Wasn't sure where to include this but are we free to use a specific real-world name, if the need arises? I note that Jimbo did in the statement he emailed within the past 24 hours Whit stable 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use real world names. You can state you know it and are sending it to the arb com mail list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) if you feel you have a legit reason to do so. I'm sure Jimbo had an extra valid reason to do what he did. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really better to email specific details to the arbcom mail list. Onwiki it'd be good to say you have evidence on such and such and am emailing to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it best to lay out and review evidence before proceeding to workshop. That includes allowing a reasonable interval for others to present evidence and you to review it. I know that this practice is rarely followed, but I still think it a good idea. GRBerry 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
CharlotteWebb asked a question about the risks of undisclosed COI. A good example of that would be last year's Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case. Checkuser had concluded that some accounts were sockpuppets, and the editors in question argued against that, and also argued that they didn't have any conflict of interest because they were unpaid volunteers for a certain religious organization. In fact they were using official Church of Scientology computers to edit Wikipedia, and sometimes forgot to log in and revealed their underlying IP addresses, and were editing the topic of - you guessed it - Scientology. I was trying to explain to them how they were running a public relations risk, but all they seemed to hear was that I was a jerk who was telling them no. That arbitration case dragged out for three months and before it was over the WikiScanner came out. And headlines and bad press actually happened. Durova Charge! 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend of people saying they support or endorse or oppose each proposal - I'd like to point out that there are only 14 people whose vote counts, and they have their own page in which to do so. — Random832 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The content of the comments is more important than any particular verbal formula that may be used. If I am reviewing a proposed finding of fact, one "oppose" citing a diff proving that the finding is incorrect will outweigh ten unreasoned "supports." On the other hand, if I am working on the wording of a principle, the fact that a number of well-informed users support a given formulation can be very helpful information. So, editors who have taken the time to study up on a case should please provide their input in whatever format strikes them as reasonable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like a check on whether I am overreacting, but it seems to me that JzG's recent statement should at the least be refactored along with either a stern warning or a request that he stop posting in this arbitration. I understand emotions, but this follows on his adding evidence which consisted of a number of similar attacks as well as a link to a clearly unreliable source for evidence that Bagley is a "vile agenda-driven troll." That issue was then discussed in detail on the evidence talk page, [2] before JzG removed it with the statement that "User:Cla68 makes the case against Bagley far more powerfully than I could. It's very subtle use of irony, and tyook me a while to spot." Following this, he has now added a statement that WordBomb should not be allowed to comment in this arbitration because he committed "blackmail." To be clear, I don't see why WordBomb needs to present evidence in this arbitration and am not aware that he has asked, but these statements from JzG are making a mockery of Wikipedia's principles. I regret suggesting this, but it seems there is a very significant disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To JzG/GUY/ : re Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. :wrong, it is not a matter of asking, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing, except that you continue to make unsupported allegation and attacks.
and re This is a simple statement of fact! :Wrong, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing.
and re If you want to make a mockery out of Wikipedia's principles :Please dont, just stop it. Do you understand even the simplest concept of evidence, and fairness? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To everyone: The ban of wordbomb is not at issue, yet. One thing at a time, please. The issues around wordbomb deserve their own arbcomm hearing separate from this one. Let's finish with mantanmoreland and what ever administrative slaps on the wrist others should get, then look at wordbomb's ban and if it should be lifted. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Evidence sent directly to Arbcom is evidence, too, and can be done to protect the privacy of people involved. One does not have to out ones email address here on Wikipedia in order to show evidence of receiving harrassing emails - they can be sent to admins, or in the case of an arbcom case in confidence to Arbcom.
The assertion that evidence must all be posted is just wrong. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Any evidence regarding "blackmail" or other allegations of grave misbehavior, quotations from e-mails whose publication has not been authorized by the sender, and the like, may be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee and will be considered as appropriate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This gives reason to serious concerns imo. An arbitrator who cannot even maintain the basic decorum while having a strong opinion should most definitely recuse themselves out of respect for the process and the community. User: Dorftrottel 06:58, February 20, 200 8
Re:GWH's statements this has nothing to do with this case: I think that taking an over simplified view of this case is a way of making sure this never gets settled. This is a very complex case. I note that there are a lot of eyes watching and waiting for a stumble and therefore a headline for their next article. Statements here are being watched by people with a real life stake in this. Off color statements that would normally be acceptable are going to raise eyebrows, much like the fact that arbitrators (which outsiders will equate with the " judges") participated in a support group [3] for parties to this case. This is going to be very confusing for some people. I say we should minimize the confusion of outsiders by taking an active role in minimizing the appearance of bias, but obviously those who "call the shots" disagree. We'll see how that turns out. daveh4h 18:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
DIFF JzG's recent statement and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=193190239&oldid=192989263 MM is a "damned liar". + + Please refactor that in a way that doesn't breach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can make the point without being rude or insulting. etc http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Newbyguesses/Sandbox&diff=193747019&oldid=193709461 DIFF
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=prev&oldid=193667023 DIFF]
Revision as of 11:27, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 10:41, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 00:26, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 11:51, 22 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
====BLP policy being rewritten as we speak ====DIFF
Much thanks for your expertise, Benjiboi. I was surprised not to find such a policy as part of this project but it is good to know it is part of the Manual of Style. And thanks also for the clean-up of the article in question. TechBear ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
02:53, 12 February 2008 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (→Reliable sources: questionable sources should not be used at all for living persons, not just handled with caution) (undo)
05:59, 13 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (No, we don't use questionable sources for BLP) (undo)
etc...... Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Self-published material may be used in BLPs if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.
A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.
Entered into evidence, in the expectation that any portion of our policies that are relevant to this RfAr are likely to be extensively re=written duting the case, thus effectively changing the ground rules, which, I am sure the arbs are able to deal with. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we please delete the many unused templates on the workshop page? They are interfering with locating the substantive material. Mangoe ( talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. So here's a candid overview. I had nothing to do with the earlier Naked short selling arbitration case or with the Gary Weiss/Overstock.com disputes until quite late in the situation.
