|
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) — General discussion ( Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Rlevse ( Talk) & Risker ( Talk) |
Guidelines: This page is for discussion of the questions and answers posted on the general discussion page. Please link the discussions to and from the front page sections using the appropriate links, as is done at the arbitration noticeboard. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion takes place here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the example question is somewhat lacking in explicatory power... should the question be the heading? Or the number? Perhaps an actual question should be used as an example. Perhaps try putting one of the ones submitted into the desired format. ++
Lar:
t/
c 02:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't wish to speak for Carcharoth, but I feel confident that you can use a general topic as a header, as you would elsewhere. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Nevertheless the example is flawed. Making it more concrete would help. Or, if the two questions now submitted are not done correctly, correcting them would help. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully it is correct now. Anyway, since there are real questions there now, I suppose there is less need for an example. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Nevertheless the example is flawed. Making it more concrete would help. Or, if the two questions now submitted are not done correctly, correcting them would help. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't wish to speak for Carcharoth, but I feel confident that you can use a general topic as a header, as you would elsewhere. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion: Please clarify the purpose of this page and the types of questions that are appropriate. Also, the language about retrieving archived questions, etc. was not entirely clear. Thank you. Minor 4th 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring there to the last three sections of
this page. Those discussions were still active when I archived them, so I am saying continue those discussions here if needed.
Carcharoth (
talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to elaborate on the mechanism for archiving questions once "answered", including how to tell that something is actually answered or not. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Let's keep it simple. If an arbitrator or clerk has posted an answer, the question has been answered and you are free to ask another question. If, on the other hand, discussion is still going on here on this page, then getting an answer to subsequent questions may take longer. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to elaborate on the mechanism for archiving questions once "answered", including how to tell that something is actually answered or not. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The answer given sort of implies that someone ought to ask 'what findings are being contemplated' :) ++ Lar: t/ c 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Principles, first, actually. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the principles up there early on to be discussed as the principles shape a case while the findings focus it and the remedies are the business end of a case, but different drafting arbitrators do things different ways. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume this means that we're still not very close to a decision. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the drafting arbitrators don't post an update, I will try and post an idea this weekend of what progress has been made. Activity is lower during the week. But it really is best to make sure something usuable is posted in a complex case like this, rather than hurrying it. Robust discussion will result in any case, but the drafting arbitrators will want to post something they are happy with, so please do be patient. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC) And that should have been a separate question!
- I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. There have been requests pending in some cases since May. Obviously the people making the requests thought they were urgent. With no specific answer to them (not even a rejection) who is to say a particular motion was or wasn't urgent. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could point to the ones you are thinking of, that would help.
Carcharoth (
talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- For starters there's the original request of a resolution of who is involved and who isn't. That was a separate case. Arbs commented, and in some cases gave pretty clear direction in my view, but that clear direction hasn't been accepted. Getting an early resolution of that question would help. It's been on the table at least since May. Then there's the interim motion request put forward by Polargeo and myself more recently. ++
Lar:
t/
c 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could give actual links and diffs, that would really help. At the moment, progress is being made on the proposed decision, so I don't think it would help to bring that to a halt to consider such motions, but if you consolidate what you think is most urgent, I'll have a look, but as I said, links are needed. If the collapsed nature of the workshop page is hindering linking to stuff, please ask a clerk to fix that. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- For starters there's the original request of a resolution of who is involved and who isn't. That was a separate case. Arbs commented, and in some cases gave pretty clear direction in my view, but that clear direction hasn't been accepted. Getting an early resolution of that question would help. It's been on the table at least since May. Then there's the interim motion request put forward by Polargeo and myself more recently. ++
Lar:
t/
c 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could point to the ones you are thinking of, that would help.
Carcharoth (
talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. There have been requests pending in some cases since May. Obviously the people making the requests thought they were urgent. With no specific answer to them (not even a rejection) who is to say a particular motion was or wasn't urgent. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Several interim motions, clarifying questions and requests for temporary injunctions have been made - I've lost track. Where are these things? William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most would be on the Workshop. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only see three motions and one temporary injunction there. The injunction was withdrawn, and all of the motions received what appears to be appropriate consideration. As for 'clarifying questions' - they're all over the place. Some answered, some ignored, some superseded by subsequent events. I'm guessing that anyone who still wants an answer should bring it here?
Guettarda (
talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they should. I am going to post a question on the front page here asking what people want to be done with the workshop as it stands, as I'm proposing to archive it (and its talk page) in preparation for workshopping of the proposed decision. It would also help to lay out a few ground rules for discussion of the proposed decision to help those participating in the case, and the arbs and clerks, to keep on top of things when discussion does start. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only see three motions and one temporary injunction there. The injunction was withdrawn, and all of the motions received what appears to be appropriate consideration. As for 'clarifying questions' - they're all over the place. Some answered, some ignored, some superseded by subsequent events. I'm guessing that anyone who still wants an answer should bring it here?
Guettarda (
talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts are that the existing workshop and its talk page should be archived and the existing workshop page set up in readiness for discussion of the proposed decision. While waiting for the proposed decision, the workshop talk page should be used to discuss how to discuss the proposed decision (i.e. how to keep things under reasonable control while still encouraging strong and constructive discussion). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to get discussion started on this, as a proposed decision may be arriving soon. What would help is people considering how to discuss the decision in such a way that arbitrators are not overwhelmed by the volume of comments. My thoughts are that while the proposed decision may end up being posted to the proposed decision page, voting should most certainly not take place until there has been ample opportunity for the decision to be discussed by those participating in the case (I intend to allow at least a whole week of discussion before I vote on the proposed decision, though I may vote on the principles earlier). Some elements of the decision will need to be discussed on the workshop page (which will need to be reopened or a new page set up), and there needs to be a space where those named in the findings can talk direct to the arbitrators on-wiki without too much associated noise from other editors. But to really prepare properly for discussion of the proposed decision, people need to give their thoughts here on how best to handle this. Ideas on how to handle high-volume discussions would be particularly appreciated. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps, just to keep things orderly, each person wishing to comment can have his own section "View of editor X," which can be subdivided into subsection: "General view," "Sanctions on User Y," "Omissions," etc. etc.? ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- That has the disadvantage that comments on the same topic are spread all over the page. The workshop format where people comment on the actual proposals, is better, in my view. But as well as "comments by arbitrators" and "comments by parties" and "comments by others", I would add a section specifically for those named in a finding to add their views. The disadvantage (and advantage) of the workshop format is that it discourages threaded discussion, which when there are large numbers commenting can quickly get out of hand. I would use a workshop format but have a section for substantive comments (i.e. well-formed statements) rather than back-and-forth discussions, and push the discussion off into a separate "discussion" section for each proposal, with the clerks stepping in if discussion goes off-topic or gets too long. The absolute key is to realise that excessive posting will just result in the noise being filtered out consciously or subconsciously by arbitrators. It is far better to focus on key points and get those sorted out, rather then try and comment on everything. Carcharoth ( talk)
- Point taken, but I think there needs to be a space where people can comment more generally, or on supposed omissions. Suggestion: "parties" should be defined as those specifically named in that portion of the decision, or perhaps another word can be used. ScottyBerg ( talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the issue with the potential workshopping is size/manageability of the page, what's wrong with creating a new (sub)page solely for workshopping PD, gathering comments, etc. and transcluding it on the main workshop? Rather than cleaning off the current page (to which the old material must eventually be returned) a new page could function as a temporary "section" for ease of use, and would force everyone to keep the blinders on having moved past the first round. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- At this stage, I am thinking that the proposed decision talk page should be set up in a structured way to receive comments. What I propose is four main sections: (1) Statements on principles; (2) Statements on findings; (3) Statements on remedies and enforcements; (4) Discussion. Threaded discussion will happen in the discussion section, but each of the three 'statement' sections (no threaded discussion) will be subdivided into: (i) named editors (those named in the proposed decision); (ii) arbitrators; (iii) others, and each person posting (including arbitrators) will be limited to a single statement of reasonable length (probably the same length as at RFAR). This is so that people focus their statements on the key issues. Everything else can be dealt with in the discussion section, which will function like a normal talk page with sections that will hopefully stay on-topic. Possibly the 'statements' bit will be transcluded from another page. People who fail to make statements will risk their comments getting lost in the noise of discussion. The aim is for the statements to be the well-thought out bits that need to stand out from the noise, and the discussion section will be where (within reason) vigorous debate can take place, with clerks to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I will co-ordinate this with other arbitrators and the case clerks, but any objections to this should be noted here within the next 12 hours. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the issue with the potential workshopping is size/manageability of the page, what's wrong with creating a new (sub)page solely for workshopping PD, gathering comments, etc. and transcluding it on the main workshop? Rather than cleaning off the current page (to which the old material must eventually be returned) a new page could function as a temporary "section" for ease of use, and would force everyone to keep the blinders on having moved past the first round. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not to beat a dead horse, but checkuser, checkuser and checkuser. Just indefing any long-term sockers (e.g. Ratel) in the area could greatly reduce drama and maybe even the need for significant ArbCom action. I'd be willing to construct a list (privately of course) of people on both sides that may be socking and should definitely be checkusered, but ideally everyone active should probably be checkusered. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, I haven't read it, but I've noticed that sockmasters tend to have a certain personality - a personality-type that is common in the area and yet they haven't been checked for the obvious. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:CheckUser#.22Fishing.22... NW ( Talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing."
