| Revision as of 19:34, 1 April 2011 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:22, 1 April 2011 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →unclear standard: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| ::::::::@ Ludwigs, a burr in your saddle? Are you feeling a little hoarse? . . ], ] 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | ::::::::@ Ludwigs, a burr in your saddle? Are you feeling a little hoarse? . . ], ] 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::Nah, just tired of people trying to cow me. {{=)|wink}} --] 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | :::::::::Nah, just tired of people trying to cow me. {{=)|wink}} --] 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Ludwigs, I didn't say that you cannot respond to Mathsci. I said that discussion of ''Race and intelligence'' is off-limits. You are free to respond to his proposals. Just don't make those responses personal. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Those ]... == | == Those ]... == | ||
Revision as of 20:22, 1 April 2011
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I still think this needs airing
Originally posted on User talk:WJBscribe, with the section title "Get my position straight before you attack it"
I'd appreciate, next time, that you discuss things with me before you misconstrue my position. That I have expressed no small amount of frustration and a few choice words for the vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread is unrelated to the merit of the desysop. If you had taken the time to actually read what I'v been saying — or took a moment of your time to check on the facts — you would have known that I came down hard on that thread because it had nothing to do with the merits of the desysop and everything to do with process wonkery. — Coren 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should read some of what you've been posting lately and think about how it looks to a detached third party. You sound extremely angry and tense. If that's the case, take a step back - "vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread" is a ridiculous comment and unworthy of you. A number of well respected contributors expressed their concerns about a decision. Instead of calmly engaging in the discussion, you fanned the flame. Your posts stand out in that thread as having added a lot more heat than light and yet you are the one to archive it "with extreme prejudice"?
Your hostility here only reinforces my concern that you (and maybe some of your colleagues) have taken very entrenched views on this matter. Please think about recusing - let cooler heads deal with this. I post infrequently these days, maybe you should give some thought to why I thought your comments sufficiently worrying that I wanted to speak up. WJBscribe (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)- You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.
I'm entirely willing to extend a vast amount of agf your way — I'm pretty damn sure that you did this infrequent post because you are, somehow, convinced that Rod got a raw deal. I can guarantee that out of all the "concerns" expressed about the decision on the AC/N thread, maybe one in ten actually cared one whit about Rod at all. Of those, maybe one or two actually had enough information about the actual situation to make a mistaken guess about the rest.
We did everything we could to prevent Rod from being drawn into more crap then he could handle, but there is only so much we can do to protect someone when the mob pounces on the opportunity to sacrifice them on the public square for a shot at the Evul Arbcomz. Rod is getting a raw deal: he's being used by the community as a weapon against the committee, and he's going to end up being the only one paying the price for the "community"'s desire for blood. — Coren 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. NW (Talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem isn't it? I actually know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I know that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be nothing gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been in a manner unconnected to Rod — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.
How else am I supposed to interpret this? We've unanimously been trying to tell you that Rod — and only Rod — will be harmed by exposing this. And yet, despite our repeated warnings and invitation to continue the discussion about the general process elsewhere and in another context, some people insisted that Rod should be hung out to dry in order to — I don't know — "expose Arbcom"? Punish it?
If that's not it, then please explain it to me; because right now it looks like either you (collectively) don't care one bit about Rod if it means scoring some points against the committee; or that you honestly believe that all 18 of us are lying bastards. — Coren 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem isn't it? I actually know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I know that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be nothing gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been in a manner unconnected to Rod — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.
- The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. NW (Talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.
I've taken the time to copy this here since you (understandably) don't necessarily follow a conversation on someone else's talk page and it's better to not clutter someone else's talk page. My question above is sincere, and I really want to hear what you need to say on the subject. For what it's worth, the situation has obviously (and predictably) deteriorated since, and in retrospect it now seems that no amount of discretion could have avoided it. But surely you can understand how things might look from this side of the screen? — Coren 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I somehow missed your reply on my watchlist. My bad.