Some rumors about a particular editor supposedly being a spy reached Slashdot and got a lot of traffic there. And although I don't know that editor personally (and had encountered some difficulties working with her), that particular scenario looked like the most ridiculous thing that had ever come out of certain quarters. So I posted to Slashdot in her defense. Not too long afterward a cyberstalking mailing list got established because the harassment against certain volunteers really had reached absurd levels. It was in this context that I first encountered Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. As a latecomer to the issue, it did not occur to me to question whether these were separate people until Jimbo Wales did. Assume good faith is the default condition, and when his concerns were settled enough to accept good faith of these accounts as a working hypothesis my concerns were settled also. This description paints in somewhat broad strokes; I don't follow Jimbo's opinion blindly. Yes, some side discussions did occur around that time and I considered doing a sock investigation on the two accounts' edit histories. A lot of things compete for my time, though, and the surrounding factors just didn't rise to the level where serious research appeared likely to be worthwhile.
When I saw the checkuser report that one account always used TOR nodes, that changed my mind. I had implemented a userblock in part based upon the good faith assumption that both accounts were unrelated and had no conflict of interest, so that obligated me to raise questions once serious doubt came to my attention about whether that was accurate. Some people subscribe to the notion that an inner cabal runs Wikipedia. Well in my experience that just isn't so; it's not our function to take sides in other people's business disputes. Different people saw the same things I saw from another perspective, or weighed it differently, and I respect that. One significant factor in my decision to accept the sockpuppet accusations as at least credible was that I didn't rule out the connection on the basis of prose styles. That's a choice I made based in part on my own graduate school training in writing and most other people have a different education.
To the best of my knowledge, both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have steadfastly denied all speculations of conflict of interest and meat/sockpuppetry. So far as I am aware, nobody who helped or defended these accounts elected to ignore positive confirmation of anything. We've each evaluated this situations to the best of our separate abilities and reached our own individual decisions. Durova Charge! 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Durova. When I first found this mess/noticed it in I believe late November I thought it was just a basic BLP matter. I'd found it either off of BLPN or ANI, I can't recall which. Up until this week I'd basically been on the "Mantan and Sami side" after some longer discussions with Sami. I think I had one prior discussion with Mantan--all encounters with both/him/whomever were very positive. It wasn't until I really looked at the mountain of compiled statistical evidence that everyone kept redoing and refocusing, and the finale (for me) of Ananlyst's 3000 edit comparison that led me to post my section. I want to believe otherwise, but, quack. The fact that Mantan's defense seems to be functionally, "Byrne is out to get me, Bagley is out to get me, Overstock is out to get me," and the fact that Mantan specifically went after Patrick Byrne himself on-Wiki, like he was Weiss, was the trifecta for my belief. 1) Volumes of statistical data that no one has refuted to my satisfaction yet combined with a history of abusive puppetry I was previously unaware of; 2) A defense by Mantanmoreland that is functionally a Scooby-Doo defense: "I'd have gotten away with it if not for you meddling Overstockers,"; 3) the ever-growing confluence of circumstantial or obvious evidence to point to Mantanmoreland = Weiss. On #3, before anyone reminds me that some of it was or wasn't gathered "ethically", I agree and understand. However, once a cat or open secret is out of the bag, we can't put blinders on about it. I really want Mantan/Sami to post a good defense on why he should be able to stay as one account only, because I think his/Weiss's fantastic knowledge of financial topics is invaluable to us. So long as he's kept off any and all articles to do with himself, DTCC, naked shorting, or Byrne's ventures, due to his history of using sockpuppetry to conceal COI, and advance his agendas. Lawrence § t/ e 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Replyb to u:Durova re some comments
The clerks can't be online every minute of the day; nobody can. agree nbg
It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg
the actions taken here are likely to set the tone for how future cases of that type get handled. complete bollocks says nbg
Please bear the big picture in mind. note
If you want this type of issue to get addressed effectively and consistently, then don't tank the effort over small stuff. note
Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. (user:Durova, above)
AND RE: It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg ,
The primary purpose of the evidence, workshop, and talkpages for arbitration cases is to enable editors to present information that will assist the Arbitration Committee in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of the case.
Over the past couple of days, the percentage of comments falling into this category, on all sides, has been diminishing. Posts, from any point of view, which are primarily intended to score debating points are not helpful, particularly when they are reiterating the point for an nth time. My sense is that most of the relevant evidence has been submitted and points have been made. A reasonable degree of restraint on the part of all contributors is urged. (Please do, however, comment on my new proposed principles.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment, that the /Evidence page was protected; lucky me, I was off-line, I think.
My brain hurts. Yes, i am happy to do a re-write, please let me know if there are any further concerns.
Rather than strike or [redact] or <--! comment out --> i am inclined on this occasion to simply delete the comments. OK?
Is Wikipedia a real encyclopedia? Of course it is, but, as is the way of the world, it is a flawed one. The evidence presented to this Rfa supports that conclusion. however, the benefits of providing a free, on-line encyclopedia are enormous, and well worth the effort. Conceivably, in time, the veracity of information provided at the most prestigious and trustworthy sites (and WPwill be one of these trustworthy sites) will approach that of book learning and scholarly journals.
It is a simple equation really.
Integrity and Publicity are simply incompatible.
Where money is, there hypocrisy will surely be found.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
When a DIFF is added either to /Evidence, /Workshop or talk/Ev. and talk/Works., it is evidence, then, considered as entered and forming a part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, which the arbitrators are then entitled to consider in their deliberations, resulting in findings, etc. DIFFs are indeed the most trustworthy evidence, I think. (That is, if the DIFF is pertinent to the issues under consideration.)
Now, (Q1) is the EDIT SUMMARY of that DIFF considered as entered into Evidence?
