembling reasonable content, rather than just random and unfixable "don't want". --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I was certain that my concern would not be well-received here but to label it "unreasonable" seems overly dismissive and downright mean. I'm astonished at the general level of rudeness with which I've been greeted and that it's permitted to treat other editors in this manner on this particular noticeboard is very disappointing. But I probably shouldn't be surprised given the growing rift between those in power and those who are not; it's perfectly clear in this discussion who is on which side of that rift.
It's clear that my concerns aren't welcome here so if you have a reply please leave on my Talk page. I've said what I have to say. ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ummm.... I can see both sides. On the one hand it makes sense for checkusers to be admins so that they can make checkuser blocks. On the other it would seem that the two functions aren't by necessity joined, so that the CU can evaluate technical evidence and report back to the admins. My experience with SPI (in particular Scibaby) is that in practice the two roles often have been carried out separately; usually the CU reports that accounts are related or unrelated and other admins do the blocking. I lean in favor of CUs being admins but don't think the alternative should be dismissed out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
A non-admin checkuser would be severely limited in their ability to do the job. Checkusers often need to follow evidence into (or discover it from) deleted or redacted edits. This would be a bigger problem in privacy issues or if they had to ask admins to help them with access to deleted material for cases (which could lead to privacy policy issues or problems in harassment/outing cases). Splitting the job for nicety wouldn't work. Technically admin tools could be bundled with Checkuser or honorary adminship granted as well. But there is also a good case (mentioned above) that someone should prove themselves as an admin toolholder and establish substantial community trust at admin level (including conduct and judgment in admin cases), before access is considered to WMF privacy tools and CU cases. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps I can help here. Some other wikis have non-administrators in the checkuser positions. Their processes are different; for example, some wikis require that all checkuser requests be public, whereas we're aware on this project that in many cases public checkuser requests feed into the attention-seeking of certain banned users, and we also block sleepers without publicly acknowledging those accounts for the same reason. Other projects require a separation between the checkuser and the block; we don't require that for some of the reasons just mentioned, although it is frequently the way things are done on SPI. I have been told that one or two projects grant "temporary" admin permissions to non-admin checkusers, and I don't think that would go over well here, and is also unnecessary given the number of admins we have. Finally, we have received quite a few applications from non-administrators in the past and, while almost all of them are fine users, they almost invariably did not meet the criteria that we were looking for as well as administrator applicants did. As we are hoping to move fairly quickly this time, we're limiting invitations to apply to those candidates most likely to be able to meet the needs of these two roles. This isn't a "forever" prohibition of non-admin candidates, and it's a topic worthy of discussion, but given the time constraints we have right now, we're not in a position to have that discussion for this particular round of appointments. Risker (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is sufficiently trusted and competent to be a checkuer or oversighter, why would they not be willing to first go through RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Seen RfA lately? It's not something I'd wish on a friend. Most of my nonadmin wiki friends laugh uproariously when it's even hinted at by me. That said, Commons had a non admin CU for a while (they had admin when they were elected CU, but gave it up...) and I think it didn't work all that well, they subsequently asked for their bit back. But Commons doesn't have the formal noticeboards, etc. As a CU handling notices there I'd often report findings, and then leave it to others to act. Still, even without doing the blocking work, not being able to look at deleted contribs is a handicap in some kinds of CU investigations. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee statement on ban appeal by Ottava Rima

Original announcement SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, what is meant by "his block is being converted"? Is his email access and talk page access being granted, or is this conversion solely to reflect the duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Because, as the original terms for his ban state, that OR must successfully workout probationary terms with the Committee before he can return to editing, and the next appeal date would be after the existing block is set to expire. It is solely to reflect the duration. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Then unless I'm mistaken, why did you grant him access to his talk page? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me double-check it, and if need be, I'll adjust it :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I've fixed it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's being converted from Presbywikianism to Morbanism. :) (couldn't resist) (X! · talk)  · @942  ·  21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sarcastic bitching about someone who's unable to answer back. That makes me feel all warm inside. – iridescent 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A measured and sensible decision under the circumstances. As the supporters of lifting the ban on the editor's talkpage propose, there may be a way to facilitate Ottava Rima contributing non-disruptively, but where Commons, foundation-l, Wikipedia Review, and, it would appear, The Guardian have failed, we can hardly fault ArbCom now. Best of luck in the new year, Skomorokh 22:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad the voting committee explicitly endorsed importing his off-site articles. Good content is and should be welcome when appropriately licensed. Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It still needs to stay within WP:BAN which says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them", which in a nutshell means they can not be doing it at his (or any banned user's) direction, need to independently verify the material, attribute it, and have an independent reason for doing so. Sometimes this can be a slippery slope. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest amending the statement to clarify this? Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And also clarify what it means; for example, is it enough to say that book X and journal article Y definitely exist, or must you verify that book X says what he says it does? Ironholds (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
By importing these edits, the person importing those edits takes the effects onto themselves. If they import edits that say something that the sources do not support, it is them that will take the brunt of the issues, not the banned user (of course, it will be considered when the banned user comes up on appeal or on expiration.) SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not simply state that the importer need take responsibility for the content of the edits and be done with it? The focus on veracity of sourcing as opposed to the myriad other potential flaws an article can have seems misplaced, particularly in this case. Skomorokh 06:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically it's just like importing compatible content from anywhere. If you imported a properly licensed article from another website, no one would expect to go back to the website to make them wikify the article or fix any problems. Same thing here, if you import content, you're responsible for it - as Rlevse pointed out, we felt it was worth mentioning since its a bit different having a banned user be the source than just some other website. Shell babelfish 07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It is different as Shell says, with a banned user. WP:BAN used to not have this clause about proxy editing and there are many people who still feel it's wrong on any grounds to import content created by a banned user; the rationale often is something along one or more of these lines of thought (before and now) "banned means banned", "it's helping him circumvent his ban", "importing banned user content causes disruption", etc. I think it's one of those arguments that will never go away, like the one vested contributors. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll make my point clear; is the Arbitration Committee saying that for content to be validly transferred over, the transferor must be able to verify (independent of the transferee) that the information is correct? If an article is based on book X, should the transferor have access to book X? Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We're saying not to treat this any differently than you would content you transfer from anywhere else. The lengths the person goes to verify that the article is correct and meets Wikipedia standards is up to them, though the community has expressed annoyance in the past with editors who routinely transfer in content without at least an attempt at fact checking and wikification. Personally, I don't transfer things I don't double-check first; sometimes that means a hard look at the sources myself, sometimes it means reading other articles on the subject and seeing if they treat the topic in a similar manner.

So I guess the short of it is, ArbCom isn't making any comment on how to transfer in content beyond what already exists in policy, we're just saying that we don't consider legitimately importing content written by a banned editor to be the same thing as proxying for a banned editor. Shell babelfish 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably most analogous to translating articles from another language Wikipedia, or wikifying articles from a public domain source. The user doing these things should ideally check the sources, but there's no unique or additional requirement to do so when the source is Ottava's user page on another project. Cool Hand Luke 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Personnel changes - Audit Subcommittee

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Original announcement
  • So you guys are stripping the random check user requirement that was placed for a reason? Nice! Peachey88 (T · C) 10:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As I understand the motion, it is a modification of the unbanning provisions, not a replacement for them. Thus, seeing as the checkusering requirement was not mentioned in this motion, it stands to reason that it remains unaffected. Skomorokh 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Skommo is correct, if an existing restriction is not mentioned in this motion, then it's still in place. Only what is mentioned in the passing motion is affected. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement on checkuser blocks

Have just been caught by one of these when trying to edit while logged out. I use 3, a major mobile internet provider in the UK (a small country off the north-west coast of Europe). There was no block notice on the IP talk page - and no previous edits from that address. Nothing in the block log either. I requested unblock, and was told to contact the blocking admin. This was impossible, because her talk page is semi-protected, and she has no alternative means of contact. She also has a stated wish to prevent all anon editing. This forces logged-out editors to "out" their IP providers. It also winds people up, as giving incorrect and misleading advice to blocked editors is just plain dumb. Could some effort be made by Arbcom to ensure that Checkusers in future do not behave in such an unhelpful and disruptive way? I really really don't want to have to log in to edit, as there is just too much crap going on. Checkusers should mark all IP's blocked with a correct and helpful notice. Checkusers shouldn't be forcing editors to reveal their IP. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Duncan has been in contact with me about this and I've started a thread here asking for more input. TNXMan 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Tnxman307, I have emailed Arbcom but of course a lot depends on if their email filter is working properly, and also if they are checking the messages awaiting moderation in a timely manner. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Got it.  Roger Davies talk 13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What were you expecting the checkuser to do? Do you have a static IP address?  Roger Davies talk 13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What was I expecting them to do? Leave correct advice about what to do if caught in such a block. Maybe try not to block major networks without some kind of explanation, that might be nice too. Is that too much too ask? If you've got the email then you know the answer to the other question. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The usual advice is to open an account and request IP exemption: and, yes, the applicable text from {{Rangeblock}} should probably be incorporated into {{checkuserblock}}.  Roger Davies talk 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to edit from an account, I just want to fix wikilinks, not add content and not get involved in discussions. Editors with accounts get asked for their opinions, and I don't want to give any opinions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
So you want us to lift an entire range block because you want to fix wikilinks without logging in?  Roger Davies talk 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I want you to give less confusing advice to people caught in a checkuser rangeblock. I can live with the fact that most Arbs and Admins don't like me and don't want me contributing, but I do still care enough about the encyclopaedia to want it to be better in how it explains things to people who are trying to help. Leave clear, correct advice to those caught in rangeblocks, make the blocked template less confusing, you'll get less drama and more good editors contributing. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, I completely agree that the {{checkuserblock}} text needs improving (and I will see what we can do) but that's probably all that realistically can be done. And please don't take the range block personally: it really wasn't aimed at you :) While I may not always agree with you, I have always appreciated your insights.  Roger Davies talk 14:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I never thought the rangeblock was aimed at me, just executed poorly, by an admin who can't be contacted, and with no proper explanation for those affected by it. I'm off now, I really hate being logged in. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Archivebox needs updating

The bot has started archiving to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12, but the box only lists archives up to Archive 11. I can't work out how to update the archivebox with the new link. 188.28.122.127 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It should also be noted that the links from the main noticeboard page to the related discussions are broken by the archiving process. 188.28.122.127 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the archive listing; you should probably ask the clerks to get a proper permalink system up and running. Skomorokh 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Or just remove the announcements or the "discuss this" link when the discussion ages off. –xenotalk 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How would you get a proper permalink system up and running? Would that have to be done manually? Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you could, for instance, have a bot that recognises the relation between the section containing the announcement and the respective talkpage section discussion the announcement, and when the discussion section is moved to an archive, the bot simply changes the "discuss this" link to the archival location. Alternatively, a manual system using something like {{anchor}} could be used so that all links are permanent. Another option would be separate pages for each announcement, with the discussion overleaf (like at AfD), but that has its drawbacks.
In the present setup, it's quite time-consuming to try to track down both an announcement and its corresponding discussion, particularly as there are seven archives of the former and twelve of the latter. Skomorokh 18:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it needs improving: it's 'orrible and time-consuming finding stuff. Any assistance very welcome.  Roger Davies talk 19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser or Oversight permissions - schedule update

Announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Announcement

Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments

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

Roger Davies provided a link from ANI to here to discuss.

I like some of the names suggested. Some of the names from the previous May Secure Poll do not appear but may be better choices, in some cases.

I commend the Arbitration Committee for not immediately throwing out the May Secure Poll and imposing its own will. Waiting 3 months as a cool down period is a more responsible act. It could be improved by adding the names of the May Secure Poll candidates and allowing the community to select, by Secure Poll, the top 4 CU and 6 OS (the number that AC seems to suggest) among the 6 CU and 11 OS candidates. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the candidates vetted for the May election may not have expressed interest in this round. –xenotalk 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting selection. Are we supposed to email the mailing list for all comments, or just concerns/opposes? I'm guessing that anyone who does not email the list is assumed to be supporting or indifferent toward all the candidates. —fetch·comms 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to heartily endorse a particular candidate, then you should feel free to e-mail ArbCom. I'm sure they'll appreciate that feedback as much as they would any negative feedback. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, I was expecting a public page where people could make comments (positive or negative). If negative comments are sent to ArbCom about a candidate, will the candidate be told about the details (who said what?) or will they just be told "sorry, we got complaints..."? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Endorse! Of the 9 people listed to become CU or OS, you are in my top 2! You are very responsible. Of course, I think it is a foregone conclusion that all will be appointed. I don't need to e-mail, I publically endorse Phantomsteve and this message was approved by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe so (probably not who said what, but more likely what was said). –xenotalk 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
When this happened last time (August 2008) I was told what the concerns were about me, but I was not told who said it, which I believe was the best outcome. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that knowing the concerns and not the whos is good from my point of view. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Follow-up announcement - Thanks for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I'm currently co-ordinating the responses received, and am collating them into one document for ongoing review. People can make comments here if they wish (and those comments will be noted), but it will be easier for me to add them to the document if the comments are also e-mailed, and please note what Roger Davies said in the original announcement: "As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list". Xeno is correct that comments received, or a paraphrase, will be passed to the candidates, but we will anonymise those comments and concerns before passing them on. This also addresses the point raised by PhantomSteve. I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd follow Bastique into hell. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Are they likely to lead you there..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't he studying theology after leaving the WMF? </offtopic> —fetch·comms 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm definitely putting my dollar on Bastique. I'm just concerned with Frank getting CU. I just pulled up the most recent 500 edits in WP space and there're only 3-4 edits directly related to sockpuppets. Does ArbCom really thinks Frank is a suitable candidate for being a CU? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed, just wait for the rules of the game to change. It really doesn't give anyone any pause that, in some cases, for nearly every support a candidate got, they got an equal oppose vote? In some cases, over 100 contributors actively opposed their candidacy (WP:100, anyone?). And there were voter eligibility requirements, so these weren't just drive-by voters. But I guess it's okay to ignore these facts because the encyclopedia would cease to exist without a few people in these positions. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election#Results. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