- Let's look at how this appeared from Rod's end, shall we? He received an email from Roger Davies asking him to contact the Committee. He responded and got no real response, besides another note from Elen of the Roads asking if he received Roger's email. He responded to that too, saying that he had not received any specifics from Rod and as such, could not really respond to anything yet. Roger finally emailed him again and (summarizing) said the following: You're a good contributor. However, we have identified four issues of concern with you. Therefore, we have collectively decided to desysop you. If you want, you can voluntarily resign (under a cloud), but otherwise, please refrain from using your tools until we actually get around to going to m:SRP. Actually, at this point I think it would be important to quote from Roger's decision: "I'm sorry to say that we've now reached a point where the clear consensus is for you to be desysopped by motion and perhaps also subject to an interaction restriction with Malleus Fatuorum. However, the Committee is mindful of your long and dedicated service and has no intention of acting publicly in this matter unless it has no other alternative. A dignified and low-profile solution might be for you to resign your sysop bit voluntarily, with a note explaining that if you ever wish the tools to be returned you will do so via a fresh RfA." Nothing here indicates that this desyopping would be a temporary interim action pending full public review, as the ArbCom has tried to make it seem after-the-fact.
- Now, do I think that Rod's actions were perfect? Of course not. Do I think that he should have at least had the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations? Of course. In fact, immediately upon receiving that email, he replied to each of the four points that Roger cited against him. Of them, my analysis of the email would say that he would not really have been able to refute #1, but #2-4 were perfectly refuted, either because of lack of evidence cited or because they were simply wrong on your part. #1, edit warring over Clown, at the very maximum for any editor would have led to an interaction ban. The whole idea of punishment fitting the "crime" seems to have been ignored here.
- Now, that all addresses the facts of the underlying case. I mentioned Orangemarlin twice at WT:ACN, but I'm not sure if I made the connection clear enough. So let me go back and explain what I meant. From what I recall in the Orangemarlin "case", the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. A very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of allowing that editor to defend himself. I'm sure that you would agree that a ban and a desysop are both serious sanctions. I really cannot understand what has changed that would make the Committee think that something like this would be acceptable.
- Now, you want The Community™ to discuss the overreach issue with a matter unconnected to Rodhullandemu? I'm sorry, but how exactly do you propose we do that? I'm sorry to have to make this analogy, but if the ACLU thinks that murderers such as this guy doesn't just deserve to get the death penalty, it doesn't just lobby Congress to try to remove capital punishment, but it also takes the individual case to the Supreme Court. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, but it was the only real analogy I could think of.
- Do I think Rod would be hurt by a public exposure of your evidence? No. Do you know why? Because Jclemens said this: "A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop." So if all the evidence is public anyway, the harm it would have done by collating it all is outweighed by the harm you have done by chasing off a hard-working administrator as well the harm you collectively have done to the Committee's public support.
- Your question is do I understand how things look from your side of the screen? Yes. I accept that you and the rest of the Arbitrators were trying to act in the Community's best interest. But you have to understand how it looks from my perspective: "secret trials, protestations of "secret evidence" (soon contradicted by those same speakers), paternalist insistence that its "for your own good" despite your disagreement, etc" (Nathan). And to be honest, half of me thinks now that if I piss off people with the wrong friends, am I the next to be summarily desysopped without so much as a warning? NW (Talk) 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, as I expected, your position is very much consistent but based on partial information. For instance, you are seemingly quoting from forwarded email but obviously lack some context. Also, you are correct that the evidence to justify a desysop is public, but the reason to handle the matter discreetly was not — and it remains valid even with Rod having demanded a public case and will have to remain private even if it means that ArbCom needs to take the lumps on its reputation because much of the concerns we sought to address were in fact based on willful deception.
The committee will, of course, never publish email that was not agreed in advance could eventually be made public — to do so would destroy the inviolate expectation of privacy — but have you not wondered why Rod himself has not done so in a place where arbitrators could see and comment on whether what he published was accurate or complete?
Yeah, we've been had. We've been manipulated into a situation where we either act like bastards or look like bastards. We'll take the lumps, as usual, but you can't fault me for being more than a little frustrated at the situation. We're in a loose-loose situation, and the very people who are willing to crucify us for being so unfair are extending absolutely no good faith towards the actions of fifteen independent arbitrators, and it occurs to absolutely nobody that perhaps — just perhaps — we did the best that could be done under the circumstances and are neither evil nor incompetent? — Coren 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- And that's exactly the paternalistic attitude that invited the criticism in the first place: "Something is wrong with Rodhullandemu, we know what's best for him, and we aren't going to change our mind no matter what anyone says, even Rod himself."