If the contents of that diff, as is quite usual, consists of, among other things, more DIFF(s),
(Q2) are those DIFFs, and their edit summaries (if pertinent to the issue, etc.) also considered then as enterered into Evidence?
And, finally, {for now), if the ORIGINAL, or subsequent pertinent diff(s), contain a LINK(s) (internal, or external) to a page, whose contents is either generally or specifically pertinent to the issue(s) at hand
(Q3), is the contents of THAT PAGE also, in some way, to come into consideration as Evidence?
Thankyou, Arbitrators, clerk, and respected editors, may i commend one and all for the level of civility and co-operation which has been exhibited to date at AfAr/Mantan ? Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a fairly liberal view as to what constitute a reliable source. In the case of on-line (External) links, sources for BLP articles can include self-published material by the subject of the Article, and then other BLOGS, and postings to obscure sites, get included as "reliable sources". Folks, as SBHarris has pointed out, when the person on whom an article has been created is only semi-notable, ie Weiss, Byrne, and etc. then there will be a lot of chat about them, maybe, on BLOGs and such, but very little or none in what would ordinarily be classified as reliable sources. Such as, commentary by established writers in mainstream media, national newspapers, and of course, any book, whose publication by a reliable source, unconnected with the subject or the subjects opponents at least indicates that neutrality, and scholarship may have been employed. Whether the material is generally "positive" or "negative" is generally irrelevant, unless the insult be totally egregious.
It seems that the desperate attempt by some nobodies to achieve an undeserved high profile, carried out ON-WIKI, has led to much of this present drama (BADSITES, and whether links to "naughty words" are allowed, not the MM/LE/TS/SH sockpuppeting, which is well-established); and the reason for most of this drama is that the original instance, of banning and then silencing Wordbomb, by SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs), was carried out poorly, and exhibited quite bad judgement. And this poor judgement was permitted to prevail, or rail-roaded through, up to the point where the general community revolted against the BADSITES failed policy, since the gist of the BADSITES policy was an ill-conceived attempt to ignore honesty, decency, fairness and natural law. Why?
That a respected admin might have gone right out of their way to protect an obvious sock (it is obvious if you take the time to look, and it would have been obvious at the time, I dont think it took Fred Bauder long to work it out) instead of just going BANG block, on gut-feeling and/or either bias or collusion with MM/"Weiss?" is unfortunate. Poor judgement so long ago would of course be no reason for present sanction, except if the error continues to be committed, and ordinary editors unjustifiably be exposed to ridicule, or censure, or threatened, as Cla68 ( talk · contribs) was, and these personal attacks left to stand, and spoil an editor's chances of succededing at Rfa, (which happened to Cla68), because a particular admin is incapable of admitting mistakes, and has a posse of compliant editors to back up their otherwise unsound position. This type of thing, if proved to have occurred, would be an obvious breah of WP:Sockpuppets, which includes the concept of meatpuppets.
Under those circumstances, someone may have to look at inposing blocks on editors who conspire to create a false sense of consensus on articles or on any WP:talk page, as seems to be a strong feeling among those editors providing and commenting on evidence here to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. And, seeing as the MM/SH sockpuppeting finding is pretty much "done and dusted", beyond doubt, the arbs are in a position if they choose, to address the other significant matters raised at this forum, in particular the personal attacks made against Cla68, and any other editor who was treated poorly, and suffered as a consequence.
In terms of building an encyclopedia, the mis-treatment of editors ON-WIKI can have a devastating effect; in contrast the OFF-WIKI outing of some thin-skinned person's dress size, or hair colour or irrelevant personal details such as maybe denying to own a business, are totally minor matters, not within the jurisdiction I would think of the Board, although i absolutely assert the right of other editors to believe otherwise, and rationally argue the point, and of the arbs to consider evidence and state their own conclusions, certainly to be far more well-reasoned and authoritive than the personal views i have expressed here. Which I, or others, can certainly back up with DIFFs. Indeed i think such DIIFFs have already been supplied in evidence for the Arbs. to consider. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the investigation angle and evidence involving Weiss, Varkala, highlighted by the various forms of public evidence on the Evidence page, and sections such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#The Varkala situation a violation of WP:BLP as now asserted by User:Mantanmoreland? Lawrence § t/ e 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the evidence and workshop pages for 24 hours pending a determination by Arbcom. It is clear that both pages no longer serve their intended purpose, to assist Arbcom in assessing the case. I have to believe that both the addition of the link to Byrne's blog, and its removal, were intended to disrupt, since the committee has already announced that the link is known to them, and given the fact that most of what is there will not be acceptable as evidence per the Arbitration policy. Likewise the workshop is no longer a forum for reasonable discussion of various alternative proposals.
I strongly advise that no one other than an Arbitrator lift the protection. In the meantime I think the Arbitrators and clerks need to think about issuing some page bans for editors whose comments fall the farthest outside the expectations for the pages. If the Arbitrators feel that these pages may still serve a useful purpose they will likely lift the protection; I personally would have no concerns about leaving the protection indefintely; 600KB+ of evidence and argument seems like a sufficient foundation for a decision, and I have doubts about whether further interactions among the discussants will actually shed additional light on the resolution of this matter. Thatcher 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Thatcher's action. It would be my preference that any signed statements by Wikipedians that are related to the case be left intact. This would be true even for comments that are only remotely related to the case. I would ask that editors consider that WP:LIVING is about unsourced derogatory assertions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Thatcher's decision. If protection is necessary to maintain decorum, then so be it. Durova Charge! 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This action by Thatcher has my complete support. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly a viable option, but I'd like to see what the arbs do within the next day or so. I'm not ruling out the option of extending the protection if I don't hear from the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The only real solution here is for us to get the case into voting and closed. I hope to post a proposed decision within the next day or two. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The only solution that will put this behind us:
Just a note to point out that this arbcom case has already helped correct one injustice...Piperdown's account was just unblocked [5]. I hope someone acting in an "official" capacity for Wikipedia/Wikimedia will step up and apologize to him if the official who imposed the original block is unable or unwilling to do so. Cla68 ( talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not like to see the/Workshop page protected indefinitely. In particular, in the case of those editors whose proposals appear at the end of the (middle of the) page, such as myself, there has been little time for other users to comment, so that any pertinent objections can be thrashed out. Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If this (From para 2 on) cannot be added to the /Workshop page where it properly belongs, perhaps Durova, or any other editors would care to add their comments here. I realize the arbs may consider that they have seen enough evidence now, and are ready to start on their /Proposals, but none of this is evident to the hoi polloi, and so I am still prepared to continue discussion, particularly of the later proposals. That seems fair, but at the same time, if the arbs are ready to roll, that would be excellent. This should not be allowed to drag on too long, it is taking it's toll on everyone, and a reasoned, and detailed and effective set of rulings from the arbs. will go a long way towards satisfying the community's concerns, and cauterizing this gaping wound in WP.