- It looks to me like you could use it for any of those activities even if you didn't want to check for socks. Besides, can't ArbCom just go ahead and decide to do it under these special circumstances? Honestly, we have editors who've been extremely "dedicated" for nearly a decade, we have admitted and caught sockmasters who are still editing and editors who've said that "billions" will die - they are obviously quite the motivated bunch. It would be silly not to check them because I can pretty much guarantee that if they aren't socking already (unlikely) that they'll start doing it if any major sanctions are applied to them - probably with accounts made leading up to or during the ArbCom case.
TheGoodLocust (
talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you file an
SPI case, then a checkuser will review it, and perform checks if necessary and justified. Alternatively you may contact ArbCom directly, but they will probably be slower than filing an SPI. --
Deskana
(talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is rather impractical to file 10-15 checkusers. All I'm saying is that some people are asking to be indeffed so badly that it is obvious that don't really care if that particular account is banned - they seem to want to take a few people with them. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you file an
SPI case, then a checkuser will review it, and perform checks if necessary and justified. Alternatively you may contact ArbCom directly, but they will probably be slower than filing an SPI. --
Deskana
(talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you could use it for any of those activities even if you didn't want to check for socks. Besides, can't ArbCom just go ahead and decide to do it under these special circumstances? Honestly, we have editors who've been extremely "dedicated" for nearly a decade, we have admitted and caught sockmasters who are still editing and editors who've said that "billions" will die - they are obviously quite the motivated bunch. It would be silly not to check them because I can pretty much guarantee that if they aren't socking already (unlikely) that they'll start doing it if any major sanctions are applied to them - probably with accounts made leading up to or during the ArbCom case.
TheGoodLocust (
talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me if I've got this completely wrong, but isn't it standard practice to conduct checkuser matches on all significant parties to arbitration? Tasty monster (= TS ) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If not, it's a good idea. If they haven't done it already, I hope the Committee will checkuser everybody mentioned in connection with this case, including me.
Cla68 (
talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably a good idea, but I'm not sure if the privacy policy allows such a thing. "Investigate legitimate concerns" and "Limit disruption of potential disruption" are intentionally vague statements, yes, but to me, that violates the spirit if not the letter of the privacy policy. I think users should be able to operate under the assumption that their access logs won't be checked unless there is a bit more than a vague suspicion that they are violating the rules; there should be some evidence. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with being checkusered should any functionary wish to do so. NW ( Talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Across-the-board checkusering without regard to the case at hand should indeed be a violation of the privacy policy. In places where it is a relevant issue, I'm sure checking is done as deemed necessary by the Committee, but checkuser isn't pixie dust to throw at everything hoping something good bounces back. Like everywhere else, presenting evidence and making a compelling case are the norm. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Six-step Program
- Violate sanction in the most drama-producingly ridiculous way possible
- Cry foul and declare victimhood w/ help from friends
- Get entire sanction thrown out
- Return to original and truly disruptive behavior
- Get sanctioned for such behavior
- Goto Step 1
- Any questions? Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment below was moved from the front page and added here (where discussion takes place):
All WMC had to do was to say "yes, I'd be willing to hold off inserting my comments into other people's text while we get this reviewed", and this wouldn't have happened. In fact, if he said it now (no apologies, no mea culpas, etcetera), I'd be the first one in line to unblock him myself. While I cannot speak for any of the drafting arbitrators, if they can fit it in, perhaps we can explicitly review that specific climate change sanction as part of the PD? But the impetus in this slow motion train wreck was WMC's rejection of the sanction, and the affect it had on everyone else. I reduced the block and re-enabled his right to edit his talk page in hopes of defusing this, to snuff out the fuse. His decision was to re-light the fuse. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please keep discussion here, thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly what is the right way to handle something like this? WMC's behavior is so provocative that it is disruptive even though the content of the encyclopedia is not affected -- but it couldnt be disruptive without others rising to the provocation. But when is enough enough? If the whole community would ignore it, then he would either stop it or escalate it to something significant enough that his supporters would have no purchase to cry foul. But the whole community will not ignore his provocative taunts and flaunts -- that's just not ever going to happen. Plus, "justice" is such a big thing on Wiki that it creates a real morale problem when an editor is treated as something special and is held to a different standard of behavior (at least in part because his own behavior is so bad that it inhibits enforcement). When you look at the time wasted by scores of editors every time something like this happens, eventually I think it's useful to weigh the cumulative effect, rather than focusing solely on the isolated incident which may seem minor. You also have to try to predict the longer term consequences of any action or failure to act. I would really like to hear other editors' views on this because this is something the community is going to be faced with again, and it would be most helpful if the community has some idea what the general thinking about this is in advance. Minor 4th 04:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, honestly, there's several things that need to be considered. General Sanctions have never been applied at the ArbCom level. The text of the General Sanction states that such actions are not to be overturned without consensus or arbcom ok.. does that have the same absolute privilege as ArbCom enforcement (ie, reverse one without either consensus or ArbCom ok and you're probably going to lose your mop)? There's a lot of grey area here, and the fact that we're in the middle of a very long running dispute (and arbcom case) makes the tempers hot. Also, once this case works its way to the finish line, will the General Sanctions be needed any further? I know that in the months after the Obama articles case, the Obama Articles GS board faded into disuse. Something that the parties (and the Arbitrators) probably will be well served to keep in mind....