</me waves>Well, obviously most candidates got almost as many opposes as supports - that is why only one candidate in the May elections made the 70%+ support (slightly more than 2 supports for every 1 oppose) standard. Does this reflect upon the candidates or the process? It may be also borne in mind that whatever the process, poor or abusive CU/OS'ers can have the flags removed. In the meanwhile, there will be more people to undertake some necessary tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it to heart, (I'm sure you haven't)I think it was the format that attracted the oppose votes not so much a specific rejection of the candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, people had the option to vote neutral. And many did. But a good number said "no, I don't think person should be in this position." If the vote had been held without a neutral option (which was also the default voting option in the form, as I recall), I'd be more inclined to say that opposition was a result of the format. But in May, people were given a choice, they decided to actively participate in the election, and a good number decidedly to actively oppose certain candidates. For nearly any election (ArbCom, steward, adminship), this would mean a fairly clear result. In this case, it just means that a few months have passed.
If there are other significant factors I'm missing beside the passage of time that make the result of the May elections irrelevant, please feel free to point them out. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Last time we did this dance, I seem to recall you telling me to calm down about it. Look, the earlier process was a disaster. Only one candidate made it through, and we got zero feedback, so none of us knew why we didn't get through. I have still not had one single person explain to me why they thought I couldn't be trusted with oversight. The previous process seemed like a good idea at the time, but it just didn't work. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Second follow-up announcement - Thanks again for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I've recently posted some follow-up notices to provide updates and ask for further comments. I'm continuing to co-ordinate the responses received, and collate them into one document for ongoing review. As I said above, I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support of MuZemike, Tnxman307, Beeblebrox, LessHeard vanU, MBisanz and Phantomsteve. Haven't paid enough attention to the others to have an opinion, but no concerns noted.--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support for all the CU candidates. (But we always lose good clerks this way.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have had positive interactions with all of the candidates and have no objections to any of them. In particular, the CU candidates have done a fine job with SPI and we can definitely use more checkusers. (A disclosure; I once opposed granting CU to Tiptoety but I no longer have concerns.) -- Atama頭 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess you just make your concerns known here, which you've done, and Carcharoth will take it into consideration...? Not sure if there's more you can do Giano. -- Atama頭 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Giano: If you have concrete objections to Bastique, please email me (or the committee as a whole.. if you send to me I'll forward on to the committee) your objections, and it will be taken into account. SirFozzie (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have already emailed the Arbcom, but why cannot it be discussed here? I would quite like to do it here. In my view, he is the last person on earth who should be granted oversight.  Giacomo  20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason for requesting comments by email was to allow concerns to be fully discussed without people having to worry about revealing private information in such a public setting. If you don't need to disclose anything private to state your concerns, then you're free to do so here as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what is private about this at all - people who pry into our IPs and oversight our edits seems rather a matter for public concern to me. Regarding Bastique, I am surprised that someone so involved in such a huge and failed supression has the gall to allow their name to go forward as an oversighter. The raking over of old and now cold coals can serve no one well. I suggest the Arbcom consider that very well and very closely. As a breed, I dislike obedient poodles intensely.  Giacomo  20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I will await a prompt response from the Arbcom to my email before taking this matter further. By prompt, I mean prompt, not ten days after the appointment has been confirmed. I am well aware of how these things are handled when guided from above.  Giacomo  20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Giano, thanks for those comments. I've copied your 3 comments above, and the 2 received by e-mail, to the document I've prepared. Like all the other comments, they will be reviewed and taken into consideration when we complete our review of the candidates. We will contact you if we need further details on the points you have raised. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh Good. The word "document" coupled with Wikipedia always makes me laugh, especially when its a secret one - any German quotes in it?  Giacomo  22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That made me smile. My original reply was less funny than I thought, so I removed it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't had much direct contact with any of the candidates but have heard of most and I don't have immediate objections. WP has such massive privacy leaks in other places that CU/OS candidate issues seem like small potatoes. If the candidates are basically privacy-conscious people and are under enforceable NDA's and are aware of past CU/OS drama enough to not repeat the same errors, that's good enough for me. I'd like to see more disclosure and consideration of other privacy issues but this isn't the place for it. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Third follow-up announcement - the comments period has closed now. Thanks for all the comments received. I'll be sorting out most of the correspondence involved with this tomorrow, and we will be completing our review of the candidates over the coming week. The schedule for this round of appointments is as previously posted to the noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confirmation of Checkuser and Oversight appointments

Announcement

It seems quite extraordinary that Bastique (alias Cary Bass "an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation") who blocked me for revealing that hitherto respected editors, including Jimbo, were not only privately sending each other complete rubbish but believing it and persecuting one of Wikipedia's best editors into the bargain and permanently driving him off can now be appointed an oversighter. In short, he blocked me to spare Jimbo's blushes [1]. One can only assume that the Arbitration Committee either applaud such conduct or are merely doing as instructed by their employer. I don't expect any support over this, but at least the Arbitration Committee has let you serfs know where you stand - behave, don't expose the lies, deceits and stupidities of your betters or be blocked! User:!! was one of our best editors, who had perfectly legally changed his user name for personal and justified reasons, the recipients, belonging to a secret Wikipedia-Society, of a widely circulated email were too stupid to understand it or too lazy to even read it, and he was driven of. Bastique tried by brute force and thuggery to spare their embarrassment. Now he is a hallowed oversighter, there once was a time when a barnstar was reward enough. Good luck to our new oversighter!  Giacomo  17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned, you are well aware that, even back at that time, publishing of emails on-wiki was a blockable offense. You were blocked until such time as you agreed not to republish the email on-wiki (after it had already been removed several times). If the same actions were to occur today, in all likelihood exactly the same thing would happen, and the edits including the email would be suppressed. That does not in any way suggest that the underlying issue did not need to be addressed; indeed, it was addressed at the time. Risker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Risker, do I subscribe to quasi-secretive mailing lists? - No! I was blocked for proving the existance of such secretive sanctioned societies and the stupid, ridiculous antics and falshoods they encourage and believe - or are you sugesting the contents of that "mail" were true and harmless!  Giacomo  20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if Bastique had acted wrongly there, the notion that giving him an oversight tool would somehow be the Arbcom implicitly "applaud such conduct" from 2007 is extremely bizarre. If Cary Bass couldn't be trusted not to blow up the wiki, I think we'd have known by now. All this tends to show me is the remarkable endurance of Giano's grudges, and his inability to recognise that not everything is an action taken for or against his interests and agenda. If we really did discount regular editors because they'd made a controversial call (or even a bad one) sometime in the last three years, who'd be left? Giano?--Scott Mac 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not my agenda at all, unless my agenda is to have an open and honest Wikipedia!  Giacomo  20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We're about writing an encyclopedia. Constantly engaging in battle ground tactics and dragging up stuff from three years ago that most of us have forgotten doesn't help that. No, this is only about your ego and smiting your perpetual enemies, as ever.--Scott Mac 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, you are the eone who keeps popping up - were you involved? - or are you just some form of wise oracle who loves to comment?  Giacomo  20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I keep thinking that you might be open to wise oracles. But perhaps that's just my inability to learn the lessons of long ago.--Scott Mac 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well why don't we give everyone a laugh - there must be lots of new people who have never sem the "sooper seekrit dokument" that so many of Wikipedia's best beleived and I was banned for posting.  Giacomo  20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect a few people may smile at the memory of that past farce, but really, from this perspective, much ado about nothing.--Scott Mac 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, until he tries it again. Will anyone ever dare to expose one of secret-societies again and their stupidities - I doubt it. Is Jimbo privy to many of these do you suppose. Guten abend.  Giacomo  21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Good grief. Yes, and have a good night too.--Scott Mac 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Announcement

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored in this ArbCom process is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators.

The administrators also have not considered an alternative remedy suggested by myself that is at the same time more draconian and more germane to the events leading to this action.