-Reply to Durove re #Newbyguesses/Whole wide world - I do not understand your comment here. I cannot see any way that an article needs to change to reflect it's audience. In particular, in what way does it matter if someone comes to the page from Google or if they get there on Shank's pony? Would you care to expand here? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
4.13 Proposals by Newbyguesses
4.13.2 We should adhere to the highest possible standards whether "The Whole World Is Watching" or not.
Durova's comment - Agree, with provisos. Quite a few people come here only because of the Google rank and because the whole world is indeed watching. That isn't the site's mission, but dealing with such people is a reality. DurovaCharge! 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but feel we may as well give up. But if we do, we may as well give up on the project. Because let's be honest here, if Mantanmoreland has been using socks and has a COI somewhere, he's not the only editor to have ever done that. And if a journalist wants to help his career along a little bit by making a few changes to articles, then so be it. Because whoever Mantanmoreland is has made some decent edits to the encyclopedia. And because of all this, whatever changes are made to related articles are unlikely to be skewed in one direction as much any more as anyone who does will be tarred with the same brush. It's like the "Wordbomb meme" in reverse.
So let's chuck this in, or we go after every editor who has used socks to double vote, and there is no way that will be allowed as we know some of the few who will be caught, we've all seen the evidence that has been leaked, both in the past and especially with the recent case, but we aren't allowed to talk about it so we may as well give up. If current administrators can get away with socking in deletion debates and have the entire investigation held in public so their real name doesn't go to the top of a Google search and damage their career prospects, then we may as well steer clear of this.
If Mantanmoreland is found to have done anything wrong here, then all others who have done similar will have to be treated the same. And the powers-that-be here will never allow that. Whit stable 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think that some precedent gets set. Important principles (importation of real world conflicts being not a good thing, scope of socking investigations, and a number of others) are being articulated and there may be some findings coming out that will help improve tnhings going forward. So I see this as having a point. Further I want things improved in how we deal with this sort of POV pushing and sockery (as well as how we deal with allegations that it was known, and tolerated, for whatever reason). That's more important than "justice" (this isn't a system of government) to me. If improvement comes via a mix of public sanctions and quiet resignations, that's fine by me, it's better than no improvement. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is nonsense to insist that you can't make one improvement without at the same time making all improvements that are similar. You can feed one hungry child without feeding them all. You can put one criminal in jail without putting them all in jail. Arbcom can use this case to make wikipedia better in some ways without trying to solve every problem some people think are similar. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that people are proposing principles, findings, remedies, etc in their own sections. This seems a contrast with previous cases where they tended to get all jumbled together. Do folk view this as an improvement? It seems more organised.. but on the other hand I've seen duplications, and even places where one participant proposed principles that basically say "this is exactly the same as Partcipant B's proposed principle"... that last part's utility escapes me. Thoughts? ++ Lar: t/ c 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there was way too much redundancy with this system. It encourages WP:MULTI within the same page. I thought of submitting my own proposals, but everything I would suggest has been covered—often by two or three users, and often unaware of the prior work. I would suggest against this unneeded extra formalism, especially in cases with widely divergent opinions. It's good to set out alternate proposals in response to the original, and treating them like evidence sections strongly discourages users from doing this. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the current format lends itself to mutually competitive proposals rather than complimentary ones. As long as everybody else is on a mandatory lunch-break, I would be delighted if one of our "clerks" decides to boldly refactor the entire page. At a minimum, the "principles", "findings", and "remedies" should be cleanly separated at the highest level of the section hierarchy. If one user has literally "several" proposals within the same major section, alright we can give them a sub-heading, but not by default. In fact it not be a bad idea to divide the three major sections into separate sub-pages of the workshop, due both to high volume, and to help emphasize the differences between a "principle", a "finding of fact", and a "remedy" (a distinction which is unfortunately lost on some of the participants). — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Contents: |
---|
|
I believe the strayed discussion in /Workshop reflects impatience with the proceeding of the case. Everything has been said several times over, are the Arbitrators going to start work on /Proposed decision anytime soon? Dorftrottel ( complain) 19:39, February 27, 2008
After conferring with the arbs, protection of the page will end in a few minutes. Further disuption will result in initial blocks of 24 hours - 1 week. Repeat offenders will be blocked 48 hours - 2 weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per email and on-wiki comments from Arbcom (and pending any corrections) editors who make what are considered to be personal attacks on other editors or real people may be asked to refactor or remove the comments, but the comments (as long as they are signed and attributed) should not be removed by other editors. Edit warring and other disruptive behavior shall be grounds for brief blocks. The Arbitrators will consider such comments (and the editors who made them) as part of their overall evaluation of the case. Thatcher 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably unconnected, posting this here just in case others participating in evidence gathering/workshop etc in this ArbCom case have had a similar experience:
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])
IP check:
Avb 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where to include this but are we free to use a specific real-world name, if the need arises? I note that Jimbo did in the statement he emailed within the past 24 hours Whit stable 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use real world names. You can state you know it and are sending it to the arb com mail list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) if you feel you have a legit reason to do so. I'm sure Jimbo had an extra valid reason to do what he did. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really better to email specific details to the arbcom mail list. Onwiki it'd be good to say you have evidence on such and such and am emailing to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it best to lay out and review evidence before proceeding to workshop. That includes allowing a reasonable interval for others to present evidence and you to review it. I know that this practice is rarely followed, but I still think it a good idea. GRBerry 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