- Also, I can certainly understand that it would be problematic for WMC to be blocked when the PD is posted and not be able to comment/participate in the discussion. I would not be philosophically opposed to WMC being unblocked solely for participation in this case. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
| Obama comparison - read if you want, but it is a bit of an aside - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I've put down my thoughts on these developments at ANI, discussing the effect on smooth functioning of the project. WMC's actions have been consistent with the sanctions as he sees them, and there's been a lack of clarification as to whether or not his view is correct. His behaviour has certainly been provoked by those ready to jump at the chance to remove him from editing, and repeated disruption has been csused by scores of editors wasting time dealing with such provocations. The actions of the blocking admins have been justified by thoughtful community support, and I don't go against that, but the wider circumstances and effects should be considered.
- @ SirFozzie, your comment about "All WMC had to do was to say..." is very reasonable, your block notice wasn't so explicit. It might have helped if you had emphasised "no apologies, no mea culpas, etcetera", but I must agree that WMC lit the fuse and your action
is fullywas arguably justifiable. However, a shorter block rather than an indef block might have sent a better message. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC) sef-revised 07:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)-
This summary has been offered by Jehochman and has some validity. WMC is convinced he is right, has a case for being right but we are all fed up with him for not backing down to avoid drama so we want some sort of loss of face by him. Also it is fun to see the mighty humiliated a bit. I am happy with that
Brave New World as long as we are all living by the same rules going forward. --
BozMo
talk 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was away for a few days and I see things have gone completely berserk in my absence. My take on this is to have little or no sympathy for WMC, to be annoyed at/disgusted by his provocative conduct, but at the same time to feel that the penalty was grossly excessive. I have a question for Sir Fozzie: you have recused from this case. Can you please explain why you recused, and how that is consistent with your taking this action?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had recused because I was the target of a RfC (along with several others) filed by some people tangentially involved in this case a couple years ago, and also a couple years ago, I filed an Arbitration Committee case regarding an incident involving WMC, who was cautioned for misuse of his administrator tools. I recused over an excess of caution. Again, this is not indefinite as in forever. If WMC wishes to resume editing, all he has to do is say that he will not edit other people's comments while we get this whole thing settled, and the block will be lifted. Again, If I had any grudge against WMC, I would not have restored his block to the original settings (48 hours (with time served for about 30 of them), instead of a fresh 96 hour block, and re-enabled talk page access).
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that you should have recused from this mess too, again in an excess of caution. Making a controversial, indefinite block in a situation like this, in the midst of an arbcom case in which you've recused, just strikes me as wrong. I'm not defending WMC's conduct, which I see as inexplicable, but this really muddies the waters. Please reconsider. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um, SirFozzie, presumably you're also recused because you joined in with Lar, Cla, and that group in their previous campaign of harassment against many of the same editors involved in this case? I mean, it's the same core group of WR regulars attacking many of the same Wikipedia editors engaged in editing a science topic that has become controversial in a political (but not scientific) sphere. Given that Lar and Cla keep harping on that issue, the link seems pretty clear. Since you were an active member of that campaign, surely that alone is reason enough to recuse here? Guettarda ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a... er.. unique way of remembering it, Guettarda. That's all I say about that. If people want to overturn it after a discussion, fine by me. I just think it's a bad idea. The sanction itself was placed by seven un-involved administrators. Lar wasn't one of them. Cla wasn't one of them. So, why did seven uninvolved admins place WMC under that restriction? And no, the answer is not "WR Regulars are harassing us".
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's been unblocked. Acronym alert: can someone please define "WR Regular"?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- A member of Wikipedia discussion/review site
Wikipedia Review. WMC and some of the other people in this and related areas are/were frequently discussed there. As for the charges of conspiring with Lar/Cla et all, here's a link to my posts there.
[1].
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're not familiar with Wikipedia Review, btw, it's basically a kook hive where banned ex-editors and sundry obsessives pass the time fantasizing about how they are going to bring down Wikipedia and put Jimbo Wales behind bars. --
ChrisO (
talk)
- Except that a lot of well-reasoned editors also use it. Yes, you have to take some of the things said there with a grain of salt the size of a boulder, but there have been and will be times where they are right. Several arbitrators and many administrators have accounts there. But yes, you probably should have an ignore list for some of the folks there. :)
SirFozzie (
talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it's deeply regrettable that arbitrators and administrators should have accounts on a site run by individuals who use it for malicious purposes. If they get into the shark tank, they shouldn't be surprised if the sharks turn on them one day. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- People in authority in Wikipedia should restrict their comments to Wikipedia, when it concerns editors they deal with in their "official" capacity. Otherwise it gives the appearance of prejudice. I went to that site and noticed there was an active discussion on WMC's block in which Lar was participating. I don't think that's appropriate, no matter what he says and no matter what message board or newsgroup is the forum. It's like a judge discussing an active case with the media. This is all the kind of thing that erodes the confidence of ordinary editors in the impartiality of administrators and others with power. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it's deeply regrettable that arbitrators and administrators should have accounts on a site run by individuals who use it for malicious purposes. If they get into the shark tank, they shouldn't be surprised if the sharks turn on them one day. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except that a lot of well-reasoned editors also use it. Yes, you have to take some of the things said there with a grain of salt the size of a boulder, but there have been and will be times where they are right. Several arbitrators and many administrators have accounts there. But yes, you probably should have an ignore list for some of the folks there. :)
SirFozzie (
talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're not familiar with Wikipedia Review, btw, it's basically a kook hive where banned ex-editors and sundry obsessives pass the time fantasizing about how they are going to bring down Wikipedia and put Jimbo Wales behind bars. --
ChrisO (
talk)
- A member of Wikipedia discussion/review site
Wikipedia Review. WMC and some of the other people in this and related areas are/were frequently discussed there. As for the charges of conspiring with Lar/Cla et all, here's a link to my posts there.
[1].
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's been unblocked. Acronym alert: can someone please define "WR Regular"?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had recused because I was the target of a RfC (along with several others) filed by some people tangentially involved in this case a couple years ago, and also a couple years ago, I filed an Arbitration Committee case regarding an incident involving WMC, who was cautioned for misuse of his administrator tools. I recused over an excess of caution. Again, this is not indefinite as in forever. If WMC wishes to resume editing, all he has to do is say that he will not edit other people's comments while we get this whole thing settled, and the block will be lifted. Again, If I had any grudge against WMC, I would not have restored his block to the original settings (48 hours (with time served for about 30 of them), instead of a fresh 96 hour block, and re-enabled talk page access).