However, I now am quite used to knee-jerk administrative behavior that ignores WP welfare and the facts, and half-baked vague sanctions that encourage further fruitless ArbCom intervention to clarify matters that could have been stated clearly at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I truly do not understand why or how the committee would vote this. I saw attempts to discuss and make a consensus and a lot of head hunting. I guess it's easier to scapegoat people then to deal with the issue Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I only see this now. Students trowing out the professors - how is that going to improve an encyclopedia? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not actually about professors and students. One of my colleagues did mention professors and students, but I think that was not the best comment to make in the circumstances (with apologies to that arbitrator). What Wikipedia is about is editors working together to improve articles, and invariably those sanctioned by ArbCom have had problems working with others, regardless of their expertise or otherwise. If you look around, you will find plenty of experts and PhD students and probably professors as well, editing Wikipedia with no problems. The trick is to learn how to edit Wikipedia and work with others while doing so (work to your own strengths and recognise your own weaknesses and the strengths of others), and that does take a while to work out if you are used to a more individualistic approach. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Real encyclopedias ask experts. Brews has shown endless patience trying to explain things on talk pages - how can that be a reason to block him? Most experts give up on editing wikipedia in their own field in frustration. Instead, wikipedia is dominated by wannabies and crackpots. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Are you suggesting that Brews is an expert, and not a fringe theorist whom anyone with a high school education or greater is going to disagree with (and I would suspect the higher the education, the more strongly so?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: Apparently you haven't visited my user page or googled my name. Yes, I am an expert, no I am not a fringe theorist, yes I am disputed by a bunch of wannabes with no conception of balanced judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Brews is an electrical engineering professor and his contributions to electrical engineering articles have been terrific as far as I know. His contributions to mathematics articles have sometimes been problematic. To be fair, a mathematics professor jumping into electrical engineering articles would probably do even worse. Being an expert in some subject doesn't automatically make a person into an expert on every subject. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
          • The IP editor is correct. I would also note that Brews has made excellent contributions in terms of images. I can understand that the areas of electrical engineering and physics overlap to a large extent, and that device physics (I presume semiconductor device would be roughly the right article to link to there) and circuit design and solid-state physics (all terms Brews uses on his user page) are largely in the area of physics, so I wouldn't be adverse to a clarification at some point to allow Brews to work in those areas, but speed of light is something else again (fundamental constants and large helpings of history of science and other stuff as well). But my main point still holds - even if someone is a world-renowned expert on the subject, they still need to be able to work with others when editing articles on that subject, and those who have published on a subject do need to be aware of what WP:COI and WP:NOR say on the matter (mainly the bits about citing your own work or publications you have worked on). Experts should always be welcomed on Wikipedia, but they have to know how to work within Wikipedia policies and work with other Wikipedians, and know where the limits of their expertise lie. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The original appeal concerning Sandstein's indefinite block has not been discussed or ruled upon, so the entire purpose of this appeal has been completely side-stepped in exchange for a meaningless remedy treating an imaginary problem. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Things go wrong with Brews i.m.o. because of a rather trivial reason: the lack of proper talk page management. When Brews edits an article, he tends to generate rather large volumes of talk page content. Whenever there is a dispute, that volume becomes a huge problem. I'm pretty sure Brews would not have been in trouble at all had he been editing with a "William Connelly" like figure who would archive irrelevant threads, threads that have strayed too far from the topic, and then start a new thread that summarizes the main arguments that are relevant and then come to a quick resolution on these issues. Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. Please don't encourage Brews to act more like William Connelly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Where did I suggest that? In the old days here on Wikipedia, it were people like William who were able to work with editors who were causing far greater problems than Brews is alleged to be causing. Arguably you and I would not be editing here today if it were not for editors like William. Only later when Wikipedia had good quality articles, becoming more popular as a result, did we get the ArbCom here and have started to nitpick about trivialities.
Just take a look here at the start of the global warming article and here you see William appearing. That is then followed by a rapid improvement of the article, even though he is working with editors like Ed Poor and SEWilco. Count Iblis (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This line of discussion probably isn't going to be helpful, and comparisons like those you are drawing would be better done elsewhere. Any discussion here should really be specifically about the sanction passed here and concerns about that, rather than bringing in other topics. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while? 67.117.146.38 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
No we can't Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes you can. Although I was also thinking of Headbomb, who is on the other side but who has so much of this conflict stuck to him by now that he should stay away too. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps oyu can show where that was put in place again? I'm sorry but I see the same sad history here. Brews got railroaded, the people who supported him have been saying this for a while. This time we shut up for the most part and left cool collected statements. Some even purposefully did not enter the debate so as not to give the excuse that we damned brews with our advocacy. The same people who claim that we constantly defend brews are constantly mirrored by the ones that harass him. We try to help extricate him from situations and the mirror is always trying to implicate him and ban him. When does the madness stop? Can't there be a general interaction ban between the other people too? Seriously did the scenery change as far as the people calling for brews head? Will the committee let the same group of people run off a editor and blindly say we are the cause of the problems? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That was put in place on March 29, 2010 per the motion he diff'ed. It then expired July 7 after a second motion (technically, it was retroactively expired the same as Brews' topic ban expiration on June 29th, the decision to do so being enacted afterwards).
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions
It has not been in effect for some months now, but jeez, guys. If you've repeatedly been sanctioned by Arbcom and told not to do something, you shouldn't do it, even if the time period set expired. You were told not to because it was felt to be bad. Do you really want one of us to file a new request to have general sanctions imposed and/or reimpose the advocacy ban on the four of you? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Sure sounds like one. I'd challenge anyone who feels our behavior has crossed the line in this show us proof. Our only offense is disagreeing with the sham that is happening here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The community was sick and tired enough of this long drama that it went to Arbcom repeatedly, Brews has been repeatedly (and now for another year currently, again) topic banned, and you and several others were banned for a while from advocating for Brews in the manner you are doing now.
I normally loathe telling people that they need to stop discussing something, but the community is really sick of this. The arguments were made. A decision was reached.
Calling this a sham is effectively flinging the bird to the entire community administration and Arbcom process that we have here. You all had your fair says. You can re-appeal to Arbcom by new motion or by new case. Complaining in other venues is not effective and has moved from rational advocacy to irritating to disruptive.
We know that you disagree with it, but you've disagreed enough and sufficiently tiresomely that you got yourself specifically banned from doing so for a while. There are only so many times we can say "Stop" before nicely someone pulls out the stick, be it a disruption block, a new motion renewing the advocacy ban, or what.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So that was a threat? Kinda disturbing you can threaten someone with a block for appropriately disagreeing. I'm not violating the civility policies, personal attacks or otherwise being disruptive. Would you care to explain your threat based on diff aside from the fact that we disagree that this was a fair motion, in case you didn't notice this is the place to discuss that. I'm not too sure you're too familiar why we were topic banned, it was because of references to the Nazi party, inquisition or even Les Miserables if memory serves. Maybe you missed that I am suggesting a way to stop it all. Ban the same editors that's crying for brews head from doing so, reinstitute the crap on us and bingo problem solved right? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(Multiple edit conflicts) Long reply to some unacceptably grave insults here. I stayed away from this a few days ago as I usually do in such cases, but I now think it is better to give a reply.
First, I don't remember having been sanctioned for anything here on Wikipedia since I joined in 2004, except for a small misunderstanding about me contacting people who have a userbox about religion (an Admin thought I was spamming by contacting all Wikipedians with my message about atheism). People can politely ask me to not do something and I will consider that if it sounds reasonable. If there is anything that I wrote that is seen to be problematic (not just about Brews but in general) I would be glad to hear about that.
But statements like the IP made: "I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while?" are not ok. at all. So, my answer to this is: "No", simply because the request is not well motivated. I'll swallow the fact that this is formulated in an extremely impolite way.
Georgewilliamherbert should file a whatever requests are necessary. I'll just note that what I was "advocating" for at the time when Brews was repeatedly brought at AE was that the topic ban be replaced by some mentoring agreement. My sentiment uttered above (that Brews would not have been in trouble had he been editing with someone like William), expresses the same idea about the problem. But note that ArbCom did not chose my solution. Instead, they decided to shorten Brews' topic ban and decided to restrict me, Hell in a Bucket and two other editors from commenting on Brews.
So, it seems to me that ArbCom was in full control of the situation, they imposed restictions and lifted restrictions as they saw fit. There was no interference with Brews from my side after I was restricted. So, perhaps it is time to recognize that ArbCom's measures did not work and that perhaps Count Iblis or Hell in a Bucket are not a factor here? Count Iblis (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a few well-placed Orwell analogies could help you guys agitate for Brews more effectively. ALLCAPS grabs attention as well. Skinwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you take that from the trolling handbook or are you just going to throw out vague passive aggressive suggestions Put your money where your mouth is and either show us the policies we are in violation of or stop trying to bait us. Your choice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
O wait, you already dropped Nazi, Spanish Inquisition, and Jean Valjean references above. I apologize, it seems I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I don't want to insult your intelligence. By all means, keep beating the horse; you've amply demonstrated your skill at it. Skinwalker (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please point out in what distorted reality anyone here in this discussion called someone a nazi, corrupt official or otherwise? You're only making yourself look bad by blatantly making shit up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I look bad? Cast the beam from thine eye, brother. Skinwalker (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to, would you care to point out where anyone made those references here? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tone of this discussion has become quite elevated, eh? For me the real issue here is the diversion of my appeal aimed to shorten Sandstein's block to become instead a conversation among arbitrators in their smoke-filled back room of issues of their own choice, unrelated to the appeal; resulting in a ruling with nothing to do with the appeal, and everything to do with hijacking it to create a venue for special pleading. In fact, shortening Sandstein's block was never ruled upon. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping that rather than insist on a ruling in relation to the length of Sandstein's topic ban (not a block), you (and others) would have wanted to comment on what I said here. In other words, instead of the tired old refrain of "we are right and ArbCom are wrong", try and find ways to accept the current situation and move forward. If it helps you move forward from this, I am happy to say on an individual level (as I have before) that Sandstein did over-reach here. But the subsequent events reflect poorly on you, rather than him. The choice is yours: continue to rail against the decision reached here, or move forward. There are numerous ways to contribute to Wikipedia productively, and you have the opportunity to do so, or to ask to be able to do so. But that would be done elsewhere, not on this page. It would also help your case if you yourself asked others to back off and let you speak for yourself. In every case where I've seen a topic ban relaxed, or a ban lifted, it has come from what the editor themselves has said, never from what others have said on their behalf. I would ask that anyone other than you who is considering replying to this to consider that long and hard. If you want to help Brews, let him speak for himself. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI - I have filed a new amendment request to reimpose the advocacy restrictions for those four editors for the same 12-month period Brews' new topic restriction runs for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Carcharoth: Of course I appreciate your remarks here suggesting clarification of muddy remedies. I made the same request multiple times. Later I asked EdJohnston here. Such requests have not been answered, and, it seems, will not be answered.
The suggestion I cannot work with others certainly applies to some others, but to place the problem primarily upon my shoulders doesn't fit the facts. If you want to drag out chapter and verse, I can do that on a diff by diff, frivolous action by frivolous action basis. I'd suggest we open a discussion on your Talk page and lay it all out. If you can maintain that I am the primary cause of these problems after such a review, I'll be very surprised. If I were you, I would not be so credulous as to decide that ArbCom has made a good call just because ArbCom is ArbCom. I think WP is replete with examples where ArbCom has made the wrong call and puttied it over.
Originally, I filed a simple appeal to shorten Sandstein's block. I did not insist upon a particular ruling on this matter: ArbCom could say "sure" or "phooey". I do object to sidestepping the appeal and making it into something else altogether. Instead of dealing with the appeal, ArbCom hijacked the proceedings, did not rule either way, and used the appeal to do something else entirely of their own choice, to fabricate a venue to "tidy up" as they saw it. This arrogation of a simple appeal to suit their personal agenda reflects poorly upon ArbCom, not upon me.
I can't tell other editors what to think. If they find some ArbCom actions deplorable, and wish to say so, that is not my call, and it is their privilege. They are independent agents. It's because they think that way. ArbCom's stifling their opinions that don't sit well with ArbCom is censorship, whatever the spin, whatever the excuses. Brews ohare (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit, based on our judgment. This is because we are the last stage in dispute resolution, and the aim is to get matters sorted for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, not attend to the finer details of due process for individual editors. There is also a need to not let things linger on and on. Good advice to those under arbitration is to accept the results of arbitration and work within the constraints set down. Anything else is unproductive, no matter how 'right' you think you are. And I appreciate the thought, but please don't try and shift discussion to my talk page, as you will likely get blocked for that. This discussion should be the last on the matter for some time. Your only options now are to file a formal appeal for relaxation of the topic ban (the page to do this at is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment), or to do some work in other areas - trying to spin out this discussion elsewhere will likely see you blocked for discussing your sanction in the wrong area. It should be obvious that some quiet work in other areas would go a long way to seeing an appeal (in a few months) actually succeed, and it should also be obvious that an immediate appeal will almost certainly fail. I really can't put it any plainer than that. I also am unlikely to have time to respond further here, as there are other arbitration matters that need attention as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for making clear that ArbCom is bound by no considerations. Anyone that comes to ArbCom is an idiot unless they have assurances of a welcome ahead of time. I was snookered when Stifle & AGK suggested I had to move my appeal. I was an idiot. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Count Iblis misinterpreted my suggestion, though I guess I understand why. I posted a hopefully clarifying comment in the discussion section for GWH's new motion. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Interim desysop

Announcement
I will request that people refrain from speculating on this matter, nor should any other action being done about the account without Committee approval. The factors that went into our decision to take these actions involve personal information and are not suitable for discussion on-wiki. That being said, this is simply a temporary measure until the matter is cleared up. — Coren (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is good. But what are you going to do about the account trying to impersonate Marskell? (I think it beggars belief that the evasiveness displayed by the new account is anything other than impersonation.) → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't already know what's been going on you don't need to know.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about not knowing about what's been going on? Aiken ♫ 23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Even though it would take away Marskell's block-free record, I recommend blocking the User:Marskell account and protecting the talk page while directing Marskell to the ArbCom email address. It is likely the person in control of the account is also in control of the corresponding email account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It may be worthwhile to conduct a closer read of the committee's statement (not in control ≠ compromised) rather than engaging in speculation. Too many chefs spoil the soup, any further actions should be left to the committee. –xenotalk 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
10-4, Roger Wilco. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is unclear why the Committee has concluded that "Marskell ... is no longer in control of his account per the emergency procedures." Presumably this is based on something firmer than the claims of the indefinitely blocked user:Timothymarskell? Skomorokh 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Marskell account should be blocked

There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's understanding and consideration in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes or no answer please: Is the blocked account Timothymarskell (talk · contribs), a sock of User:Marskell, or an impostor? -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. This rug is getting awful lumpy, what with the stuff swept under it. →ROUX ₪ 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit odd to have an emergency desysop when the account seemingly hasn't used any admin powers since October 2008. A block on the account, meanwhile, would stop admin and non-admin actions. Weird. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A few edit conflicts to post a comment. Pre-empted by a wave of the hand. I guess that means it's time to head to Wikipedia Review.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely it will be helpful for the community if ArbCom simply provides a yes-or-no informative statement as to whether the account Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) is a sock or an impostor of Marskell (talk · contribs), or, if that, too, is something that cannot be answered, for reasons unknown to the community? -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(repeating comment that got boxed) There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's understanding and consideration in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It must be one, or the other. The Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) account cannot be both a sock and an impostor of Marskell (talk · contribs), at the same time? -- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You are asking arbcom to provide a straight answer, something it is not accustomed to :) Aiken ♫ 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, can you please stop and think about why Brad is asking you not to keep asking this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(repeating comment that got boxed) There are aspects of this situation that may not be suited for discussion on-wiki. (I say this without criticism of those who have commented, given that the posted announcement created a discussion section; someone should probably have posted here preemptively.) We will appreciate everyone's understanding and consideration in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Date delinking

Announcement

Tothwolf

Announcement

Eastern European mailing list

Announcement

Request for careful consideration by the AC: Neutral perspective should be a new WP term

I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That sort of thing is always a concern. Out of curiosity, which newspaper source did you read? We covered something similar in The Signpost not that long ago. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is something that we are, indeed, aware of. One of the leitmotifs of recent decisions what to remind everyone that the five pillars aren't overruled by apparent consensus; the number of editors arguing for a position does not make that position neutral, for instance. — Coren (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Announcement

typos and corrections

There are missing spaces between words throughout the case writeup; I hope it's OK that I fixed those I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I can only think the missing spaces are an artefact of cut and paste. Odd though. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably so, since they all occurred before wikilinks. I believe I caught most of them, and hope I wasn't out of line to do that (it seemed uncontroversial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One remaining minor typo: Principle 6 (Casting aspersions) records the voting as "Passed X to X" rather than recording the actual vote. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And I meant to search for X, but forgot. On the other hand, seconds after I saved the huge text (I had to do it all at once for the time stamps to be the same), Wikipedia almost died on me. I think there's a couple of other minor fixes to make also, nothing that makes any changes though. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

evidence page deletion requirement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Evidence_sub-pages_in_user_space says evidence pages should be deleted or courtesy blanked, while the write up here says they must be deleted: which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The specific remedy takes precedence over the broad principle. They must be deleted.  Roger Davies talk 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have courtesy blanked past evidence pages on other cases-- is that adequate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The remedy is case specific but I suppose for other cases it probably would be best practice to delete them  Roger Davies talk 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this page (User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say) subject to the requirement that it be deleted within 7 days? Could be argued both ways, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have thought it was. AGK 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going anywhere near it, but someone ought to drop a note to WMC or tag it, or something. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