CharlotteWebb asked a question about the risks of undisclosed COI. A good example of that would be last year's Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case. Checkuser had concluded that some accounts were sockpuppets, and the editors in question argued against that, and also argued that they didn't have any conflict of interest because they were unpaid volunteers for a certain religious organization. In fact they were using official Church of Scientology computers to edit Wikipedia, and sometimes forgot to log in and revealed their underlying IP addresses, and were editing the topic of - you guessed it - Scientology. I was trying to explain to them how they were running a public relations risk, but all they seemed to hear was that I was a jerk who was telling them no. That arbitration case dragged out for three months and before it was over the WikiScanner came out. And headlines and bad press actually happened. Durova Charge! 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend of people saying they support or endorse or oppose each proposal - I'd like to point out that there are only 14 people whose vote counts, and they have their own page in which to do so. — Random832 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The content of the comments is more important than any particular verbal formula that may be used. If I am reviewing a proposed finding of fact, one "oppose" citing a diff proving that the finding is incorrect will outweigh ten unreasoned "supports." On the other hand, if I am working on the wording of a principle, the fact that a number of well-informed users support a given formulation can be very helpful information. So, editors who have taken the time to study up on a case should please provide their input in whatever format strikes them as reasonable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like a check on whether I am overreacting, but it seems to me that JzG's recent statement should at the least be refactored along with either a stern warning or a request that he stop posting in this arbitration. I understand emotions, but this follows on his adding evidence which consisted of a number of similar attacks as well as a link to a clearly unreliable source for evidence that Bagley is a "vile agenda-driven troll." That issue was then discussed in detail on the evidence talk page, [2] before JzG removed it with the statement that "User:Cla68 makes the case against Bagley far more powerfully than I could. It's very subtle use of irony, and tyook me a while to spot." Following this, he has now added a statement that WordBomb should not be allowed to comment in this arbitration because he committed "blackmail." To be clear, I don't see why WordBomb needs to present evidence in this arbitration and am not aware that he has asked, but these statements from JzG are making a mockery of Wikipedia's principles. I regret suggesting this, but it seems there is a very significant disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To JzG/GUY/ : re Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. :wrong, it is not a matter of asking, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing, except that you continue to make unsupported allegation and attacks.
and re This is a simple statement of fact! :Wrong, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing.
and re If you want to make a mockery out of Wikipedia's principles :Please dont, just stop it. Do you understand even the simplest concept of evidence, and fairness? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To everyone: The ban of wordbomb is not at issue, yet. One thing at a time, please. The issues around wordbomb deserve their own arbcomm hearing separate from this one. Let's finish with mantanmoreland and what ever administrative slaps on the wrist others should get, then look at wordbomb's ban and if it should be lifted. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Evidence sent directly to Arbcom is evidence, too, and can be done to protect the privacy of people involved. One does not have to out ones email address here on Wikipedia in order to show evidence of receiving harrassing emails - they can be sent to admins, or in the case of an arbcom case in confidence to Arbcom.
The assertion that evidence must all be posted is just wrong. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Any evidence regarding "blackmail" or other allegations of grave misbehavior, quotations from e-mails whose publication has not been authorized by the sender, and the like, may be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee and will be considered as appropriate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This gives reason to serious concerns imo. An arbitrator who cannot even maintain the basic decorum while having a strong opinion should most definitely recuse themselves out of respect for the process and the community. User: Dorftrottel 06:58, February 20, 200 8
Re:GWH's statements this has nothing to do with this case: I think that taking an over simplified view of this case is a way of making sure this never gets settled. This is a very complex case. I note that there are a lot of eyes watching and waiting for a stumble and therefore a headline for their next article. Statements here are being watched by people with a real life stake in this. Off color statements that would normally be acceptable are going to raise eyebrows, much like the fact that arbitrators (which outsiders will equate with the " judges") participated in a support group [3] for parties to this case. This is going to be very confusing for some people. I say we should minimize the confusion of outsiders by taking an active role in minimizing the appearance of bias, but obviously those who "call the shots" disagree. We'll see how that turns out. daveh4h 18:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
DIFF JzG's recent statement and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=193190239&oldid=192989263 MM is a "damned liar". + + Please refactor that in a way that doesn't breach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can make the point without being rude or insulting. etc http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Newbyguesses/Sandbox&diff=193747019&oldid=193709461 DIFF
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=prev&oldid=193667023 DIFF]
Revision as of 11:27, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 10:41, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 00:26, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Revision as of 11:51, 22 February 2008 (edit) (undo)
Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
====BLP policy being rewritten as we speak ====DIFF
Much thanks for your expertise, Benjiboi. I was surprised not to find such a policy as part of this project but it is good to know it is part of the Manual of Style. And thanks also for the clean-up of the article in question. TechBear ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
02:53, 12 February 2008 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (→Reliable sources: questionable sources should not be used at all for living persons, not just handled with caution) (undo)
05:59, 13 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (No, we don't use questionable sources for BLP) (undo)
etc...... Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Self-published material may be used in BLPs if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.
A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.
Entered into evidence, in the expectation that any portion of our policies that are relevant to this RfAr are likely to be extensively re=written duting the case, thus effectively changing the ground rules, which, I am sure the arbs are able to deal with. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we please delete the many unused templates on the workshop page? They are interfering with locating the substantive material. Mangoe ( talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. So here's a candid overview. I had nothing to do with the earlier Naked short selling arbitration case or with the Gary Weiss/Overstock.com disputes until quite late in the situation.