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was away for a few days and I see things have gone completely berserk in my absence. My take on this is to have little or no sympathy for WMC, to be annoyed at/disgusted by his provocative conduct, but at the same time to feel that the penalty was grossly excessive. I have a question for Sir Fozzie: you have recused from this case. Can you please explain why you recused, and how that is consistent with your taking this action?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
-
This summary has been offered by Jehochman and has some validity. WMC is convinced he is right, has a case for being right but we are all fed up with him for not backing down to avoid drama so we want some sort of loss of face by him. Also it is fun to see the mighty humiliated a bit. I am happy with that
Brave New World as long as we are all living by the same rules going forward. --
BozMo
talk 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross posted from
Fozzie talk page: Well dont look now, but he's unblocked without having agreed to not edit other's comments. I'm halfway thinking of bringing a new ANI requesting the community to support a restriction on him against editing other editors' comments in any wiki space other than archiving entire threads on his user page. There is really no question that is what was intended by his 6 month sanction that recently ended as well as the consensus obtained on the CC enforcement discussion that Wordsmith notified him about. What irks me is not so much thay the block is lifted for administrative minutiae, but because any other editor would have been handled differently and William himself thumbs his nose at process when it suits his agenda. (And please, let's not anyone pretend that this is not an agenda-driven efitor. ) To wit, summarily deleting comments from new users he doesnt like and tagging them as scibaby socks after a single edit -- without submitting any evidence at SPI, without a checkuser or any discussion whatsoever. It matters because one side's ideology is repressed without process and the other side is able to circumvent enforcement by relying on technical loopholes in process. Ive given only one small example, but it is much more pervasive. The overall effect does in fact affect the quality of the encyclopedia. The CC articles are a Wikipedia anathema in their nearly comic departure from NPOV. Allowing William to escape consequences while silencing and over enforcing actions against his would-be idealogical adversaries -- that is why we've had 5 years of extreme drama and now an ArbCom case that is frankly going to be hard pressed to do anything far reaching enough to improve the problems. Sorry for soapbox, but I hate to see Wiki gamed and manipulated for a net disastrous result. I wouldnt mind if the entire CC topic area were incubated and started anew. Minor 4th 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is all very reminiscent of your comments
earlier. Your comment regarding the treatment of Scibaby socks is quite mistaken, as is your rather naive suggestion that Scibaby is a victim of "oppression". Scibaby was an abusive sockpuppeteer well before he got banned (it's why he got banned in the first place). There is no "repression" in reverting edits from a banned editor who is, as far as I know, the most prolific sockpuppeteer in the history of Wikipedia. Banned editors are not allowed to edit, period, and Scibaby is fairly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. Considering the number of socks he's used, the false positive rate has been remarkably low. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um....I never said Scibaby was a victim of oppression, and I dont have any clue who that is or how disruptive he was and have never passed judgment on sanctions against him. However, your argument that false positives are low is absurd since editors are blocked after one post without an SPI, without a checkuser and without any discussion other than an edit summary: "rv scibaby sock". If he's so easy to spot and your criteria for spotting him are so dead on accurate, please indicate the criteria that led to your three most recent reversions of non-IP scibaby socks. And why is TheNeutralityDoctor still blocked when it's now been demonstrated after CU that he is not a sock of GoRight? If William should be unblocked for failure of process, why should TND not also be unblocked, and please dont reply with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because the precise issue is the disparity of treatment between holders of differing ideologies.
Minor
4th 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't start another ANI discussion. There is an active arbitration case, which will deal with all this. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Scotty - I'm not going to start an ANI. I'll wait for Arb to do their thing, which hopefully wont take much longer. And sorry for inadvertently deleting your comments earlier. I think it was an edit conflict glitch - very much unintended.
Minor
4th 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think that's a good idea (not bringing to ANI}. Yes, I can see how the edit conflict interface, which has always perplexed me, could have led to that accident. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- BTW thanks for reminding me of my early comments before I ever edited in this area. Now that I have experience in this area, I stand by my early comments although i might have stated it differently. Minor 4th 19:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um....I never said Scibaby was a victim of oppression, and I dont have any clue who that is or how disruptive he was and have never passed judgment on sanctions against him. However, your argument that false positives are low is absurd since editors are blocked after one post without an SPI, without a checkuser and without any discussion other than an edit summary: "rv scibaby sock". If he's so easy to spot and your criteria for spotting him are so dead on accurate, please indicate the criteria that led to your three most recent reversions of non-IP scibaby socks. And why is TheNeutralityDoctor still blocked when it's now been demonstrated after CU that he is not a sock of GoRight? If William should be unblocked for failure of process, why should TND not also be unblocked, and please dont reply with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because the precise issue is the disparity of treatment between holders of differing ideologies.
Minor
4th 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
From this and other cases I've observed on Wikipedia over the years I've been active here, my advice would be this comment I posted on AN/I yesterday:
Sandstein wote: "...if one disagrees with a sanction, the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus to change the sanction first...". Which is true in general, but we have two consider that typically the editor one would be dealing with is not the best editor when it comes to sticking to some particular rules, otherwise he/she would not have been restricted in the first place. Also, for the same reason, typically the editor doesn't readily do as he/she is told, will tend to question any demands made etc. etc.. Given that this will be the profile of the editor, one has to make sure that the restriction is not any more provocative as is necessary to deal with the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To NW, it's better not to ask that question (minutia) in this case where other factors are at play. The answer really lies with the community rather than AC. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the official spot to discuss this matter of import. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you link to where Polargeo gives his side of the story or where you asked him to do so?
Cla68 (
talk) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is right at the bottom of the discussion I linked to. I should have notified him of the discussion I started, but I was too damn mad at him to trust myself to put a thing on his talk page. And I knew he'd find out about the discussion anyway. If only by following my contributions the way he found the article I'd created. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo's explanation. IMO, he gives his side, then takes a passive aggressive swipe at John, for whatever that's worth. Cla68 ( talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is right at the bottom of the discussion I linked to. I should have notified him of the discussion I started, but I was too damn mad at him to trust myself to put a thing on his talk page. And I knew he'd find out about the discussion anyway. If only by following my contributions the way he found the article I'd created. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever his reason for editing the article in the first place, Polargeo doesn't usually make the same mistake twice when called on it. Except for that uninvolved-admin section business, but he wasn't alone then. Let's just remind him to read the whole article before messing with the introduction and leave it at that. Both editors involved need to calm down somewhat. Weakopedia ( talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The proposed decision was announced to be about 12 hours away. Now this is in the Arbitrator's rest frame. In our frame, 33 days have passed since it was announced that the decision was 48 hours away. So, we can conclude that 36 hours in the Arbitrator's frame corresponds to 33 days in our frame. So, we have to wait 11 more days. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It will be up before I go to bed tonight, probably around 0500 UTC. Risker ( talk) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Will the arbitrators actually read the comments being made at the proposed decision? Because I can't see any indication that the arbitrators took the Evidence and Workshop pages into account when formulating the PD. The PD in its current form could easily have been put together before the case even started, saving everybody a lot of trouble and acrimony. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion should really be taking place at the proposed decision talk page. If too much of the discussion spills over here, it may be necessary to put a redirect here to ensure all discussion gets centralised in the right place - not all arbitrators are watching this page. But to answer Short Brigade Harvester Boris here, I am following the proposed decision talk page and have been reading nearly all the comments made so far. Clearly, with the volume of commentary so far, it is not practical to reply to everything that is said there (please, please bear that in mind when criticising arbs for not replying to a question you personally have posed), but I do intend to comment at some point on as much as I can, and suggest modification to the proposed decision where I agree with the points being made. I had intended to comment there tonight, but had other matters to deal with first. I will aim to comment there tomorrow (Tuesday). Carcharoth ( talk) 02:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay thank you both for answering. I asked this question because I thought everyone yelling "rush rush rush" in the interim period might have carried over to this segment of the process. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) — General discussion ( Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Rlevse ( Talk) & Risker ( Talk) |
Guidelines: This page is for discussion of the questions and answers posted on the general discussion page. Please link the discussions to and from the front page sections using the appropriate links, as is done at the arbitration noticeboard. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion takes place here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the example question is somewhat lacking in explicatory power... should the question be the heading? Or the number? Perhaps an actual question should be used as an example. Perhaps try putting one of the ones submitted into the desired format. ++
Lar:
t/
c 02:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't wish to speak for Carcharoth, but I feel confident that you can use a general topic as a header, as you would elsewhere. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Nevertheless the example is flawed. Making it more concrete would help. Or, if the two questions now submitted are not done correctly, correcting them would help. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully it is correct now. Anyway, since there are real questions there now, I suppose there is less need for an example. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Nevertheless the example is flawed. Making it more concrete would help. Or, if the two questions now submitted are not done correctly, correcting them would help. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't wish to speak for Carcharoth, but I feel confident that you can use a general topic as a header, as you would elsewhere. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion: Please clarify the purpose of this page and the types of questions that are appropriate. Also, the language about retrieving archived questions, etc. was not entirely clear. Thank you. Minor 4th 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring there to the last three sections of
this page. Those discussions were still active when I archived them, so I am saying continue those discussions here if needed.