Am I willing to extend good faith to the Arbitration Committee? Sometimes. You would notice that I didn't say anything in the David Gerard de-functionary-ing situation, because I knew you were working with him. But when you try to do your own thing without even the input of the editor involved? Sorry, but no. You have proven yourself to be incapable of trust in those situations in the past, and I don't see why that should miraculously change now.
You say that I obviously lack some context. That's fair, I only expected that. But what else do you want me to do? Did you even tell Rodhullandemu the real reason why he was being desysopped? Because right now, it really seems like you didn't. NW (Talk) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- We're just going 'round in circles, and it's evident that nothing can be said that can convince you that you might not have an accurate picture of the situation. Rather than argue endlessly, we should just end this now with no hard feelings. — Coren 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coren, I know I don't have a fully accurate picture of things. Could you answer those questions in my last paragraph? NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nuke, hopefully the pertinent questions will be addressed in the case; a couple of arbs are compiling a timeline that should hopefully make the timeframe a lot clearer. We didn't desysop Rod for any secret reason, and Level II procedures weren't a fig leaf applied ex post facto; using those procedures was discussed before Rod was contacted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- David, that's good to hear. The email from Roger Davies to Rodhullandemu, which admittedly does state that he is speaking on his own behalf but is written in such a way to as if he is speaking on the behalf of the Committee, makes no mention of such a thing, and neither does the originally passed motion. NW (Talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we've all realized that we didn't word the initial motion correctly and someone even pointed out that the Level II procedure itself uses "temporary" instead of "indefinite" which we use everywhere else on Misplaced Pages, so I think it's clear that we suck at copyediting. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "real" reason and that kind of concerns me - after being made aware of the problem, we reviewed Rod's contributions and had concerns, Elen's put together specific diffs which are now posted on the case and even Roger's email gave Rod a summary of those items. If you've been told there's some other reason behind it, you've been misinformed. Shell 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Roger's concerns were a full summary of what the Committee believed the whole problem is, that would be one thing. But I have read it, and I simply cannot believe that was the case. Half of the concerns you laid out were easily refutable. I simply cannot believe that such a thing is all it would take to get someone desysopped permanently. By that same logic that The Committee used in that email, I could probably get MastCell banned for POV pushing in medical articles combined with "obvious" bias in his administrative actions. NW (Talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we've all realized that we didn't word the initial motion correctly and someone even pointed out that the Level II procedure itself uses "temporary" instead of "indefinite" which we use everywhere else on Misplaced Pages, so I think it's clear that we suck at copyediting. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "real" reason and that kind of concerns me - after being made aware of the problem, we reviewed Rod's contributions and had concerns, Elen's put together specific diffs which are now posted on the case and even Roger's email gave Rod a summary of those items. If you've been told there's some other reason behind it, you've been misinformed. Shell 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- David, that's good to hear. The email from Roger Davies to Rodhullandemu, which admittedly does state that he is speaking on his own behalf but is written in such a way to as if he is speaking on the behalf of the Committee, makes no mention of such a thing, and neither does the originally passed motion. NW (Talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nuke, hopefully the pertinent questions will be addressed in the case; a couple of arbs are compiling a timeline that should hopefully make the timeframe a lot clearer. We didn't desysop Rod for any secret reason, and Level II procedures weren't a fig leaf applied ex post facto; using those procedures was discussed before Rod was contacted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Coren, I know I don't have a fully accurate picture of things. Could you answer those questions in my last paragraph? NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- We're just going 'round in circles, and it's evident that nothing can be said that can convince you that you might not have an accurate picture of the situation. Rather than argue endlessly, we should just end this now with no hard feelings. — Coren 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- And that's exactly the paternalistic attitude that invited the criticism in the first place: "Something is wrong with Rodhullandemu, we know what's best for him, and we aren't going to change our mind no matter what anyone says, even Rod himself."
- Well, as I expected, your position is very much consistent but based on partial information. For instance, you are seemingly quoting from forwarded email but obviously lack some context. Also, you are correct that the evidence to justify a desysop is public, but the reason to handle the matter discreetly was not — and it remains valid even with Rod having demanded a public case and will have to remain private even if it means that ArbCom needs to take the lumps on its reputation because much of the concerns we sought to address were in fact based on willful deception.