Some rumors about a particular editor supposedly being a spy reached Slashdot and got a lot of traffic there. And although I don't know that editor personally (and had encountered some difficulties working with her), that particular scenario looked like the most ridiculous thing that had ever come out of certain quarters. So I posted to Slashdot in her defense. Not too long afterward a cyberstalking mailing list got established because the harassment against certain volunteers really had reached absurd levels. It was in this context that I first encountered Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. As a latecomer to the issue, it did not occur to me to question whether these were separate people until Jimbo Wales did. Assume good faith is the default condition, and when his concerns were settled enough to accept good faith of these accounts as a working hypothesis my concerns were settled also. This description paints in somewhat broad strokes; I don't follow Jimbo's opinion blindly. Yes, some side discussions did occur around that time and I considered doing a sock investigation on the two accounts' edit histories. A lot of things compete for my time, though, and the surrounding factors just didn't rise to the level where serious research appeared likely to be worthwhile.
When I saw the checkuser report that one account always used TOR nodes, that changed my mind. I had implemented a userblock in part based upon the good faith assumption that both accounts were unrelated and had no conflict of interest, so that obligated me to raise questions once serious doubt came to my attention about whether that was accurate. Some people subscribe to the notion that an inner cabal runs Wikipedia. Well in my experience that just isn't so; it's not our function to take sides in other people's business disputes. Different people saw the same things I saw from another perspective, or weighed it differently, and I respect that. One significant factor in my decision to accept the sockpuppet accusations as at least credible was that I didn't rule out the connection on the basis of prose styles. That's a choice I made based in part on my own graduate school training in writing and most other people have a different education.
To the best of my knowledge, both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have steadfastly denied all speculations of conflict of interest and meat/sockpuppetry. So far as I am aware, nobody who helped or defended these accounts elected to ignore positive confirmation of anything. We've each evaluated this situations to the best of our separate abilities and reached our own individual decisions. Durova Charge! 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Durova. When I first found this mess/noticed it in I believe late November I thought it was just a basic BLP matter. I'd found it either off of BLPN or ANI, I can't recall which. Up until this week I'd basically been on the "Mantan and Sami side" after some longer discussions with Sami. I think I had one prior discussion with Mantan--all encounters with both/him/whomever were very positive. It wasn't until I really looked at the mountain of compiled statistical evidence that everyone kept redoing and refocusing, and the finale (for me) of Ananlyst's 3000 edit comparison that led me to post my section. I want to believe otherwise, but, quack. The fact that Mantan's defense seems to be functionally, "Byrne is out to get me, Bagley is out to get me, Overstock is out to get me," and the fact that Mantan specifically went after Patrick Byrne himself on-Wiki, like he was Weiss, was the trifecta for my belief. 1) Volumes of statistical data that no one has refuted to my satisfaction yet combined with a history of abusive puppetry I was previously unaware of; 2) A defense by Mantanmoreland that is functionally a Scooby-Doo defense: "I'd have gotten away with it if not for you meddling Overstockers,"; 3) the ever-growing confluence of circumstantial or obvious evidence to point to Mantanmoreland = Weiss. On #3, before anyone reminds me that some of it was or wasn't gathered "ethically", I agree and understand. However, once a cat or open secret is out of the bag, we can't put blinders on about it. I really want Mantan/Sami to post a good defense on why he should be able to stay as one account only, because I think his/Weiss's fantastic knowledge of financial topics is invaluable to us. So long as he's kept off any and all articles to do with himself, DTCC, naked shorting, or Byrne's ventures, due to his history of using sockpuppetry to conceal COI, and advance his agendas. Lawrence § t/ e 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Replyb to u:Durova re some comments
The clerks can't be online every minute of the day; nobody can. agree nbg
It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg
the actions taken here are likely to set the tone for how future cases of that type get handled. complete bollocks says nbg
Please bear the big picture in mind. note
If you want this type of issue to get addressed effectively and consistently, then don't tank the effort over small stuff. note
Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. (user:Durova, above)
AND RE: It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg ,
The primary purpose of the evidence, workshop, and talkpages for arbitration cases is to enable editors to present information that will assist the Arbitration Committee in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of the case.
Over the past couple of days, the percentage of comments falling into this category, on all sides, has been diminishing. Posts, from any point of view, which are primarily intended to score debating points are not helpful, particularly when they are reiterating the point for an nth time. My sense is that most of the relevant evidence has been submitted and points have been made. A reasonable degree of restraint on the part of all contributors is urged. (Please do, however, comment on my new proposed principles.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment, that the /Evidence page was protected; lucky me, I was off-line, I think.
My brain hurts. Yes, i am happy to do a re-write, please let me know if there are any further concerns.
Rather than strike or [redact] or <--! comment out --> i am inclined on this occasion to simply delete the comments. OK?
Is Wikipedia a real encyclopedia? Of course it is, but, as is the way of the world, it is a flawed one. The evidence presented to this Rfa supports that conclusion. however, the benefits of providing a free, on-line encyclopedia are enormous, and well worth the effort. Conceivably, in time, the veracity of information provided at the most prestigious and trustworthy sites (and WPwill be one of these trustworthy sites) will approach that of book learning and scholarly journals.
It is a simple equation really.
Integrity and Publicity are simply incompatible.
Where money is, there hypocrisy will surely be found.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
When a DIFF is added either to /Evidence, /Workshop or talk/Ev. and talk/Works., it is evidence, then, considered as entered and forming a part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, which the arbitrators are then entitled to consider in their deliberations, resulting in findings, etc. DIFFs are indeed the most trustworthy evidence, I think. (That is, if the DIFF is pertinent to the issues under consideration.)
Now, (Q1) is the EDIT SUMMARY of that DIFF considered as entered into Evidence?