Carcharoth (
talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to elaborate on the mechanism for archiving questions once "answered", including how to tell that something is actually answered or not. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Let's keep it simple. If an arbitrator or clerk has posted an answer, the question has been answered and you are free to ask another question. If, on the other hand, discussion is still going on here on this page, then getting an answer to subsequent questions may take longer. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to elaborate on the mechanism for archiving questions once "answered", including how to tell that something is actually answered or not. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The answer given sort of implies that someone ought to ask 'what findings are being contemplated' :) ++ Lar: t/ c 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Principles, first, actually. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the principles up there early on to be discussed as the principles shape a case while the findings focus it and the remedies are the business end of a case, but different drafting arbitrators do things different ways. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume this means that we're still not very close to a decision. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the drafting arbitrators don't post an update, I will try and post an idea this weekend of what progress has been made. Activity is lower during the week. But it really is best to make sure something usuable is posted in a complex case like this, rather than hurrying it. Robust discussion will result in any case, but the drafting arbitrators will want to post something they are happy with, so please do be patient. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC) And that should have been a separate question!
- I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. There have been requests pending in some cases since May. Obviously the people making the requests thought they were urgent. With no specific answer to them (not even a rejection) who is to say a particular motion was or wasn't urgent. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could point to the ones you are thinking of, that would help.
Carcharoth (
talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- For starters there's the original request of a resolution of who is involved and who isn't. That was a separate case. Arbs commented, and in some cases gave pretty clear direction in my view, but that clear direction hasn't been accepted. Getting an early resolution of that question would help. It's been on the table at least since May. Then there's the interim motion request put forward by Polargeo and myself more recently. ++
Lar:
t/
c 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could give actual links and diffs, that would really help. At the moment, progress is being made on the proposed decision, so I don't think it would help to bring that to a halt to consider such motions, but if you consolidate what you think is most urgent, I'll have a look, but as I said, links are needed. If the collapsed nature of the workshop page is hindering linking to stuff, please ask a clerk to fix that. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- For starters there's the original request of a resolution of who is involved and who isn't. That was a separate case. Arbs commented, and in some cases gave pretty clear direction in my view, but that clear direction hasn't been accepted. Getting an early resolution of that question would help. It's been on the table at least since May. Then there's the interim motion request put forward by Polargeo and myself more recently. ++
Lar:
t/
c 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you could point to the ones you are thinking of, that would help.
Carcharoth (
talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. There have been requests pending in some cases since May. Obviously the people making the requests thought they were urgent. With no specific answer to them (not even a rejection) who is to say a particular motion was or wasn't urgent. ++
Lar:
t/
c 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Several interim motions, clarifying questions and requests for temporary injunctions have been made - I've lost track. Where are these things? William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most would be on the Workshop. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only see three motions and one temporary injunction there. The injunction was withdrawn, and all of the motions received what appears to be appropriate consideration. As for 'clarifying questions' - they're all over the place. Some answered, some ignored, some superseded by subsequent events. I'm guessing that anyone who still wants an answer should bring it here?
Guettarda (
talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they should. I am going to post a question on the front page here asking what people want to be done with the workshop as it stands, as I'm proposing to archive it (and its talk page) in preparation for workshopping of the proposed decision. It would also help to lay out a few ground rules for discussion of the proposed decision to help those participating in the case, and the arbs and clerks, to keep on top of things when discussion does start. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only see three motions and one temporary injunction there. The injunction was withdrawn, and all of the motions received what appears to be appropriate consideration. As for 'clarifying questions' - they're all over the place. Some answered, some ignored, some superseded by subsequent events. I'm guessing that anyone who still wants an answer should bring it here?
Guettarda (
talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts are that the existing workshop and its talk page should be archived and the existing workshop page set up in readiness for discussion of the proposed decision. While waiting for the proposed decision, the workshop talk page should be used to discuss how to discuss the proposed decision (i.e. how to keep things under reasonable control while still encouraging strong and constructive discussion). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to get discussion started on this, as a proposed decision may be arriving soon. What would help is people considering how to discuss the decision in such a way that arbitrators are not overwhelmed by the volume of comments. My thoughts are that while the proposed decision may end up being posted to the proposed decision page, voting should most certainly not take place until there has been ample opportunity for the decision to be discussed by those participating in the case (I intend to allow at least a whole week of discussion before I vote on the proposed decision, though I may vote on the principles earlier). Some elements of the decision will need to be discussed on the workshop page (which will need to be reopened or a new page set up), and there needs to be a space where those named in the findings can talk direct to the arbitrators on-wiki without too much associated noise from other editors. But to really prepare properly for discussion of the proposed decision, people need to give their thoughts here on how best to handle this. Ideas on how to handle high-volume discussions would be particularly appreciated. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps, just to keep things orderly, each person wishing to comment can have his own section "View of editor X," which can be subdivided into subsection: "General view," "Sanctions on User Y," "Omissions," etc. etc.? ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- That has the disadvantage that comments on the same topic are spread all over the page. The workshop format where people comment on the actual proposals, is better, in my view. But as well as "comments by arbitrators" and "comments by parties" and "comments by others", I would add a section specifically for those named in a finding to add their views. The disadvantage (and advantage) of the workshop format is that it discourages threaded discussion, which when there are large numbers commenting can quickly get out of hand. I would use a workshop format but have a section for substantive comments (i.e. well-formed statements) rather than back-and-forth discussions, and push the discussion off into a separate "discussion" section for each proposal, with the clerks stepping in if discussion goes off-topic or gets too long. The absolute key is to realise that excessive posting will just result in the noise being filtered out consciously or subconsciously by arbitrators. It is far better to focus on key points and get those sorted out, rather then try and comment on everything. Carcharoth ( talk)
- Point taken, but I think there needs to be a space where people can comment more generally, or on supposed omissions. Suggestion: "parties" should be defined as those specifically named in that portion of the decision, or perhaps another word can be used. ScottyBerg ( talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the issue with the potential workshopping is size/manageability of the page, what's wrong with creating a new (sub)page solely for workshopping PD, gathering comments, etc. and transcluding it on the main workshop? Rather than cleaning off the current page (to which the old material must eventually be returned) a new page could function as a temporary "section" for ease of use, and would force everyone to keep the blinders on having moved past the first round. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- At this stage, I am thinking that the proposed decision talk page should be set up in a structured way to receive comments. What I propose is four main sections: (1) Statements on principles; (2) Statements on findings; (3) Statements on remedies and enforcements; (4) Discussion. Threaded discussion will happen in the discussion section, but each of the three 'statement' sections (no threaded discussion) will be subdivided into: (i) named editors (those named in the proposed decision); (ii) arbitrators; (iii) others, and each person posting (including arbitrators) will be limited to a single statement of reasonable length (probably the same length as at RFAR). This is so that people focus their statements on the key issues. Everything else can be dealt with in the discussion section, which will function like a normal talk page with sections that will hopefully stay on-topic. Possibly the 'statements' bit will be transcluded from another page. People who fail to make statements will risk their comments getting lost in the noise of discussion. The aim is for the statements to be the well-thought out bits that need to stand out from the noise, and the discussion section will be where (within reason) vigorous debate can take place, with clerks to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I will co-ordinate this with other arbitrators and the case clerks, but any objections to this should be noted here within the next 12 hours. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the issue with the potential workshopping is size/manageability of the page, what's wrong with creating a new (sub)page solely for workshopping PD, gathering comments, etc. and transcluding it on the main workshop? Rather than cleaning off the current page (to which the old material must eventually be returned) a new page could function as a temporary "section" for ease of use, and would force everyone to keep the blinders on having moved past the first round. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not to beat a dead horse, but checkuser, checkuser and checkuser. Just indefing any long-term sockers (e.g. Ratel) in the area could greatly reduce drama and maybe even the need for significant ArbCom action. I'd be willing to construct a list (privately of course) of people on both sides that may be socking and should definitely be checkusered, but ideally everyone active should probably be checkusered. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, I haven't read it, but I've noticed that sockmasters tend to have a certain personality - a personality-type that is common in the area and yet they haven't been checked for the obvious. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:CheckUser#.22Fishing.22... NW ( Talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing."