commentary on case outcome

A four month case to hand out 6 month bans? That doesn't seem proportionate to me. Either the committee dragged its heels on this unnecessarily, or the punishments are beyond lenient for the evident disruption caused. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You must mean protection because Wikipedia does not do punishment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you just say to me the other day that you don't toe the party line? I'm disappointed, BW. (Unless I missed a sarcasm tag somewhere?) → ROUX ₪ 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Potato tomato. Although as you point out, taking four months to decide whether a six month protection period is warranted is similarly way out of proportion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The topic bans are of indefinite length, by the way. NW (Talk) 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you can do good work elsewhere and then come back to it in 6 months on appeal. But yes, for people like WMC who clearly don't get it and never will get it, they are as they say, burned. So it's not all bad.... MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what do you mean by "burned"? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)small text added at 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Being permanently removed from the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Then you are simply wrong. The nice thing about the particular ban conditions is that good faith editors with a broad range of interests can take this as a forced vacation from a stressful area and spend half a year enjoying the nicer sides of Wikipedia and making new friends there – and maybe learn in the a priori harmless areas why some rules such as WP:AGF make sense. This is something that those editors who are indirectly (through large PR agencies) on the payroll of petrol companies are unlikely to do. Or if they do, it will either make them more easily identifiable (if they concentrate on other customers' interest) or motivate them to make up for the disruption they cause by producing valuable content elsewhere.
I see this as a pragmatic approach to the problem that there is an infinite supply of CC denying sockpuppets but only a finite supply of experts willing to contribute to Wikipedia, who are moreover used to academic standards of debate rather than the mud-slinging that comes out of the PR agencies and their front organisations. Hans Adler 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hans, I do not think referencing opponent editors to being on the payroll of petrol companies is appropriate and is not an encouraging remark when the case closed only a matter of hours ago. There is too much of attacking editors for being "right wing" or "connected to the petrol companies". It sets the stage for only "left wing people are welcome here", only people who match our POV are welcome to contribute here. The only things that you need to concern yourself with are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT and other relevant policies and guidelines.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I am just being realistic in a general strategic consideration. This has nothing to do with any individual editor. The methods used by big PR companies are generally well known, and also their former impact on smoking legislation through clouding the public's perception of the connection between smoking and cancer. They manufactured the appearance of scientific uncertainty, which is exactly what they are doing now. They are using astro-turfing and "real grassroots" campaigns. It would be absolutely astonishing if they weren't applying such methods to the freely editable Google hit number 1 on many global warming topics, and I am sure Arbcom is aware of the problem. Hans Adler 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hans, your version of realism may differ from other editors version of realism but wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH, it is not a forum for ideological battles; I repeat again it is about WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. If you can accuse editors without any evidence of being paid by Big Oil, is it okay then for editors to accuse you and other editors of being in the pay of Big Carbon interests? Spreading conspiracy theories about editors is not helpful, all you are doing is arguing that it is okay to continue to battlefield because you are in your view, in the right. Climate change is a complex and very diverse subject matter, some things are known for almost certain, other things are less certain and so forth, so I am not sure what you are referring to as certainty? I don't think you get what the whole ArbCom case was about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think it's quite appropriate to comment on WP:COI issues as a part of the problem of entrenched editors -- note he didnt say the whole problem. And especially as presented in context of the greater point he was making about 'forced vacation.' -PrBeacon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Mick: Did you see how much evidence was actually submitted? (The answer is: a lot.) AGK 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Which is kinda the point.... MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • An appropriate and well-reasoned decision. It may not really have been necessary to take four months to come to what seems, in retrospect, the obvious outcome, but then I'm not the one who had to slog through all that evidence, so what do I know...  Sandstein  19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    The total evidence/discussion ran to about 850,000 words. That's more than the Old Testament and New Testament added together; or twice the length of Lord Of The Rings. :)  Roger Davies talk 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    That is ... impractical. Have you ever considered imposing strict time and size constraints on submissions, like real courts do?  Sandstein  21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, but it doesn't usually work. People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged and you start getting loads of overflow onto private sub-pages. It's extremely difficult to strike a balance. There's also the issue of people having their say on the talk pages and the ructions that are caused if they don't. On balance, these things are usually manageable but this case was exceptional in terms of sheer volume of words and the huge amount of accusation/counter-accusation.  Roger Davies talk 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking about a one-comment-per-day limit. I know you realize there are the dual issues, that it becomes unreadable, and that the amount of personal restraint will inversely correlate with the amount of text posted. But if editors don't comment as much, reasonable or otherwise, it makes it look like they don't care as much. A comment-per-day limit would force people to think ahead. This could at least perhaps been imposed later, when you were trying to get people to shut up. Mackan79 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As Sandstein's colleague in defeat last election, I join in the praise and the caveat.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, brainfart.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger: People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged

You say that like it's a bad thing. Since this is an encyclopedia a minimum level of competence can be assumed. Beyond that other editors may volunteer (as I have done in the past) to clean up evidence and whatnot to a point where it can be absorbed. --TS 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it's bad thing if people care disadvantaged. The problems usually arise in terms of seeing the wood for the trees. Either people don't know policy well enough or they rely on rhetoric instead of factual stuff.  Roger Davies talk 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Still, you have to admit it's a bit bad when people go on and on in evidence when a couple of diffs should be enough. --TS 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that's the thrust of my point (if you see what I mean).  Roger Davies talk 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As is, though, a couple of diffs can be ancedotally found pretty easily and make anyone look bad. The bar for asking for sanctions right now is higher than that, and should be.
What it needs to be in big disruptive cases like this is an open question. But I don't want Arbcom taking two bad edits and imposing a yearlong ban or topic ban or somesuch. I'm reasonably sure I've made more than two really bad edits in my Wikipedia history, though I try hard not to.
I think it may be a valid question to ask how do we get to the point that you have hundreds of obvious diffs available and the community / uninvolved admins haven't intervened yet. I think once it gets to Arbcom, though, the level of evidence should be appropriate to the complexity of the case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't taking "a couple of diffs" too literally :))  Roger Davies talk 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The first arbitration I unofficially clerked for (this was in late 2004/early 2005 when there were no clerks, I was just being a good samaritan trying to help a guy who was being tormented beyond reason) ran to dozens and dozens of diffs all submitted by one guy. All the parties had English as a second languages and there were multiple socks; I think I was the only native English speaker involved. It took us many days to arrive at what would nowadays be a simple SPI. I think the bar for sanctions is a little lower now because the community is more pro-active. --TS 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

topic ban and bloc neutralization

One aspect of the resolution of this case concerns me, but I did not follow all of the (TLDR) case closely enough to know if my impression is correct. It seems that almost everyone was caught up in the topic bans (noting some exceptions like AWickert, who always edits responsibly and courteously). If everyone involved in dealing with "blocs of editors" who "try to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's pillars" is caught up in the bans, this would seem to be a deterrent to attempting to neutralize POV articles which are "owned" by collective blocs of editors defending a POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a large number of folk who could have been included in the topic bans (if we use the metrics that were used to mete out the ones meted out) but who were not. If they change their ways, all will be well other than the sense of justice about who was named and who was not (but WP doesn't do justice, it is a project, not a system of government or a social experiment). If they don't change their ways, it comes down to whether the new enforcement regime is more sucessful at dealing with them than the old one was. And that in turn, in my view, will hinge on how many admins turn up and how even handed they are. Color me cautiously optimistic. Not the best decision, WMC got off exceedingly lucky to be merely topic banned, but not the worst by far. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
My concern is how this affects other similar cases, particularly when no admins will touch them. I requested 1RR at ANI once, and NW was the only editor to even respond; when you look at the CC mess, that's understandable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Nod. One thing that will be very telling is how the first few requests/actions go. If a number of different admins come in, and if ArbCom members back them up, it will go much differently (better) than if they get taken to AN/I or wherever and fed to the mob with no backup from ArbCom members. (even if AN/I can't overturn things in a specific case) ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Precisely my concern: further dispute resolution in other similar cases is stalled because uninvolved admins won't go near 'em, so the disparaging of other editors, disruption, and collective blocs of editors overruling Wiki pillars continues, yet because of the way new editors take the fall every time, an arb case wouldn't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the "thanks" that have been meted out for the involved administrators in this case, I'm simply not seeing any upside for me or any other heretofore uninvolved administrator to step in and fill the gap left. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Most uninvolved admins (LHVU, The Wordsmith, BozMo, and several others) got thanked and nothing more, except to be urged to stay out going forward as it is time for a new approach. One uninvolved admin was rightly chastised (via a finding) for letting the baiting and harassment get to him to the point of becoming battleground-ish at times himself. (that would be me) The other two admins named (StS and Polargeo) were not uninvolved. So I would urge you and every other admin considering participating to please do so. The more the better. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a very reasonable decision to me. As for the concern expressed, if you have evidence of POV, ownership, and "blocs", ArbCom has made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. If, on the other hand, you make the accusations, but lack the evidence, ArbCom has also made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. I hope that ArbCom quickly moves ahead and applies this across the board.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just because there were a lot of topic bans and a couple of "please do take a holiday from acting as an uninvolved admin on this topic until further notice" remedies, it's easy to overlook the fact that the content on this scientific topic is of stellar quality and most of those involved in maintaining it aren't touched by the arbitration. The editing atmosphere on the topic is likely to be improved a lot going forward. --TS 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and the talkpage

Per the first bulletin point, are these pages to be dealt with by the ArbCom clerks - to be archived and marked historicial? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway appears to have done something with the page itself, although not the talk. It wasn't an archiving per se, and he's not a clerk, but that hasn't stopped him before. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Tony blanked the page. When a clerk has the opportunity, it would probably be a good idea to restore the page, archive anything there, then mark the pages and all of their archives as "historical", possibly with a link to the Arbcom decision. Given that this is a clerical function in the true sense of the word, I expect that even clerks recused in this case would be able to carry this out. Risker (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a clerk (and the page isn't part of arbitration so that's moot). I just made a soft redirect to WP:AE, as a start on closing the probation. --TS 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? Why not leave it to an actual clerk to do a good job of it with proper archiving? I'm confused in general about why you like to clerk things. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, how to handle a case like this

If this is more appropriately brought up in a different forum, please advise. I've had ideas on how a case of this nature might be handled in the future to avoid some of the difficulties this one has seen. I'm sure few if any of these ideas are original but maybe it's worth discussing them here.

  1. Use an inquiry-based model of arbitration. This should pervade the whole process. Right now the arbitrators often ask questions during the request phase. I'd like to see arbitrators pose questions (both collectively and individually directed) during the post-acceptance phases: to ask for evidence regarding specific claims, to get clarification on assertions made, to see if past behavior accurately reflects an editor's current attitude, to determine the bounds of the dispute, and to direct the conversation toward resolving the dispute rather than perpetuating it. (In this case, among other questions, I would have thought it useful to inquire further of William M. Connolley regarding his position on expert editors, to find out Lar's intent behind his "level the playing field" quote to see whether it reflected bias, and to ask each of the disputants about how far and in what ways they were willing to compromise.)
  2. Start with a statement of scope. After voting to accept the case but before starting the evidence phase, arbitrators should draft a preliminary statement of scope. Contribution to the arbitration process should be restricted to issues that fall within that scope. The scope should be altered only with good reason thereafter. Clerks should actively enforce the scope or have an "offtopic" page to where out of scope comments can be moved.
  3. Use milestones and iterations. Why yes, I am a software engineer. How did you guess? Rather than a single evidence->workshop->proposed decision->outrage-and-despair process, why not an iterative approach? Set a milestone a couple weeks out for an "alpha" decision, with the understanding that there will most likely still be holes left to fill in evidence and arguments, but with goals laid out regarding which parts of the dispute need evidence, resolution, etc. After the milestone ends, clerks and/or arbitrators should summarize what issues are still outstanding, what evidence is still needed, which topics have been excluded or included scope-wise, etc. Then begin the next iteration, again with a definite milestone. Continue iterating until the committee decides further iterations would bring nothing new to light. The decision should hopefully be apparent at this point, and the final vote can take place. I realize this could wreak havoc on the templates for tracking the arbitration process, but it may be worth the price.

Too radical a change from the current process? I'd appreciate some feedback—from arbitrators, clerks, participants, or even nosy bystanders like myself. alanyst /talk/ 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