If the contents of that diff, as is quite usual, consists of, among other things, more DIFF(s),
(Q2) are those DIFFs, and their edit summaries (if pertinent to the issue, etc.) also considered then as enterered into Evidence?
And, finally, {for now), if the ORIGINAL, or subsequent pertinent diff(s), contain a LINK(s) (internal, or external) to a page, whose contents is either generally or specifically pertinent to the issue(s) at hand
(Q3), is the contents of THAT PAGE also, in some way, to come into consideration as Evidence?
Thankyou, Arbitrators, clerk, and respected editors, may i commend one and all for the level of civility and co-operation which has been exhibited to date at AfAr/Mantan ? Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a fairly liberal view as to what constitute a reliable source. In the case of on-line (External) links, sources for BLP articles can include self-published material by the subject of the Article, and then other BLOGS, and postings to obscure sites, get included as "reliable sources". Folks, as SBHarris has pointed out, when the person on whom an article has been created is only semi-notable, ie Weiss, Byrne, and etc. then there will be a lot of chat about them, maybe, on BLOGs and such, but very little or none in what would ordinarily be classified as reliable sources. Such as, commentary by established writers in mainstream media, national newspapers, and of course, any book, whose publication by a reliable source, unconnected with the subject or the subjects opponents at least indicates that neutrality, and scholarship may have been employed. Whether the material is generally "positive" or "negative" is generally irrelevant, unless the insult be totally egregious.
It seems that the desperate attempt by some nobodies to achieve an undeserved high profile, carried out ON-WIKI, has led to much of this present drama (BADSITES, and whether links to "naughty words" are allowed, not the MM/LE/TS/SH sockpuppeting, which is well-established); and the reason for most of this drama is that the original instance, of banning and then silencing Wordbomb, by SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs), was carried out poorly, and exhibited quite bad judgement. And this poor judgement was permitted to prevail, or rail-roaded through, up to the point where the general community revolted against the BADSITES failed policy, since the gist of the BADSITES policy was an ill-conceived attempt to ignore honesty, decency, fairness and natural law. Why?
That a respected admin might have gone right out of their way to protect an obvious sock (it is obvious if you take the time to look, and it would have been obvious at the time, I dont think it took Fred Bauder long to work it out) instead of just going BANG block, on gut-feeling and/or either bias or collusion with MM/"Weiss?" is unfortunate. Poor judgement so long ago would of course be no reason for present sanction, except if the error continues to be committed, and ordinary editors unjustifiably be exposed to ridicule, or censure, or threatened, as Cla68 ( talk · contribs) was, and these personal attacks left to stand, and spoil an editor's chances of succededing at Rfa, (which happened to Cla68), because a particular admin is incapable of admitting mistakes, and has a posse of compliant editors to back up their otherwise unsound position. This type of thing, if proved to have occurred, would be an obvious breah of WP:Sockpuppets, which includes the concept of meatpuppets.
Under those circumstances, someone may have to look at inposing blocks on editors who conspire to create a false sense of consensus on articles or on any WP:talk page, as seems to be a strong feeling among those editors providing and commenting on evidence here to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. And, seeing as the MM/SH sockpuppeting finding is pretty much "done and dusted", beyond doubt, the arbs are in a position if they choose, to address the other significant matters raised at this forum, in particular the personal attacks made against Cla68, and any other editor who was treated poorly, and suffered as a consequence.
In terms of building an encyclopedia, the mis-treatment of editors ON-WIKI can have a devastating effect; in contrast the OFF-WIKI outing of some thin-skinned person's dress size, or hair colour or irrelevant personal details such as maybe denying to own a business, are totally minor matters, not within the jurisdiction I would think of the Board, although i absolutely assert the right of other editors to believe otherwise, and rationally argue the point, and of the arbs to consider evidence and state their own conclusions, certainly to be far more well-reasoned and authoritive than the personal views i have expressed here. Which I, or others, can certainly back up with DIFFs. Indeed i think such DIIFFs have already been supplied in evidence for the Arbs. to consider. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the investigation angle and evidence involving Weiss, Varkala, highlighted by the various forms of public evidence on the Evidence page, and sections such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#The Varkala situation a violation of WP:BLP as now asserted by User:Mantanmoreland? Lawrence § t/ e 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have protected the evidence and workshop pages for 24 hours pending a determination by Arbcom. It is clear that both pages no longer serve their intended purpose, to assist Arbcom in assessing the case. I have to believe that both the addition of the link to Byrne's blog, and its removal, were intended to disrupt, since the committee has already announced that the link is known to them, and given the fact that most of what is there will not be acceptable as evidence per the Arbitration policy. Likewise the workshop is no longer a forum for reasonable discussion of various alternative proposals.
I strongly advise that no one other than an Arbitrator lift the protection. In the meantime I think the Arbitrators and clerks need to think about issuing some page bans for editors whose comments fall the farthest outside the expectations for the pages. If the Arbitrators feel that these pages may still serve a useful purpose they will likely lift the protection; I personally would have no concerns about leaving the protection indefintely; 600KB+ of evidence and argument seems like a sufficient foundation for a decision, and I have doubts about whether further interactions among the discussants will actually shed additional light on the resolution of this matter. Thatcher 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Thatcher's action. It would be my preference that any signed statements by Wikipedians that are related to the case be left intact. This would be true even for comments that are only remotely related to the case. I would ask that editors consider that WP:LIVING is about unsourced derogatory assertions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Thatcher's decision. If protection is necessary to maintain decorum, then so be it. Durova Charge! 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This action by Thatcher has my complete support. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly a viable option, but I'd like to see what the arbs do within the next day or so. I'm not ruling out the option of extending the protection if I don't hear from the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The only real solution here is for us to get the case into voting and closed. I hope to post a proposed decision within the next day or two. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The only solution that will put this behind us:
Just a note to point out that this arbcom case has already helped correct one injustice...Piperdown's account was just unblocked [5]. I hope someone acting in an "official" capacity for Wikipedia/Wikimedia will step up and apologize to him if the official who imposed the original block is unable or unwilling to do so. Cla68 ( talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not like to see the/Workshop page protected indefinitely. In particular, in the case of those editors whose proposals appear at the end of the (middle of the) page, such as myself, there has been little time for other users to comment, so that any pertinent objections can be thrashed out. Newbyguesses ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If this (From para 2 on) cannot be added to the /Workshop page where it properly belongs, perhaps Durova, or any other editors would care to add their comments here. I realize the arbs may consider that they have seen enough evidence now, and are ready to start on their /Proposals, but none of this is evident to the hoi polloi, and so I am still prepared to continue discussion, particularly of the later proposals. That seems fair, but at the same time, if the arbs are ready to roll, that would be excellent. This should not be allowed to drag on too long, it is taking it's toll on everyone, and a reasoned, and detailed and effective set of rulings from the arbs. will go a long way towards satisfying the community's concerns, and cauterizing this gaping wound in WP.