- It looks to me like you could use it for any of those activities even if you didn't want to check for socks. Besides, can't ArbCom just go ahead and decide to do it under these special circumstances? Honestly, we have editors who've been extremely "dedicated" for nearly a decade, we have admitted and caught sockmasters who are still editing and editors who've said that "billions" will die - they are obviously quite the motivated bunch. It would be silly not to check them because I can pretty much guarantee that if they aren't socking already (unlikely) that they'll start doing it if any major sanctions are applied to them - probably with accounts made leading up to or during the ArbCom case.
TheGoodLocust (
talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you file an
SPI case, then a checkuser will review it, and perform checks if necessary and justified. Alternatively you may contact ArbCom directly, but they will probably be slower than filing an SPI. --
Deskana
(talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is rather impractical to file 10-15 checkusers. All I'm saying is that some people are asking to be indeffed so badly that it is obvious that don't really care if that particular account is banned - they seem to want to take a few people with them. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you file an
SPI case, then a checkuser will review it, and perform checks if necessary and justified. Alternatively you may contact ArbCom directly, but they will probably be slower than filing an SPI. --
Deskana
(talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you could use it for any of those activities even if you didn't want to check for socks. Besides, can't ArbCom just go ahead and decide to do it under these special circumstances? Honestly, we have editors who've been extremely "dedicated" for nearly a decade, we have admitted and caught sockmasters who are still editing and editors who've said that "billions" will die - they are obviously quite the motivated bunch. It would be silly not to check them because I can pretty much guarantee that if they aren't socking already (unlikely) that they'll start doing it if any major sanctions are applied to them - probably with accounts made leading up to or during the ArbCom case.
TheGoodLocust (
talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me if I've got this completely wrong, but isn't it standard practice to conduct checkuser matches on all significant parties to arbitration? Tasty monster (= TS ) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If not, it's a good idea. If they haven't done it already, I hope the Committee will checkuser everybody mentioned in connection with this case, including me.
Cla68 (
talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably a good idea, but I'm not sure if the privacy policy allows such a thing. "Investigate legitimate concerns" and "Limit disruption of potential disruption" are intentionally vague statements, yes, but to me, that violates the spirit if not the letter of the privacy policy. I think users should be able to operate under the assumption that their access logs won't be checked unless there is a bit more than a vague suspicion that they are violating the rules; there should be some evidence. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with being checkusered should any functionary wish to do so. NW ( Talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Across-the-board checkusering without regard to the case at hand should indeed be a violation of the privacy policy. In places where it is a relevant issue, I'm sure checking is done as deemed necessary by the Committee, but checkuser isn't pixie dust to throw at everything hoping something good bounces back. Like everywhere else, presenting evidence and making a compelling case are the norm. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Six-step Program
- Violate sanction in the most drama-producingly ridiculous way possible
- Cry foul and declare victimhood w/ help from friends
- Get entire sanction thrown out
- Return to original and truly disruptive behavior
- Get sanctioned for such behavior
- Goto Step 1
- Any questions? Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment below was moved from the front page and added here (where discussion takes place):
All WMC had to do was to say "yes, I'd be willing to hold off inserting my comments into other people's text while we get this reviewed", and this wouldn't have happened. In fact, if he said it now (no apologies, no mea culpas, etcetera), I'd be the first one in line to unblock him myself. While I cannot speak for any of the drafting arbitrators, if they can fit it in, perhaps we can explicitly review that specific climate change sanction as part of the PD? But the impetus in this slow motion train wreck was WMC's rejection of the sanction, and the affect it had on everyone else. I reduced the block and re-enabled his right to edit his talk page in hopes of defusing this, to snuff out the fuse. His decision was to re-light the fuse. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please keep discussion here, thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly what is the right way to handle something like this? WMC's behavior is so provocative that it is disruptive even though the content of the encyclopedia is not affected -- but it couldnt be disruptive without others rising to the provocation. But when is enough enough? If the whole community would ignore it, then he would either stop it or escalate it to something significant enough that his supporters would have no purchase to cry foul. But the whole community will not ignore his provocative taunts and flaunts -- that's just not ever going to happen. Plus, "justice" is such a big thing on Wiki that it creates a real morale problem when an editor is treated as something special and is held to a different standard of behavior (at least in part because his own behavior is so bad that it inhibits enforcement). When you look at the time wasted by scores of editors every time something like this happens, eventually I think it's useful to weigh the cumulative effect, rather than focusing solely on the isolated incident which may seem minor. You also have to try to predict the longer term consequences of any action or failure to act. I would really like to hear other editors' views on this because this is something the community is going to be faced with again, and it would be most helpful if the community has some idea what the general thinking about this is in advance. Minor 4th 04:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, honestly, there's several things that need to be considered. General Sanctions have never been applied at the ArbCom level. The text of the General Sanction states that such actions are not to be overturned without consensus or arbcom ok.. does that have the same absolute privilege as ArbCom enforcement (ie, reverse one without either consensus or ArbCom ok and you're probably going to lose your mop)? There's a lot of grey area here, and the fact that we're in the middle of a very long running dispute (and arbcom case) makes the tempers hot. Also, once this case works its way to the finish line, will the General Sanctions be needed any further? I know that in the months after the Obama articles case, the Obama Articles GS board faded into disuse. Something that the parties (and the Arbitrators) probably will be well served to keep in mind....