3 was kinda in effect during this case already. The Arbitrators who decided this posted a framework, and waited for the response. When things didn't look like they'd be solved by the decision they worked further, and continued to refine and change the decision as the situation continued to devolve.
Since we're doing a bit of a post-mortem here, I think the clerks and arbs did a good job in the latter half of the case when things spiraled out of control time and time and time again (despite the vociferous complains as section after section was hatted or archived), i think that we need to make that more standard in curbing the back and forth sniping, and voluminous postings that these Arb cases cause. Perhaps saying "Post your evidence and workshop remedies to the appropriate pages, but don't use the talk page unless the arbs or clerks have questions" would be beneficial.. and be harsher on those who engage in constant conflict during an arb case. I know several people were removed from the talk pages due to constant conflict, we need to determine if this was an outlier due to the heat of the debate, or something we should look towards doing more of, going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think if the talk pages are going to be curtailed like that, there needs to be much more interaction initiated by the arbitrators—hence my point 1 above. Basically, the participants need near real-time feedback on their lines of evidence and argument so they don't feel they need to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Plus, if a participant has to thoughtfully answer questions posed by a neutral arbitrator, it might provoke more self-reflection and voluntary concessions than aggressive challenges from opponents might. And there's a chance that warring parties will realize, through the inquiry process, that some of their assumptions about their opponents' motives or reasoning were faulty, making reconciliation a bit more possible. alanyst /talk/ 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nod. Carcharoth asked me some thoughtful questions during this case, which I in turn gave thoughtful answers to... but I didn't see where my answers had any impact on much. (They may well have HAD an impact, but it wasn't visible). The feedback processes needed to be much stronger... another example of that problem is the questions that everyone posted at the beginning of the case, which appeared to disappear without a trace, near as anyone could tell. Again, these may have influenced how the case unfolded but there was no acknowledgment of that, no way to tell one way or the other. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Alanyst on point 2 - There is often significant disagreement about the proper scope, and until evidence is in it's hard to rule scope issues in or out. Also, related problems may become apparent that were outside the initially cast case (behavior on other similar pages or topics, other editors that weren't initially considered parties, etc).
Learning lessons from big ugly case and changing things that are necessary or useful on many other cases are two different things, in looking at learned lessons. Not all issues with this case will come back again often enough to justify structural change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Good points. I think scope changes could be addressed at the end of each iteration, but during the iteration the discussion should be focused on the goals and scope defined for it. And you're right—this approach may not be suitable for "typical" arbitration cases (if such exist) but might work for omnibus-style cases that may appear in the future. alanyst /talk/ 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with point #1, and made the same point following another recent RFAR. If arbitrators were more pro-active in asking questions then it would help them and the participants alike. It'd help keep the evidence focused on what matters and save participants from wasting time collecting unhelpful evidence that the arbitrators need to plow through.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
To combine #1 and #2, when a case is accepted the ArbCom could, informally, say something like:
  • It looks the charges in this case concern personal attacks, advocacy, and citations. Could participants please provide 5 or 10 examples of personal attacks? The advocacy charge is unclear; could participants please explain it better and give examples? The citation issue is probably not important for this case since it concerns content, so unless there is a behavioral aspect please don't dwell on that. Also, it isn't in anyone's posting but the ArbCom has learned that there is an issue with socking by user:X .
After a reasonable interval the ArbCom could respond with a second informal reply:
  • We have enough evidence about the personal attacks. Is there any more evidence about the advocacy issue? Sock puppetry by X and Y turns out to be a significant issue too, please add any relevant evidence.
That sort of thing. While it seems like extra steps that'd take time, effort, and discussion, if the result is arbitration cases that are more streamlined and focused then everyone benefits.   Will Beback  talk  12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with #2; I participated in an arb case that was brought by an admin, and the most significant outcome of that case was that the admin was desysopped. It was turned into an omnibus case, that took (I believe) about four months. Only as the case unfolded did the arbs have the opportunity to see the real offenses, although the admin's conduct was not part of the original scope of the case, and there were no significant findings against the editors against whom the case was originally filed. In terms of length, it took a very long evidence page to show the issues, and although my evidence was long, a former arb wrote to tell me years later that it was the most effective evidence in the case. On the other hand, I participated in a different case where several arbs intimidated and threatened the participants attempting to submit evidence, which led to less than optimal outcomes in the case, which ended up taking much too long to resolve, with an unsatisfactory outcome, and unnecessary delays in the offending editor being finally banned. When dealing with blocs of editors who are POVing entire suites of articles, it takes more than the "normal" amount of diffs and evidence to show the pattern, and by the time these cases get to ArbCom, they are complex-- the arbs get the big bucks to sort through it, and overly restricting evidence size in such cases might not be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We've all seen cases where the final decision didn't focus on the issues in the initial complaints. That's especially the case when someone goes crazy during the arbitration process. The scope of a case needs to be flexible, but that doesn't mean it can't be "sketched" out. I agree that complicated cases may take more text and diffs, which is why feedback from the committee is important to keep it focused.   Will Beback  talk  13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for editing my post above after you responded, Will Beback-- I'm having eye problems. I submit that sketching out the scope of the case beforehand might cause the very problems seen in the second case I indicated: the heavy hand of two arbs in that case led to more serious problems in the ultimate resolution of that case, and those delays affected many productive editors. In the first case, one arb did specifically request certain types of feedback, and attempting to comply with his specific request led to my very long evidence page, which he later said was the most helpful. So, I'd not like to see anything that might lead to the kinds of heavy-handed arb or clerk intervention that resulted in the delays in the second case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the arbitration committee did a pretty good job, and they followed more or less the same process they always have, by analysis of submitted evidence and deliberation. I don't think there's any reason to propose a different way of proceeding that would be unfamiliar to them. --TS 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But I still don't have a satisfactory answer to my query several sections above: when a situation become complex enough, admins won't touch it, productive editors and admins are tangled in the drama and disparaged, poisoning of the well occurs, dispute resolution forums are rendered ineffective, and a messy arb case is likely to result. I'm unconvinced that the outcome in this case will encourage admins to engage in complex disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Give them a chance. WP:AE is pretty good at handling this kind of situation. --TS 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
AE is only for cases that have already appeared at ArbCom; ANI is not effective for helping to avoid lengthy arbcases, and what productive editor wants to take four months to present a complex case? My immediate concern is whether the outcome in this case will encourage admins to get involved in helping prevent such lengthy cases. Specifically, when I requested 1RR be implemented to help resolve a messy case, only one admin (NW) even bothered to weigh in, while the childish squabbles over non-issues persist at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading you correctly, I think the best answer you'll get is that ArbCom did pass a principle on casting aspersions without providing evidence to back it up. Unfortunately if the community lets editors make unsupported attacks on admins ad nauseum, and the admins then come to offer choice words in response, I think it becomes quite difficult for ArbCom to put all responsibility on one side, regardless. In my view the real answer is for the community to step it up in addressing groundless or tactical criticism when it happens. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Probation notices to be removed

There is a list of articles formerly under probation on the following page:

At or near the top of the talk page of each there is an instance of {{Community article probation}} which needs to be removed. I have done the As and Bs. If you'd like to help, please pick a letter and remove the templates from talk pages of articles starting with that letter. --TS 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For technical reasons the list above contains links to both the articles and their talk pages, so it's twice as long as you'd expect. Only the talk pages need to be processed. --TS 12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is more up to date. Sounds like an AWB task...although, shouldn't we replace it with a discretionary sanctions notice anyway? T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That one also has non-CC articles in them, oops. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all of these articles still at least in theory subject to probation, just under a new regime? OR is the thinking that all should be removed, to be followed by adding almost all of them back again sooner or later? Why not just carry out a review instead of removing, then adding? Or am I missing something entirely, and probation, as a concept, is completely gone? ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They are no longer subject to "community article probation" but "arbitration discretionary sanctions". Removal may not be a good idea, maybe replacing with a version of {{sanctions}}? T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, replacement is probably what is needed. --TS 13:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm now replacing the old probation notice with the following:

{{sanctions|See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions|the description of the sanctions]].}}

--TS 11:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've more or less finished doing this, although there are still tons of potential articles to tag. The ones I have done are those that have seen problems in the past or seem to be likely trouble spots. --TS 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Ed Poor prove that ArbCom got it wrong?

Let's sit back and watch the show :) . Count Iblis (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ed is editing according to Wikipedia policies, for the most part, although he's still (begin understatement) a bit (end understatement) abrasive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a history to all this, but (this is directed at Count Iblis) this noticeboard is not the place to raise this. If you (Count Iblis) have concerns, go to Ed Poor's talk page first, rather than trying to make a spectacle of it here. The smilie is not appropriate, either, nor is the depiction of this as a show to sit back and watch. Taking that attitude does nothing to improve things, and reinforces the impression that you are just commenting from the sidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course, one has to be pro-active in case of problems. What we may see now are "new" editors apearing that actually aren't new but people who stopped editing the CC pages in 2007 when they failed to gained consensus for more prominence to dissenting opinions in the main global warming article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's administrative permissions

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

Are the edits or actions Polargeo made with alternate accounts contrary to Wikipedia policy visible to ordinary editors? I skimmed the edits of the accounts Hersfold blocked as his socks and didn't really see anything (a few edits that didn't seem related to his other fields), so I'm wondering where the charge of multiple-accounts abuse is coming from. I ask this as much because he appears to be indefinitely blocked for what he did as because of this decision on admin privileges. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The main purpose of the motion is to tie up a loose end about the administative tools, which weren't explicitly resigned forever and which could therefore conceivably be transferred to another account later. Without going into too much detail, there are more accounts involved than just those which Hersfold blocked. The applicable bit of policy is The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to ... disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block.  Roger Davies talk 04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
So the disruption was using other accounts than the ones I'm seeing? I'm guessing the information on exactly what he did and with what accounts is sensitive and can't be revealed publicly? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I echo Heimstern's call for transparency here. If there are other accounts where abuse occurred, they should be made public. Gigs (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Where is the evidence of abuse? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If I understand Roger Davies correctly, it may not be in Polargeo's interest to go into further detail. Have you tried asking Polargeo directly by email? Hans Adler 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've talked to PG by email. He is entirely happy to go into detail, and has no interest in arbcomm's cloak of secrecy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is moot. Polargeo has resigned the tools. If he wishes to stay without then, then examining whether or not there's been abuse, and putting his actions under the microscope is unneccesaary (unless he wants to raise it). If he wants the tools back, then the community will want to take a look at the socking and make up their minds whether or not it is consistent with being an admin. Arbcom are not saying he can't have the tools back - they are just saying "if he wants them back, the community will want to discuss". Unless he chooses to initiate that discussion, there's not need to demand or investigate anything.--Scott Mac 16:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How is he supposed to initiate any conversation, since all his accounts are blocked indefinitely for this supposed sock abuse? If this were just a technicality to force him to do another RfA then that would be a different matter. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If ArbCom didn't block his many accounts, and decide that he must have another RFA, then another group of users would be saying that there was a cover up of an admin socking if Polargeo reclaimed the bit later when he returns to editing. So, for Polargeo to have the confidence of the community when he uses his tools, another RFA is needed. From reading the comments on site, it is obvious that correspondence between Arbs and him has happened over the last few weeks. Like all blocked users, he can discuss the situation with ArbCom by mail, or leave a message on his talk page. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Heim-where does it does it's okay for anyone, much less an admin (now former admin), can create multiple undisclosed accounts? Besides, Flo is is right, if we didn't do this we'd get accused of covering up admin socking. Another case of arbs are doomed no matter what. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you have some copy and paste problems in your comment - or at least one of us is more drunk than is good for them. As for "doomed either way", if it's no difference, doom yourself with more openness and transparency. Go out in glorious infamy, not sneaking through the back door. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
s/does it does/does it say/ Hans Adler 17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
R: The sock policy is to prohibit, not to allow, so I'm afraid I think your question is written backward; that is to say, the proper question is not "where does it say it's OK..." but "where does it say it's not OK..." And I'm afraid I can't find anywhere where it says it's not OK to create multiple accounts, but rather only that it's not OK to use them abusively: to deceive, to disrupt etc. And that's all I'm asking: Where is the disruption? (I'm mainly concerned with his block here rather than his admin permissions.) Now, some people below appear to have answered that question, but still, I just wish that answer had been made clear from the beginning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Try the lead where it says "one user, one account", with a very few exceptions likes a public computer one, etc. Polargeo's weren't covered by the exceptions. It doesn't say "you can have as many as you want unless..." I'm afraid you've got it backward ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it says "generally expected". That's not a prohibition. Sorry. Even if it is (and it is not), enforcing policy via blocks where there's no disruption is distinctly against our blocking policy (cannot be preventative if there's no disruption to prevent). Now, this is moot since we finally got an answer about where the disruption was. Still. Committee needs to be open about this stuff from the beginning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it also says such accounts should be disclosed, to arbcom in private when necessary and he didn't do any of that either. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Should" is "advisable". Not "mandatory". For an admin, definitely needs to be done, and not doing so is grounds for desysopping, but is under no circumstances grounds for an indef. In this case, there seems to be a lot more to it, so I'm not complaining about this indef, though.
I would also appreciate if you would stop treating me like a n00b. Your interpretation of policy is not the last word, and if you Arbs are going to use your status to lord your interpretations over others, let's MFD the whole committee now. I'm frankly disgusted that you'd be this condescending to me when all I did was ask for a little transparency. If this is what people get for asking for transparency I want nothing more to do with Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm going to be away for a while due to real life and so I can recover my good will toward the site. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You're treating me and acting the same way so what's the diff? We disagree on interpretation of a policy, that's all. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Another triumph for an arbs diplomatic skills [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Loss of tools is one thing. Being indef blocked for "abuse" with no clear evidence of same is distinctly dodgy. PG says his talk page access is blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access is not blocked at User talk:Polargeo. –xenotalk 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If I may, on several ocassions Polargeo has mentioned he no longer has access to that account. (Password scrambled I believe.)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Is his (new) prime account Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs) then? Perhaps talk page access should be allowed there? –xenotalk 17:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
(That I don't know, but I'd imagine someone with email contact can answer.)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I can. PG2 is his current account William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) He wasn't indeffed by ArbCom - it was an independent checkuser action - though the block looks perfectly good to me.  Roger Davies talk 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it looks good to you - what diffs do you see as justifying an indef block? Hersfold isn't answering William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As one example, look at User:EnglishAristocraticFool, an account I indefed after it admitted to block evasion. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I looked over a sample of the edits, and found no sign of abuse. Where did you think he admitted to block evasion? As far as I can tell, his main account was never blocked, but is inaccessible. Some admins then started blocking alternate accounts because he should use the main one. This could have been very much avoided and de-escalated with a bit more carefulness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point, why is it appropriate to change accounts on a daily basis, resurrect old accounts to evade blocks and range blocks, and parachute into talk pages using the new accounts to restart discussions? As for the indef blocks, these are preventative and pretty much standard practice when multiple accounts are involved.  Roger Davies talk 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
@JEH: your block summary there says "‎(Block evasion: User admits block evasion)". That doesn't seem applicable here - there was no block to evade (as I've just e/c'd with Stephan on).
@RD: Two answers: 1, is someone is changing accounts, the tradiational answer is to restrict them to one. In this case, PG2 is the obvious one, so should be unblocked. 2, I don't think PG is changing on a daily basis - many/most of the blocks are for accounts that are old. OK, I suppose I'd better check: Scottie Mccall - no edits; Wivaronth - no edits; Seenock - no edits; Nallith - no edits; Althea Faulkner - no edits. I got bored at that point. So which of these (admittedly many) accounts do you say that PG has been using "on a daily basis"?
@RD: and a question: as you say, the block is "preventative". What is it intended to prevent? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There was - and is - a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo. As far as I could tell, he had been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so, things become clearer. PG2's access to his talk page isn't blocked [struck that, disinfo from me, sorry: H had indeed blocked t:PG2 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)], *but* the IP range that PG2 uses is blocked (see? I told you that you could read these logs better than me). Now it appears that you blocked PG2 because you were under the impression that PG2 was limited to one account (is that correct?). But I don't understand that - the account PG2 was created *after* all those accounts (no?). So if PG2 was indeed restricted, he couldn't have known that when creating those accounts. None of which (no?) have been even used since the PG2 account was created. Moreover, you say "As far as I could tell, he had been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator", but is that restriction indeed true? Moreover, you say "Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block", but I don't know what you mean by "that block". You mean the range block? That says "2010-10-06T17:39:36 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked 194.66.0.0/24 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})" (so now we know that Coren is the shy admin you wouldn't talk about). How could anyone have anticipated that? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Prior to Beeblebrox's modification, the ticky box that allows talk page access was unchecked - though it wasn't mentioned in the log entry, for some reason. A bug, perhaps. –xenotalk 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As it has been clearly established that ArbCom was not involved in the actual blocking I don't see why this is still being discussed here. If PG wants to request unblock he can use Polargeo2's talk page, I've just modified the block to allow that, or he can email ArbCom directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
See above, PG2 is range-blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If the range block (as I understand it) predates all the socks (the socks having been created to avoid the rangeblock, correct?)...why was there even a range block targeted at Polargeo in the first place? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The range block was put up 2010-10-06, as I've already said. 2010-09-29T12:34:42 Althea Faulkner (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ ; 2010-09-29T12:40:49 Nallith (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ ; 2010-09-29T12:41:49 Seenock (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ . Well, you get the pattern. PG2 was created on 14th Oct: '2010-10-14T05:37:32 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) created new account User:Polargeo 2 ‎ (talk | contribs) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Mmk, my bad. I was going off the part of Hersfold's comment above that says "a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo". Thanks for clarifying. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't understand what H meant by his comment either William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic. Perhaps the matter of the checkuser block should be moved to a more appropriate noticeboard. --TS 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(od & ec) I'm must be missing something here. We have a user who retired very publicly while a topic ban was in the process of being voted on; who has probably operated between 15 and 20 accounts, none of which seems to have been mentioned at either of his RfAs; and has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban. Are we seriously suggesting that this is acceptable? That it's not disruptive? That's it's not evading scrutiny? That it's not helped create a false impression of support? etc etc  Roger Davies talk 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So why is Polargeo 2 still blocked? You already have assurances from Polargeo that he will limit himself to that account and that account only if he wishes to return to editing. NW (Talk) 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll hazard a guess that the assurances haven't been terribly convincing. It's not okay to operate multiple accounts the way Polargeo was doing. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Polargeo can be unblocked so that he can use his Polargeo2 userpage to request an unblock, if he so desires. Until or unless that happens, we're just going to be speculating. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