-Reply to Durove re #Newbyguesses/Whole wide world - I do not understand your comment here. I cannot see any way that an article needs to change to reflect it's audience. In particular, in what way does it matter if someone comes to the page from Google or if they get there on Shank's pony? Would you care to expand here? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
4.13 Proposals by Newbyguesses
4.13.2 We should adhere to the highest possible standards whether "The Whole World Is Watching" or not.
Durova's comment - Agree, with provisos. Quite a few people come here only because of the Google rank and because the whole world is indeed watching. That isn't the site's mission, but dealing with such people is a reality. DurovaCharge! 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but feel we may as well give up. But if we do, we may as well give up on the project. Because let's be honest here, if Mantanmoreland has been using socks and has a COI somewhere, he's not the only editor to have ever done that. And if a journalist wants to help his career along a little bit by making a few changes to articles, then so be it. Because whoever Mantanmoreland is has made some decent edits to the encyclopedia. And because of all this, whatever changes are made to related articles are unlikely to be skewed in one direction as much any more as anyone who does will be tarred with the same brush. It's like the "Wordbomb meme" in reverse.
So let's chuck this in, or we go after every editor who has used socks to double vote, and there is no way that will be allowed as we know some of the few who will be caught, we've all seen the evidence that has been leaked, both in the past and especially with the recent case, but we aren't allowed to talk about it so we may as well give up. If current administrators can get away with socking in deletion debates and have the entire investigation held in public so their real name doesn't go to the top of a Google search and damage their career prospects, then we may as well steer clear of this.
If Mantanmoreland is found to have done anything wrong here, then all others who have done similar will have to be treated the same. And the powers-that-be here will never allow that. Whit stable 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think that some precedent gets set. Important principles (importation of real world conflicts being not a good thing, scope of socking investigations, and a number of others) are being articulated and there may be some findings coming out that will help improve tnhings going forward. So I see this as having a point. Further I want things improved in how we deal with this sort of POV pushing and sockery (as well as how we deal with allegations that it was known, and tolerated, for whatever reason). That's more important than "justice" (this isn't a system of government) to me. If improvement comes via a mix of public sanctions and quiet resignations, that's fine by me, it's better than no improvement. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is nonsense to insist that you can't make one improvement without at the same time making all improvements that are similar. You can feed one hungry child without feeding them all. You can put one criminal in jail without putting them all in jail. Arbcom can use this case to make wikipedia better in some ways without trying to solve every problem some people think are similar. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that people are proposing principles, findings, remedies, etc in their own sections. This seems a contrast with previous cases where they tended to get all jumbled together. Do folk view this as an improvement? It seems more organised.. but on the other hand I've seen duplications, and even places where one participant proposed principles that basically say "this is exactly the same as Partcipant B's proposed principle"... that last part's utility escapes me. Thoughts? ++ Lar: t/ c 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there was way too much redundancy with this system. It encourages WP:MULTI within the same page. I thought of submitting my own proposals, but everything I would suggest has been covered—often by two or three users, and often unaware of the prior work. I would suggest against this unneeded extra formalism, especially in cases with widely divergent opinions. It's good to set out alternate proposals in response to the original, and treating them like evidence sections strongly discourages users from doing this. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the current format lends itself to mutually competitive proposals rather than complimentary ones. As long as everybody else is on a mandatory lunch-break, I would be delighted if one of our "clerks" decides to boldly refactor the entire page. At a minimum, the "principles", "findings", and "remedies" should be cleanly separated at the highest level of the section hierarchy. If one user has literally "several" proposals within the same major section, alright we can give them a sub-heading, but not by default. In fact it not be a bad idea to divide the three major sections into separate sub-pages of the workshop, due both to high volume, and to help emphasize the differences between a "principle", a "finding of fact", and a "remedy" (a distinction which is unfortunately lost on some of the participants). — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Contents: |
---|
|
I believe the strayed discussion in /Workshop reflects impatience with the proceeding of the case. Everything has been said several times over, are the Arbitrators going to start work on /Proposed decision anytime soon? Dorftrottel ( complain) 19:39, February 27, 2008
After conferring with the arbs, protection of the page will end in a few minutes. Further disuption will result in initial blocks of 24 hours - 1 week. Repeat offenders will be blocked 48 hours - 2 weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per email and on-wiki comments from Arbcom (and pending any corrections) editors who make what are considered to be personal attacks on other editors or real people may be asked to refactor or remove the comments, but the comments (as long as they are signed and attributed) should not be removed by other editors. Edit warring and other disruptive behavior shall be grounds for brief blocks. The Arbitrators will consider such comments (and the editors who made them) as part of their overall evaluation of the case. Thatcher 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably unconnected, posting this here just in case others participating in evidence gathering/workshop etc in this ArbCom case have had a similar experience:
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])
IP check:
Avb 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)