- Also, I can certainly understand that it would be problematic for WMC to be blocked when the PD is posted and not be able to comment/participate in the discussion. I would not be philosophically opposed to WMC being unblocked solely for participation in this case. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
| Obama comparison - read if you want, but it is a bit of an aside - Wikidemon ( talk) 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I've put down my thoughts on these developments at ANI, discussing the effect on smooth functioning of the project. WMC's actions have been consistent with the sanctions as he sees them, and there's been a lack of clarification as to whether or not his view is correct. His behaviour has certainly been provoked by those ready to jump at the chance to remove him from editing, and repeated disruption has been csused by scores of editors wasting time dealing with such provocations. The actions of the blocking admins have been justified by thoughtful community support, and I don't go against that, but the wider circumstances and effects should be considered.
- @ SirFozzie, your comment about "All WMC had to do was to say..." is very reasonable, your block notice wasn't so explicit. It might have helped if you had emphasised "no apologies, no mea culpas, etcetera", but I must agree that WMC lit the fuse and your action
is fullywas arguably justifiable. However, a shorter block rather than an indef block might have sent a better message. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC) sef-revised 07:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)-
This summary has been offered by Jehochman and has some validity. WMC is convinced he is right, has a case for being right but we are all fed up with him for not backing down to avoid drama so we want some sort of loss of face by him. Also it is fun to see the mighty humiliated a bit. I am happy with that
Brave New World as long as we are all living by the same rules going forward. --
BozMo
talk 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was away for a few days and I see things have gone completely berserk in my absence. My take on this is to have little or no sympathy for WMC, to be annoyed at/disgusted by his provocative conduct, but at the same time to feel that the penalty was grossly excessive. I have a question for Sir Fozzie: you have recused from this case. Can you please explain why you recused, and how that is consistent with your taking this action?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had recused because I was the target of a RfC (along with several others) filed by some people tangentially involved in this case a couple years ago, and also a couple years ago, I filed an Arbitration Committee case regarding an incident involving WMC, who was cautioned for misuse of his administrator tools. I recused over an excess of caution. Again, this is not indefinite as in forever. If WMC wishes to resume editing, all he has to do is say that he will not edit other people's comments while we get this whole thing settled, and the block will be lifted. Again, If I had any grudge against WMC, I would not have restored his block to the original settings (48 hours (with time served for about 30 of them), instead of a fresh 96 hour block, and re-enabled talk page access).
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that you should have recused from this mess too, again in an excess of caution. Making a controversial, indefinite block in a situation like this, in the midst of an arbcom case in which you've recused, just strikes me as wrong. I'm not defending WMC's conduct, which I see as inexplicable, but this really muddies the waters. Please reconsider. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um, SirFozzie, presumably you're also recused because you joined in with Lar, Cla, and that group in their previous campaign of harassment against many of the same editors involved in this case? I mean, it's the same core group of WR regulars attacking many of the same Wikipedia editors engaged in editing a science topic that has become controversial in a political (but not scientific) sphere. Given that Lar and Cla keep harping on that issue, the link seems pretty clear. Since you were an active member of that campaign, surely that alone is reason enough to recuse here? Guettarda ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a... er.. unique way of remembering it, Guettarda. That's all I say about that. If people want to overturn it after a discussion, fine by me. I just think it's a bad idea. The sanction itself was placed by seven un-involved administrators. Lar wasn't one of them. Cla wasn't one of them. So, why did seven uninvolved admins place WMC under that restriction? And no, the answer is not "WR Regulars are harassing us".
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's been unblocked. Acronym alert: can someone please define "WR Regular"?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- A member of Wikipedia discussion/review site
Wikipedia Review. WMC and some of the other people in this and related areas are/were frequently discussed there. As for the charges of conspiring with Lar/Cla et all, here's a link to my posts there.
[1].
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're not familiar with Wikipedia Review, btw, it's basically a kook hive where banned ex-editors and sundry obsessives pass the time fantasizing about how they are going to bring down Wikipedia and put Jimbo Wales behind bars. --
ChrisO (
talk)
- Except that a lot of well-reasoned editors also use it. Yes, you have to take some of the things said there with a grain of salt the size of a boulder, but there have been and will be times where they are right. Several arbitrators and many administrators have accounts there. But yes, you probably should have an ignore list for some of the folks there. :)
SirFozzie (
talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it's deeply regrettable that arbitrators and administrators should have accounts on a site run by individuals who use it for malicious purposes. If they get into the shark tank, they shouldn't be surprised if the sharks turn on them one day. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- People in authority in Wikipedia should restrict their comments to Wikipedia, when it concerns editors they deal with in their "official" capacity. Otherwise it gives the appearance of prejudice. I went to that site and noticed there was an active discussion on WMC's block in which Lar was participating. I don't think that's appropriate, no matter what he says and no matter what message board or newsgroup is the forum. It's like a judge discussing an active case with the media. This is all the kind of thing that erodes the confidence of ordinary editors in the impartiality of administrators and others with power. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think it's deeply regrettable that arbitrators and administrators should have accounts on a site run by individuals who use it for malicious purposes. If they get into the shark tank, they shouldn't be surprised if the sharks turn on them one day. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except that a lot of well-reasoned editors also use it. Yes, you have to take some of the things said there with a grain of salt the size of a boulder, but there have been and will be times where they are right. Several arbitrators and many administrators have accounts there. But yes, you probably should have an ignore list for some of the folks there. :)
SirFozzie (
talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're not familiar with Wikipedia Review, btw, it's basically a kook hive where banned ex-editors and sundry obsessives pass the time fantasizing about how they are going to bring down Wikipedia and put Jimbo Wales behind bars. --
ChrisO (
talk)
- A member of Wikipedia discussion/review site
Wikipedia Review. WMC and some of the other people in this and related areas are/were frequently discussed there. As for the charges of conspiring with Lar/Cla et all, here's a link to my posts there.
[1].
SirFozzie (
talk) 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's been unblocked. Acronym alert: can someone please define "WR Regular"?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had recused because I was the target of a RfC (along with several others) filed by some people tangentially involved in this case a couple years ago, and also a couple years ago, I filed an Arbitration Committee case regarding an incident involving WMC, who was cautioned for misuse of his administrator tools. I recused over an excess of caution. Again, this is not indefinite as in forever. If WMC wishes to resume editing, all he has to do is say that he will not edit other people's comments while we get this whole thing settled, and the block will be lifted. Again, If I had any grudge against WMC, I would not have restored his block to the original settings (48 hours (with time served for about 30 of them), instead of a fresh 96 hour block, and re-enabled talk page access).
SirFozzie (
talk) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was away for a few days and I see things have gone completely berserk in my absence. My take on this is to have little or no sympathy for WMC, to be annoyed at/disgusted by his provocative conduct, but at the same time to feel that the penalty was grossly excessive. I have a question for Sir Fozzie: you have recused from this case. Can you please explain why you recused, and how that is consistent with your taking this action?