@RD: I don't understand has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban. I've just looked through Althea Faulkner / Nallith / Seenock / Wivaronth ‎ / Scottie Mccall / Telziath / Jbtscott ‎/ PolargeoShutdown ‎ / Jack Vine ‎/ LilyNiviaq ‎/ Yugosithlord ‎/ Polargeo 2. None of those have any edits that match your description. Which accounts were you referring to? Where is the "false impression of support". Do you have any diffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo doesn't need a lawyer. WMC, let him speak on his own behalf if he wishes to. Your very persistent involvement here is not helping him at all. He can post an appeal to his talk page, and the matter will be considered. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we can just sort of wind this up as long as we're certain that P can state his case on-wiki. I mean, that's a lot of alternate accounts, for heaven's sake. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
@JEH: actually, PG certainly did need someone to speak for him, because H erroneously blocked his talk page access (or possibly there was a bug; see Xeno's comment on H's page). If you don't want to discuss this [3] you don't have to William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A quick note: The original blocks were done by me for continued disruption on the proposed decision talk page (with three named account and from an IP). It is well established that participating in process is not an acceptable use of alternate accounts — let alone to snipe at participants in an arbitration case. Routine enforcement of basic rules. Polargeo was then offered to edit from any exactly one account of his choosing. He picked one, slapped a retirement tag on it, then proceeded (as noticed by another unrelated checkuser) to create and revive a number of other socks. The IP range, incidentally, is only soft blocked and does not prevent him from editing any talk page.

    As far as I'm concerned, Polargeo can still pick any one of his accounts to to be unblocked. — Coren (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're in communication with him, and he knows that, then I don't see what more there is to discuss here. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
He does, and User:Polargeo 2 does not have talk page access blocked. — Coren (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On a policy point, " It is well established that participating in process is not an acceptable use of alternate accounts" should read "...not an acceptable use of undisclosed alternate accounts." I use the Tasty monster account, which I do my utmost to disclose without being too in-your-face about it, on lots of process pages, and often intertwine comments from my two accounts during the course of the same discussion on the understanding that my signature is enough to indicate my identity. That is okay I hope. It it isn't please take comments to my user talk page to avoid cluttering this discussion. --TS 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your specific case on your talk page, but even disclosed accounts may not be okay unless it's immediately clear to someone reading the discussion (possibly years later) that they are the same editor. Referring to the other account in the third person, for instance, is always a no-no. — Coren (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Which of course still doesn't answer the question why the old alternate accounts weren't disclosed at either RfA.  Roger Davies talk 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason that Polargeo may not have one (and only one) account unblocked to resume proper editing. I would expect him to use only one account from now on (I don't think he has any problem with that), and of course the sanction voted in the Climate change case would still apply. He has also agreed that he may not seek to regain adminship without first going through a new RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there now is a comment up at User talk:Polargeo 2, in which PG maintains that many of the supposed sock accounts are mis-associated with him. He also requests unblock for the PG2 account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Noting that Polargeo 2 is now inblocked and that there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts, including but not limited to: User:Olap the Ogre, User:EnglishAristocraticFool, User:Yugosithlord, User:LilyNiviaq, User:Polargeo, User:Polargeo 2 and User:PolargeoSock.  Roger Davies talk 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts - that is a rather incomplete description of the situation. There is dispute about a number of accounts which figured in the block, viz: Telziath, Scottie Mccall, Wivaronth, Seenock, Nallith, Althea Faulkner. PG denies having anything to do with these accounts, and they have figured largely in the block reasons. Perhaps the magic pixie dust was carelessly scattered William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 ArbCom is not magic pixie dust. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Running commentary...

This went off topic too fast to remain open.

If people are not yet aware of it, there is at least one "sceptic" blog keeping a running commentary on the CC ArbCom case and its repercussions. See [4]. Make sure to skim the comments, e.g. "Those of us who are working to correct the bad science behind the CO2 global warming scare, must give a high priority to making Wikki a fair and balanced source. I urge my highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros to organize a committee to take on the project of editing the pertinent Wikki articles. You will be reaching far more people than by publishing papers and writing articles in journals. By correcting the information in Wikki you can make a huge impact on the outcome of the issue." I don't know how many highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros "the Wikki" will get, but I do hope that people here are prepared to deal with a wave of meatpuppets. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See also [5] and [6]. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You'd think someone watching wiki would learn how to spell it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably too busy doing their PhD-stuff... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If Jimbo were to create Wikkipedia.org, as a mirror of Wikipedia that anyone can edit but whose content is periodically reset to that of Wikipedia, that would also solve the problem :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This (potential) problem is another good reason to implement my idea to put all new editors on 1RR for a while. New editors need to demonstrate that they can edit without causing trouble by sticking to 1RR for their first 1000 edits, before the 1RR restriction will be lifted. In case of a violation of 1RR or a block for edit warring without an 1 RR violation, the edit count will be reset to zero. Count Iblis (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea SPhilbrickT 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blogs like this can be safely ignored, I think, in terms of a threat to Wikipedia. We're perennially warned on-site about the dangers of meat puppets turning up in droves, but in the year I've curated the talk page talk:global warming I've seldom seen anything more than an earnest wish to provoke thought. Occasionally somebody comes out with something that has to be removed on BLP grounds, and to be honest most of the stuff is simply so dull that it gets archived quickly to avoid clutter. I don't know whether some or all of it comes from blogs like the one run by Anthony Watts, but even if it is we've got no problem dealing with it.

And if this blog is encouraging people with relevant doctorates to come and help us out, then I say thank you very much. --TS 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought I dig British humour... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of Remedy 1.2, as do we all. That means they can do just about anything legitimate under Wikipedia policy, and we will observe our Please do not bite the newcomers guideline. This is our chance to demonstrate why Wikipedia has an enviable reputation as a collaborative community. I can't imagine why anyone coming from Mr. Watts' blog to Wikipedia would ever want to go back. --TS 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You may suffer from a failure of imagination. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this would really be the right place for me to give an evaluation of the quality of a popular blog. Suffice to say that page impression rates on Wikipedia are very healthy indeed and its science coverage enjoys a reputation unmatched by any blog. If more domain experts are being directed here from science blogs, all the better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me? Because it doesn't make a lot of sense in reply to my comment. Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That was *my* point, but you didn't like it then William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The ends do not justify the means. Especially when it's actually possible to produce quality output without being a prat, and therefore the means used are unnecessary. Which is the point of the sanctions on you. Which I gather you don't like much. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you boys take it outside? Or better yet, self-topic ban yourselves from each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Not helpful. I was responding to Tony, who I think missed the point. WMC inserted himself to snark. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Then ignore him. MastCell Talk 05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you cautioned WMC about his behavior, or asked him to stop it, since the case started? Your advice is easy to give, but entirely inadequate. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone has been collecting his diffs for an enforcement request on WMC, because he's pretty clearly disregarding the intent of the arbs. Yet, you remonstrate me. Your bias is showing. Shoot some other messenger. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Lar is calling me a prat, above. Is that now considered acceptable language here? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading your opinion on this subject, Lar, but I find it impenetrable. First you say that I may be suffering from a failure of imagination, then you say that "Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output." This in reply to my statement that we should welcome domain experts who are encouraged to come from science blogs to Wikipedia to work under the climate change discretionary sanctions which set a high minimum standard for collaborative work. Needless to say I expect knowledgeable editors to produce relatively high quality material, some of which may even be usable under our content policies. Is that where you think my imagination fails me? Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try again then. Above, ("Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of Remedy 1.2,") you were speaking of the editing environment, and I responded to that. But I now think that perhaps in the comment I was directly responding to you were speaking of the readership, and saying that they would prefer the quality articles here to the partisan screeds they would find at partisan blogs (of either side). I agree. Most readers who have not already formed an opinion and who honestly want information would be better served to turn here than to partisan blogs. I think we can both agree on that. However, that's not my point. My point is that the ends do not justify the means. And the editing environment in this topic area has been marred by partisanship and outright factional behavior, including multiple parties (on both sides of the partisan divide) acting badly to the point that they got mentioned in the findings. So an EDITOR would not necessarily prefer editing here. Certainly not in the status quo ante. Whether things improve remains to be seen but I'm hopeful that with some factionalists removed on both sides (more on the weaker side to be sure, but still) things WILL improve. Aside: For the record, I don't think you were poking at me much in this particular instance. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Tony, please don't poke Larry or assume bad faith.
WMC - Please don't poke Larry. As an involved party, you're skating along the edge of behavior for which discretionary sanctions were authorized in the case. Please stop before someone issues you a formal warning.
Lar - Please stop. Calling someone a prat here is certainly not the behavior we expect of admins or senior editors, is inappropriate on an arbcom noticeboard, and is contrary to the directions of the decision.
Interaction bans were specifically authorized. If you all are going to keep beating on each other here or elsewhere in the wake of the case, there is absolutely no reason for them not to be applied to the lot of you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
GWH: You have misinterpreted my words too. I will be more careful in future to be more explicit in my referents. Try not to jump at shadows so, though. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Has this discussion become so toxic that my good faith statements and queries can be so badly misinterpreted? I withdraw and apologise without reserve while denying any intention whatever of poking or assuming bad faith. --TS 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is an awful lot of mind reading going on in this thread. There have been several contributions that left me completely puzzled as to their intent, or even to what they were responding, and then there were comments by others that apparently assumed mutually contradictory interpretations without making it clear.
If I may be completely honest here: Part of the problem seems to be that we are all under an enormous pressure to be constructive. For some editors this may mean being constructive, occasionally arguing for the enemy just to be nice, and assuming good faith about all other editors, whatever happens. For other editors this may mean that we are all playing a big game now in which the aim is to say the meanest things behind an impenetrable façade of good will – or at least plausible deniability for the less gifted. If two (or worse, more than two) editors go into a discussion with these fundamentally different and incompatible approaches and are not aware of the fact, there is an automatic escalation.
I don't think that we can ensure that all editors here use the first approach, although Arbcom is clearly trying. But perhaps we can at least avoid the escalation, once everybody is aware of the problem and of the danger of losing one's cover through unnecessary malicious interpretations. Hans Adler 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What does topic banned mean?