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
-
This summary has been offered by Jehochman and has some validity. WMC is convinced he is right, has a case for being right but we are all fed up with him for not backing down to avoid drama so we want some sort of loss of face by him. Also it is fun to see the mighty humiliated a bit. I am happy with that
Brave New World as long as we are all living by the same rules going forward. --
BozMo
talk 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross posted from
Fozzie talk page: Well dont look now, but he's unblocked without having agreed to not edit other's comments. I'm halfway thinking of bringing a new ANI requesting the community to support a restriction on him against editing other editors' comments in any wiki space other than archiving entire threads on his user page. There is really no question that is what was intended by his 6 month sanction that recently ended as well as the consensus obtained on the CC enforcement discussion that Wordsmith notified him about. What irks me is not so much thay the block is lifted for administrative minutiae, but because any other editor would have been handled differently and William himself thumbs his nose at process when it suits his agenda. (And please, let's not anyone pretend that this is not an agenda-driven efitor. ) To wit, summarily deleting comments from new users he doesnt like and tagging them as scibaby socks after a single edit -- without submitting any evidence at SPI, without a checkuser or any discussion whatsoever. It matters because one side's ideology is repressed without process and the other side is able to circumvent enforcement by relying on technical loopholes in process. Ive given only one small example, but it is much more pervasive. The overall effect does in fact affect the quality of the encyclopedia. The CC articles are a Wikipedia anathema in their nearly comic departure from NPOV. Allowing William to escape consequences while silencing and over enforcing actions against his would-be idealogical adversaries -- that is why we've had 5 years of extreme drama and now an ArbCom case that is frankly going to be hard pressed to do anything far reaching enough to improve the problems. Sorry for soapbox, but I hate to see Wiki gamed and manipulated for a net disastrous result. I wouldnt mind if the entire CC topic area were incubated and started anew. Minor 4th 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is all very reminiscent of your comments
earlier. Your comment regarding the treatment of Scibaby socks is quite mistaken, as is your rather naive suggestion that Scibaby is a victim of "oppression". Scibaby was an abusive sockpuppeteer well before he got banned (it's why he got banned in the first place). There is no "repression" in reverting edits from a banned editor who is, as far as I know, the most prolific sockpuppeteer in the history of Wikipedia. Banned editors are not allowed to edit, period, and Scibaby is fairly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. Considering the number of socks he's used, the false positive rate has been remarkably low. --
ChrisO (
talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um....I never said Scibaby was a victim of oppression, and I dont have any clue who that is or how disruptive he was and have never passed judgment on sanctions against him. However, your argument that false positives are low is absurd since editors are blocked after one post without an SPI, without a checkuser and without any discussion other than an edit summary: "rv scibaby sock". If he's so easy to spot and your criteria for spotting him are so dead on accurate, please indicate the criteria that led to your three most recent reversions of non-IP scibaby socks. And why is TheNeutralityDoctor still blocked when it's now been demonstrated after CU that he is not a sock of GoRight? If William should be unblocked for failure of process, why should TND not also be unblocked, and please dont reply with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because the precise issue is the disparity of treatment between holders of differing ideologies.
Minor
4th 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't start another ANI discussion. There is an active arbitration case, which will deal with all this. ScottyBerg ( talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Scotty - I'm not going to start an ANI. I'll wait for Arb to do their thing, which hopefully wont take much longer. And sorry for inadvertently deleting your comments earlier. I think it was an edit conflict glitch - very much unintended.
Minor
4th 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think that's a good idea (not bringing to ANI}. Yes, I can see how the edit conflict interface, which has always perplexed me, could have led to that accident. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- BTW thanks for reminding me of my early comments before I ever edited in this area. Now that I have experience in this area, I stand by my early comments although i might have stated it differently. Minor 4th 19:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Um....I never said Scibaby was a victim of oppression, and I dont have any clue who that is or how disruptive he was and have never passed judgment on sanctions against him. However, your argument that false positives are low is absurd since editors are blocked after one post without an SPI, without a checkuser and without any discussion other than an edit summary: "rv scibaby sock". If he's so easy to spot and your criteria for spotting him are so dead on accurate, please indicate the criteria that led to your three most recent reversions of non-IP scibaby socks. And why is TheNeutralityDoctor still blocked when it's now been demonstrated after CU that he is not a sock of GoRight? If William should be unblocked for failure of process, why should TND not also be unblocked, and please dont reply with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because the precise issue is the disparity of treatment between holders of differing ideologies.
Minor
4th 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
From this and other cases I've observed on Wikipedia over the years I've been active here, my advice would be this comment I posted on AN/I yesterday:
Sandstein wote: "...if one disagrees with a sanction, the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus to change the sanction first...". Which is true in general, but we have two consider that typically the editor one would be dealing with is not the best editor when it comes to sticking to some particular rules, otherwise he/she would not have been restricted in the first place. Also, for the same reason, typically the editor doesn't readily do as he/she is told, will tend to question any demands made etc. etc.. Given that this will be the profile of the editor, one has to make sure that the restriction is not any more provocative as is necessary to deal with the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To NW, it's better not to ask that question (minutia) in this case where other factors are at play. The answer really lies with the community rather than AC. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the official spot to discuss this matter of import. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you link to where Polargeo gives his side of the story or where you asked him to do so?
Cla68 (
talk) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is right at the bottom of the discussion I linked to. I should have notified him of the discussion I started, but I was too damn mad at him to trust myself to put a thing on his talk page. And I knew he'd find out about the discussion anyway. If only by following my contributions the way he found the article I'd created. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo's explanation. IMO, he gives his side, then takes a passive aggressive swipe at John, for whatever that's worth. Cla68 ( talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is right at the bottom of the discussion I linked to. I should have notified him of the discussion I started, but I was too damn mad at him to trust myself to put a thing on his talk page. And I knew he'd find out about the discussion anyway. If only by following my contributions the way he found the article I'd created. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever his reason for editing the article in the first place, Polargeo doesn't usually make the same mistake twice when called on it. Except for that uninvolved-admin section business, but he wasn't alone then. Let's just remind him to read the whole article before messing with the introduction and leave it at that. Both editors involved need to calm down somewhat. Weakopedia ( talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The proposed decision was announced to be about 12 hours away. Now this is in the Arbitrator's rest frame. In our frame, 33 days have passed since it was announced that the decision was 48 hours away. So, we can conclude that 36 hours in the Arbitrator's frame corresponds to 33 days in our frame. So, we have to wait 11 more days. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It will be up before I go to bed tonight, probably around 0500 UTC. Risker ( talk) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Will the arbitrators actually read the comments being made at the proposed decision? Because I can't see any indication that the arbitrators took the Evidence and Workshop pages into account when formulating the PD. The PD in its current form could easily have been put together before the case even started, saving everybody a lot of trouble and acrimony. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion should really be taking place at the proposed decision talk page. If too much of the discussion spills over here, it may be necessary to put a redirect here to ensure all discussion gets centralised in the right place - not all arbitrators are watching this page. But to answer Short Brigade Harvester Boris here, I am following the proposed decision talk page and have been reading nearly all the comments made so far. Clearly, with the volume of commentary so far, it is not practical to reply to everything that is said there (please, please bear that in mind when criticising arbs for not replying to a question you personally have posed), but I do intend to comment at some point on as much as I can, and suggest modification to the proposed decision where I agree with the points being made. I had intended to comment there tonight, but had other matters to deal with first. I will aim to comment there tomorrow (Tuesday). Carcharoth ( talk) 02:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay thank you both for answering. I asked this question because I thought everyone yelling "rush rush rush" in the interim period might have carried over to this segment of the process. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)