Does it extend to user talk pages? Can a user present information he or she would like to see added to an article and then talk to proxies about how best to carry out the edits, for example?... to give a concrete example, is this an example of proxying to get round a ban or is it perfectly normal and acceptable? It could be argued either way, which is why I ask. Some clarity from the Arbs now would be helpful as it would help avoid issues later, after things get more set in. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the topic bans is described in the decision. The ban explicitly applies to articles, article talk pages, and Wikipedia processes; it does not include user talk pages. While I cannot read the minds of the Arbitrators, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they deliberately left an opportunity for subject matter experts to contribute positively without getting back onto the battlefield. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, that's why I always use "articles, discussions, and other content" when imposing topic bans. Broader and less opportunity for gaming. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a policy description of topic bans, WP:TBAN.  Sandstein  13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would assume that the fact that Arbitrators chose to specifically enumerate the areas of applicability of the topic ban in their decision, rather than include WP:TBAN by reference or simply state 'topic ban, broadly interpreted' implies a deliberate decision on their part to clearly craft the scope of the ban (and indeed, to supersede any other interpration of the scope). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the question would be the meaning of this: (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Does this mean only proccesses like AFD and the like, or does it include the broader editing process such as the discussion of sources on user talk pages.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
'Processes' generally means (loosely speaking) 'stuff that happens on process pages', distinct from pages primarily concerned with editing. That's AfD/MfD/XfD, RfC, WP:AE, WP:AN and associated subpages (except, presumably, to respond to complaints filed against them), and no doubt a whole bunch of lesser-used alphabet soup. Reading in the extremely broad definition of all 'editing processes' would be a blanket inclusion of virtually every page on Wikipedia; it would render the first two parts of the statement of scope (which define specific classes of article and article talk pages included in the ban) superfluous. It wouldn't make sense for the remedy to be phrased as it is if the ArbCom intended such an unsually broad interpretation of (3). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, relevant templates and categories and their talk pages do not seem to fall under the ban, but they would fall under WP:TBAN. I'm sure an edit war and discussion in regard whether one climate change category is a subset of another is still possible, without a technical violation of the ban under 10's interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, sounds like a fine plan for those who want to find themselves banished in perpetuity to the dark side of the Moon under discretionary sanctions :)  Roger Davies talk 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Per SPOV - there is, actually, no "dark side of the moon." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
with respect to the :), should we expect clarification on the serious questions?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much clearer the decision could have been. I expect editors exporting the conflict to other areas, trying to game topic-bans (by ignoring the spirit), and generally continuing battlefield conduct, will find themselves facing discretionary sanctions very quickly. This dispute isn't moved into exciting green pastures areas; it's winding down.  Roger Davies talk 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Which would sound to me that the talk page discussions themselves aren't forbiden, but once one of these discussions generates conflict then the hammer is going to fall. Close to the mark?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages. It is for other editors to make actual edits to articles, r participate in AFDs, or other processes. They can, of course, be influenced by what e.g. William has said on his talk page. But then, you can also read a scientific paper written by William, talk to him via email, or meet with him in real life. The point is that any editor who is allowed to edit the CC pages, is responsible for his/her own edits. Acting as a meatpuppet, as Lar suggests could happen, is never allowed, regardless of any topic bans. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is acceptable, It looks like there will be a need to clarify where the line is. If the previous section is fine, would participating here [7] also be fine? Arbcom should clarify now, or be prepared to see the official requests for clarifications start rolling in before a week passes.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections. Other editors were free to make the edits or to not make the edits as they saw fit. I'm not offering to meatpuppet, but I appreciate Cube lurker for bringing up my talkpage offer. Since a number of content experts were topic-banned, I feel like we should provide a space for them to offer their suggestions on wiki as long as it doesn't spill over into article space. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a "CC noticeboard" can be created for this. This would make the involvement of topic banned editors transparant. At the same time, one should ask all editors to communicate with the topic banned editors only via that noticeboard on issues related to editing CC articles. The noticeboard has to be moderated by an Admin to make sure that the only discussions that take place there discuss some climate science issue, that it is relevant to editing some Wiki article, and that having input from one of the topic banned editors is reasonable. There should be zero tolerance for fighting any disputes there.
E.g. in a recent discussion on the global warming talk page, Stephan told that Boris would probably know a few sources on CO2 lifetime. If Boris isn't around here, and if William is known to also know about this, then one could ask William to post the sources on the CC noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems a shame that Lar can't let this go. No better proof of "involved" is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this discussion, if Lar is not otherwise involved, would be exactly what an uninvolved administrator should do — seek clarification of the ArbCom decision. However, as he cannot act on it, because Arbcom found (by a combination of points) that he cannot apply sanctions under the new system, the question does seem questionable, but still needs to be asked, as he's not the only one who thinks it unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Lar's question was reasonable. Somewhere between WMC not being allowed to answer an IP's question on his talk page whether he can recommend a good university for studying climate science, and a programming language for describing edits on WMC's talk page that are then automatically performed by a BAG-approved bot, there is a reasonable interpretation of Arbcom's words. Based on the discussion so far (especially Arbcom's choice of non-standard rules and the ScienceApologist precedent) I think I can guess the course of the intended lines. Plural because I am under the impression that there may well be two lines – crossing one will get you in trouble, and reporting someone who didn't cross the other will also get you in trouble. Hans Adler 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the point that some of you have missed despite it being the central purpose of this whole decision is that we (and by we I mean everybody not directly involved in this toxic dispute) want this to end. Don't go looking for ways to do and end-run around the decision, the community is absolutely fed up with this nonsense. If an edit could be interpreted as even approaching a violation of the topic ban, don't make that edit. Try to act in the spirit of the decision as opposed to looking for loopholes in the language of it and just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Move on to another topic area or expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    It looks to me as if you've misread the discussion. We all know what the Remedy 3 topic ban says, and the discussion above has established that there are well understood existing norms.
    In the case of William M. Connolley we've got an on-site expert whose very moderate and mainstream opinion of a subject in which he has published primary research is very welcome. We'd be mad to interpret the topic ban in such a way as to forbid all communication from Dr. Connolley, if only because it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be strongly against an application of the topic ban too far beyond what is written. --TS 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that the problem with WMC is behaviour toward others, having a situation where he can give technical comments to those brave or interested enough to approach the beast but where no one else need to seems an elegant solution. He can give references and explain things all he likes. Perhaps it was intended. I hope that is where we have got to. As for the proxying bit if we starting seeing "tell him he is stupid" type comments resulting in people being called stupid we will need to think again. Trying to ban this would drive it off wiki and into email which would be a strange thing to do. --BozMo talk 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, user talk pages (where invited, or on the sanctioned person's own talk page) should be fine; where not invited, it probably shouldn't result in any more sanctions than an unnamed person. I would hope that editing in Template, Category or Portal or their respective talk spaces about climate change articles, should result in a block. That clarification by ArbCom would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments. One characteristic of the more abysmal aspects of this case has been strident crowds turning up uninvited on people's talk pages with torches and pitchforks. This is stressful, intimidating, and wholly unnecessary. I anticipate admins will issue topic bans to deal with this under discretionary sanctions if the problem rears its ugly head again and I, for one, will happily endorse them.  Roger Davies talk
I can't imagine what clarification you expect beyond this, which as far as I am concerned wasn't even necessary. I would actually prefer it if Arbcom did not "clarify" every, or indeed any, little detail of the form "What will happen if I break the spirit of my topic ban by doing X, which is not covered explicitly the way it's formulated?" The purpose of the topic bans is to take the steam out of the topic. If a topic banned editor is allowed to do X, then a topic banned editor from the "opposite" camp will also do X. If that can easily be predicted to lead to stressful interactions between the two it's clear that X is covered by the ban, regardless of any wikilawyering one could do on the subject. (Of course this requires a pragmatic choice of X that takes context into account, see below.) By not micro-managing the extent of the restrictions Arbcom can force the topic banned editors to think about the consequences of their actions. (Something like this also applies to other editors, and I personally feel on thin ice when editing in the area. Since one person's robust response to disruption is another person's disruption, this is not a nice feeling. But I believe it's necessary.) We will see what happens when the first "uninvolved" admin blocks an editor for doing something that did not break the spirit of the rules but is superficially similar to something that does. (E.g.: Topic banned editor A taunts topic banned editor B on B's talk page and gets blocked. A week later B leaves an apology regarding some earlier disagreement on topic banned editor C's talk page and gets blocked for the same length of time.) IMO everything hinges on Arbcom's firm response in such a situation. They seem to have thought about it, so let's see how well it works in practice. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger raises a valid point, as talk page interactions were a constant irritant throughout the case. That is, someone issuing "warnings" and scolding messages to other editors, thereby sparking conflict. There's nothing wrong with people using their talk pages to list useful or new sources, and any effort to curtail that just simply offends the sensibilities as far as I'm concerned. It's just wrong, and trying to keep people from doing that is going to cause far more trouble than it will avert. However, editors who are topic banned simply can't or shouldn't go to other people's pages to carry out warfare there. I doubt that any of them will do so, but it's always a possibility down the line. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps every editor involved in CC should put the notice: {{sanctions|See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions|the description of the sanctions]].}} on his/her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Topic banned editors already have notice of the decision, and then some. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
As I suggested above, the best thing for anyone mentioned in the topic ban to do is to stay away from all CC related articles and topics. Period. Then you don't have to worry if you are violating the ban or if someone on "the other side" is watching to see what you can get away with so they can try it as well. Why would you be discussing something on your talk page if you can't even edit in that area to begin with? There has to be at least one other thing each of you has interest in, go edit in that subject area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see the harm in editors who understand the intricacies of CC science exchanging views on scholarly articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
William may also have information on some CC topic that no other Wikipedian has, but which is needed in an article. An obvious example where that is likely to happen is in case of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to make an exception for that article, yes, but not any other articles. And do note that even the subjects of BLP articles are not automatically entitled to post to the talk page of said articles. There are many cases of BLP subjects (some dealt with in private to avoid embarassing said BLP subjects) who disrupt the articles and talk pages of the articles about themselves, and their socks and IPs are blocked and they end up de facto banned (usually no-one realises it is the subject of the article causing the disruption). What often happens then (and this is the crucial bit), is that they often reach out by e-mail to someone, and are directed to OTRS (or other off-wiki venues) to make their point in a way where their concerns can be dealt with without them disrupting things for everyone else. In other words, the conduct of a BLP subject on the talk page of their article, is still subject to the normal restrictions and the need to avoid disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place. There is a sense above of editors thinking that certain pages or issues are so difficult or complex that it requires certain editors to deal with them. This is anti-thetical to the entire concept of how Wikipedia works. No single editor is indispensible, and no single editor should be necessary for Wikipedia to work, or for a page to attain a reasonable standard. Trust in other editors (who have similar levels of expertise) and the system to cope with any problems that arise. And no editor should be so tied to a topic that they are unable to walk away from it when asked to do so. In other words, those who have been topic-banned are being asked to leave the topic area alone in its entirety. Do other stuff for six months to demonstrate both that you are capable of acting collegially elsewhere and that you are capable of staying away from this topic area (or indeed any topic area) when asked to do so. Make notes off-wiki if you must, and then make your case at the right time for the topic ban to be lifted, but don't spend the next six months poking on-wiki at the edges of the area that has just been arbitrated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-arbitrator, I am with Carcharoth on this. Banned means banned, which means if one is topic banned, that person should not be involved in the topic. In any form. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. As Carcharoth alludes to, if a person is topic banned it is because they have become a net negative in terms of work in a topic area. That is, the topic is better without them, and worse with them. The ban is in place to make Wikipedia better, and as such, it should not be tested around the edges. To put it bluntly: Why would we allow someone to make a topic worse, but only a little bit. If its reached the stage of topic banning, then the person just needs to stay away. --Jayron32 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm the opposite of Jayron, but agreed. A Topic Ban means you stay away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When you said "I'm the opposite of Jayron", I pictured you as a really hot, skinny, black woman with a pleasant voice and an active social life. But, I guess that's not what you meant. --Jayron32 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it says something about this case that this point seems clear to those of us who are not on either "side" of this dispute and just want it to end. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels the ban should broadly interpreted and that even looking for loopholes in the language is a sign that the message has not quite been received. I know it's not easy, but I recommend to every named party that you clean out your watchlist of anything related to climate change and really, truly just ignore the topic for the time being. (and I doubt there are many hot, skinny women with pleasant voices who spend their Saturday night editing Wikipedia) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but us pudgy white men with high-pitched, loud voices would like there to be --Jayron32 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @Carcharoth (and other arbcom members): Hypothetically, if WMC and/or other topic banned editors congregate off-wiki and post citations and articles, does it become meatpuppery or proxying for banned users to make use of those sources in Wiki articles? I'm asking because I imagine that would be the next step if talk page posts on scientific articles are banned. This is not a remote possibility, and I can see it happening with more than one editor and more than one POV. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
IS there a bit of "move on to another topic" that's difficult to comprehend. We've asked the topic-banned users to avoid this topic entirely. We don't speculate as to what might or might not constitute a breach of this, on wiki, off-wiki or theoretically. Hypothetically, if they all go and work on Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle, or Toast (and that's not a reference to the planet in 50 years time) then they'll have got the message. All users who are committed to wikipedia should be assisting these particular users in doing something constructive and unrelated, they shouldn't be corresponding with them on this topic, not wikilawyering around it on their, or engaging in the hypothetical of "what happens if".... You want to help them and wikipedia? The message is clear MOVE ON.--Scott Mac 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Scott immediately above. Several users were banned. That means they need to leave the topic area while the sanction is in place. That does not mean that they can try to wikilawyer around it and push the boundaries as far as they can. If they do so, they are liable to have harsher sanctions placed upon them. I, for one, would be willing to use any means at my disposal (including discretionary sanctions) to keep order in the topic area, even if it requires me to take further action against already-sanctioned editors. The best thing for these editors to do is to edit a non-controversial area for a while, and then come back in six months with a well-reasoned appeal that shows that they are capable of collaborating productively. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the boundary pushing appears to be becoming quite blatant. On 17th October Stevehhll made an edit to Global climate model shown in this diff [8]. I make no comment on the correctness of this edit, but it stood unchallenged until today when William M. Connolley drew attention to it [9], and then 37 minutes later the edit was undone [10]. This seems to be a clear example of the concerns discussed above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones, this clearly follows the precedent described above by SA in that a bare statement linking "breakage" an article has been placed on a users talk page, then shortly afterwards another editor has chosen to revert the change, giving their own reasons and with no indication that their change has been influenced by the user talk page comment. There has been no dispute, and one assumes that the editor reverting has done so to improve article content, which presumably is the aim here. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that Awickert's edit was in any way improper. Jonathan A Jones (talk)
Right, so I figured that edit might cause some trouble. I've left a brief synopsis of my thoughts at my talk. As far as sanctions are concerned, I have (and want) no involvement in the process, and will abide by the final decisions. To the content, which I don't address at my talk: I think that it is a very minor quibble (all calculations derived from never-perfectly-precise data are estimates), but "calculation" is still the better term: they are estimates with some teeth behind them. Now I think "calculation" is better (i.e., an improvement), and it is therefore good that WMC drew my eye to it. However, it can also be seen as me proxying for WMC: being that we have very roughly similar intellectual backgrounds, I almost always agree with him on scientific issues. Insofar as you all trust me, I can say that I saw WMC's notice which caught my attention, but the revert was my independent decision (though it no doubt agreed with what he would have done). Awickert (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I"m afraid Arbcom ought to issue a clarification on this. "Should have known" and "we intended" isn't clear enough. If you're going to tell people not to do something, you have to tell them clearly what it is they shouldn't do. It's like a "no parking" zone. They should have known they can't park here isn't good enough, there has to be a law or a sign. Otherwise you end up with confusion and more debate, when the goal is to get people to stop debating and get back to working on things. It doesn't have to be a big deal. If Arbcom, amongst themselves, says that article talk pages are included or that the enumeration of pages is an elaboration on TBAN rather than instead of TBAN, they can just say so without further ado, notify the parties, and move on. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is primarily an issue of William having to move on to other articles. Not moving on could theoretically become a problem, and in previous cases there have been many examples of topic banned editors trying to find loopholes in the topic ban. But right now, this isn't the issue. Rather, as I just explained on William's talk page, the issue is maintaining the many CC pages that don't seem to be rigorously patrolled by the other CC regulars.

William wouldn't need to give the diffs of subtle POV pushing in the first place, if the articles on his watchlist were checked by others on a daily basis. We could actually help William to move on to other articles by e.g. listing all the CC articles at the relevant WikiProject, which seems to have gone inactive and which doesn't have a complete list of the articles. Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except (at least for me), that's just not going to happen. I have neither the time nor the will to patrol WP climate change for this kind of thing. Hope someone else does. CI's suggestion is good in this respect. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody who is a named party in the topic ban should even have this stuff on their watchlist anymore, and should politely tell anyone wishing to discuss these topics with them that they will have to do so elsewhere. Count Iblis, you seem bent on establishing some sort of new forum or process for dealing with CC articles. ArbCom already came up with one in the form of broad discretionary sanctions. You continued campaign on WMC's behalf is only going to get him exactly the wrong kind of attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    The discretionary sanctions by themselves won't be enough. TS wrote on my talk page where the relevant articles are listed. They must be actively patrolled. Only then can one report issues to AE. Also, not all problems are necessarily issues that should be dealt with at AE. There is also no campaign on WMC's behalf, at least not on this particular issue here right now. It is only that this issue has been framed in a polarized way (by postulating that William is trying to get around the topic ban), that this section has ended up discussing the issue as if getting around the topic ban is the relevant problem right now. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a topic ban means no edits to anything anywhere they are topic banned from, but does not include the banned editors own usertalk...in one case where a 9/11 conspiracy theorist was topic banned, he tried to create a page in his userspace to edit a pasted version from a 9/11 article and that was disallowed. But as far as discussing issues and edits about the topic they are banned from at their own usertalk, this was fine in the past unless they were soliciting for meatpuppetry openly.--MONGO 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid your understanding is incorrect. A number of arbs opining abouve have made it clear that a "topic ban" means depart from the topic altogether and entirely. It does not mean "continue to work on the topic in a different way, on a different page, or just a little bit". It is really that simple.--Scott Mac 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw the comments by a couple arbcom members...thanks.--MONGO 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

Original announcement
Unfortunate outcome, but one that Steve drove towards relentlessly, despite a lot of people trying to tell him to put the brakes on or turn aside. Correct but unfortunate outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree; he no doubt contributed in good faith but was unfortunately unable to improve his problematic behaviors. Ucucha 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley allegations - urgent

Resolved
 – page deleted--Scott Mac 21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley has made serious allegations of being libelled (see here) which seems to relate to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley and in particular stuff like this. The matter was brought up an ANI here. But the result has been more concerned with the legal threat, and his recent cussing someone out. As far as I can see, what's happened is the cussing was selectively deleted, his ban made indefinate, and his talk page locked, before the serious allegations have been resolved.

I can't pretend to understand the complexities of SPI pages, and I don't want to open up another thread, but I'd like an assurance that some clued people (arbs checkusers etc) are on this one, because the community's response seems to me to be totally fucked. If a named person is alleging being subject to slanderous inuendo, dealing with that is the first priority. I am about to break all the rules and unlock his talk page (tell me if that's bad).

A reassuring "we're on this" response will be good enough for me.--Scott Mac 21:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The functionaries team are reviewing everything, and we'll probably be revdelling, or at the very least, blanking the page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Would it not be possible to delete it pending review?--Scott Mac 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: SF, may I suggest that you rescue the evidence posted somewhere where it is not implicating any innocent user? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have deleted it, the signal-to-noise ratio on non-admin input is rapidly approaching 1/∞ and admins and functionaries can always check the deleted revisions if they need to see something. Apologies for not dealing with it sooner. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Timotheus. Hopefully this is the end of it. The behavior of several parties during this SPI was NOT up to the standards that Wikipedia expects, and speaking personally, I don't want to see it again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Resignation

Resignations from the ArbCom are usually announced and discussed here. It's my understanding that user:Rlevse has resigned from the ArbCom. Is that official?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rlevse has been removed (by his request) from the various mailing lists, arbitrator tools, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed per SirFozzie. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Then it's appropriate to thank him for his long service on the committee and to the project.   Will Beback  talk  09:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is Arbitration Committee's position on this affair?  Dr. Loosmark  15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On a scale of one to ten, how likely do you reckon you are to get any sort of clear response to that question? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
For most issues, I would say -½. However, given that this situation is much less cryptic and personal to them, as well as a positive moment (thanking him for his service, not the fact he's leaving)...I'd say about 4.2±√3. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag, I have no idea how likely is I get any sort of clear response but I do hope that they will address the issue.  Dr. Loosmark  16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee, as a committee, has not adopted a "position on this affair." This individual arbitrator is sad about virtually every aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Told you, Loosmark :P ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't even think that the issue is even relevant to the committee as a committee. So √-1. — Coren (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
When I brought it up elsewhere, Rlevse indicated that an expression of our thanks for his service wasn't necessary (although as you can see from the statements above, that we do thank him for serving, and will miss having him around) SirFozzie (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Not relevant to the committee? Really, Coren? From what I have gathered from various talk pages about this incident, Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, am I correct? Now, you might think this "isn't even relevant for the committee", I on the other hand think this is very relevant for the committee. Rlevse is as far as I know an arbitrator, checkuser and bureaucrat so I think the community deserves to know what happened and what's ArbCom position on that. So far, the ArbCom seems to be playing the "let's pretend nothing really happened" game.  Dr. Loosmark  16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

His user rights no longer show anything beyond "editor" which appears to confirm the resignation. Now, there is a question about whether or not he should reclaim such rights if/when he returns. I would argue that he should not be so-allowed, and if you start a discussion about that somewhere, I'll chime in. If he does return, some sort of mentoring will probably be needed for a while to see if the plagiarizing problem has been sorted.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse has resigned all of his positions and retired from the project, so ultimately nothing would be gained from proverbially sticking a knife in his back by means of a "We think that for Rlevse to do X, Y, or Z was wrong" NB: I am unfamiliar with the intimate details of this whole affair and so hold no position on it in that respect. Precisely why you are, Loosmark, so determinedly pursuing such a denouncement of Rlevse does, I admit, baffle me. AGK 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Issues were raised about an aspect of Rlevse's mainspace editing; in the ensuing back-and-forth, he elected to retire as an editor and from all positions he held. None of this involved the Arbitration Committee or Rlevse's role therein; it occurred on-wiki within the editing community, on project pages and user talk pages. If you feel you deserve to know what happened, I would suggest you start reading here.
Perhaps the retirement ought to have been announced as a formality, but it is neither reasonable or desirable to expect arbitrators to stand in judgement over every incident that comes to pass on the project. I'd rather they concentrated on what we elected them for. Skomorokh 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
...and further reading here [11] including this comment by Jimbo Wales (bold is Jimbo's) As a note: Rlevse's work was attributed. While this isn't the place to discuss this, this situation is not clear cut. So I'd suggest reading the pages where its being discussed.(olive (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
"When someone claims that text, fully attributed to a source that anyone can look up, is plagiarized, that's just wrong, and it obscures the very real moral problem of people trying to pass off other people's work as their own. Even in cases where the attribution is done poorly, as long as there is attribution, there is no plagiarism - just bad style or bad writing. It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)"
I personally wouldn't consider Wales competent to understand what's going on here or evaluate plagairism. He's an internet entrepreneur. What was going on was the unattributed cutting and pasting of others work. If you're quoting something you do "this."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The text was attributed.(olive (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
It seems to me that neither Rlevse nor Jimbo are aware that what happened was indeed a case plagiarism. Quite shocking.  Dr. Loosmark  17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? "Wales" is an admin and has been an editor here for longer than most if not all.(olive (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
If Wales said the simple use of citation at the end of a long cut and pasted sentence, that is neither directly attributed nor in quotes, as was the case with a couple of the rlevse offerings that I and others looked at, made it kosher, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll leave it there.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo didn't comment on this case specifically, and my comment and link was for those who don't know what the situation is, giving them a place to look should they want to think more deeply about it. No need to turn this into personal attacks of anyone. Thanks(olive (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
Jimmy is quite clearly wrong here. There is a difference between sourcing and attribution. Sourcing implies "this information came from" and attribution states "this text was written by". Sourcing says "the research is not my own" and ought to be the default position of any Wikipedia article - attribution says "the text was not written by me" and (unless the text comes from another GFDL source) ought to be rare on wikipedia and made explicit by quotation marking. There ought seldom to be any confusion between the two.--Scott Mac 17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, I inadvertently started this. I apologize and suggest the discussion be taken elsewhere.(olive (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
Except it was not plagiarism but potential copyright infringement. MLauba (Talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What the hell happened!? Has the account user:Rlevse been deleted?  Dr. Loosmark  10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, user accounts cannot be deleted. However, user pages and user talk pages can be deleted, most often simply by user request, and sometimes by admin, arbcom, or other administrative decision. This case appears to have been a simple case of user request. The deleted revisions are visible to those with appropriate system rights.  Frank  |  talk  11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
But not able to be seen by nasty common ordinary editors who just might want to know what the hell an Arb has been up to. When he rematerialises having attempted to escape some people are going to have an awful lot of egg on their faces - or will his identitiy be known only to the Arbcom? Giacomo  11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"Nasty common ordinary editors", to use your words (which I realize are sarcastic), are what make this project work in the first place, and to think that ARBCOM and other functionaries are unaware of this is to ignore the reality of how things are run around here. But that doesn't mean that every last detail of the technical aspects of running it are (or should be) available to everyone - "nasty common ordinary" or "sweet special extraordinary". A user - yes, a former functionary - was found to have edited in ways that are inconsistent with how the project works and is now gone. Since the project is the primary reason we're all here, that should be the end of it, IMO. When (and if) more needs to be done, the discussion can (and certainly will) continue, but there is no need to borrow trouble in the meantime. A user who ignores policies does so at their own peril, regardless of what position(s) they may have held in the past.  Frank  |  talk  14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If the user in question is truly gone, that's one thing. But if a "vanished" user comes back under another guise, that can spell trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

In the absence of anything other, I am holding an enquiry into the last few days at the appropriatly named User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. All are welcome to comment.  Giacomo  15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Every time Giano pulls one of his drama-fuelled stunt, a little piece of Wikipedia dies. And Giano's currency is devalued further. It's very sad to see such a decline. Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Original announcement

  • This motion is unecessarily broad. I would like to ask for a narrowing of restrictions to simply the relations between the Mongols and the Crusaders. I do a lot of work on the Middle-Ages, the Renaissance and Asian subjects (literally 100s of articles [12]), and often the simple appearance of the word "Crusade" or "Mongol" in an article blocks me from contributing to it (like... History of Japan, History of China etc...). I feel it would be legitimate to adjust the restrictions to precisely "articles related to interraction between the Crusaders and the Mongols", which is really the crux of the matter we've been discussing. Thank you Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12&oldid=1190136745"