Hmm - have you had a moment to look over the evidence that was posted? Personally, bias had nothing to do with my feelings on the situation. Everyone is entitled to get frustrated or have a bad day, but really, I've got a hard time understanding using the block log to insult the size of someone's genitals or ethnicity. Instead of going on the email summary, which may or may not be the whole exchange, take a look at the diffs Elen put up and see if you still completely disagree. Shell 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you might have misunderstood what I meant to say about bias: if I were allowed to desysop someone with the level of evidence that was presented in the email to Rod, I could desysop an administrator like MastCell for (1) POV pushing and (2) bias.
Elen's evidence, I admit, is fairly convincing. Yet three things about it bother me: (1) I fail to see what the necessity to do things privately was, or the urgency to do things so quickly that Rod was not even given a chance to respond to the accusations before him. A WP:RFC/U, often a prerequisite in cases like this, was not opened. Indeed, I seem to remember a case where ArbCom referred the editor to RFC/U with the understanding that they would be desysopped if problems arose after that. (2) "Examine all parties" seems to have been tossed out the window here. Why? (3) I could easily think of 3-4 editors who speak in much the same tone as Rod and have simply not gotten the message after these long years. I'm sure you can think of whom I am referring to. Why go after Rod and not them? NW (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- One thing that might not have been well articulated here is that handling it privately was meant to be a courtesy, not secrecy. To use a real world analogy, if you screwed up at work, someone like your boss or HR might pull you into their office and offer you the chance to resign. It's something we'd do for any volunteer. We're all human beings here - we make mistakes, things in our life affect us and sometimes we just get burnt out dealing with the constant issues on the project. Nobody deserves to have their dirty laundry waved around in public and be subject to the drama that seems to come with it if there's another way to handle the issue.
You've suggested a few times that there was no chance to respond and all I can say is those comments suggest you don't have all of the emails related to this discussion. As for reviewing all parties, that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with, those avenues are still open. I agree that there are other editors whose comments have no place on Misplaced Pages and personally feel that it shouldn't be tolerated; unfortunately the community has persistently been divided about whether or not that situation even needs addressing. Shell 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that analogy is poor. A more proper one would be more that if you were a manager of a team in an organization and one day, a couple of Vice-Presidents stopped by to say "You're going to be publicly fired next week because of WXYZ; you can resign now if you want" and then left. But maybe I'm not fully aware of all the emails. I think I was, but I really don't think so.
"that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with" – Nothing was "brought to your attention" at all. The Committee chose to review this situation of its own volition and could have let the scope be anything it wanted. Elephant in the room: Why was Malleus' conduct not reviewed? NW (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm..again, I'd have to say if that's what analogy you think fits, it's really unlikely you've got the full sequence of emails and all of their contents. I really don't know what else to say about that, other than my analogy was the (or at least my) intention here and I believe the emails (in full) support that. I really wish I had a better answer than "well, take my word for it", but maybe it's possible to consider that one person who has all the emails might understandably be unhappy with the situation and may be legitimately explaining the way he feels about what happened.
I think if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted. Whether or not that will translate to anything during the case, I don't know. I don't think it's been brought up yet, but I can't imagine presenting evidence relating to those interactions would be an issue, though from what you're saying it might be best to look at Malleus' behavior separately, since you seem to be referring to more than just his discussions with Rod. Shell 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm..again, I'd have to say if that's what analogy you think fits, it's really unlikely you've got the full sequence of emails and all of their contents. I really don't know what else to say about that, other than my analogy was the (or at least my) intention here and I believe the emails (in full) support that. I really wish I had a better answer than "well, take my word for it", but maybe it's possible to consider that one person who has all the emails might understandably be unhappy with the situation and may be legitimately explaining the way he feels about what happened.
- I think that analogy is poor. A more proper one would be more that if you were a manager of a team in an organization and one day, a couple of Vice-Presidents stopped by to say "You're going to be publicly fired next week because of WXYZ; you can resign now if you want" and then left. But maybe I'm not fully aware of all the emails. I think I was, but I really don't think so.
- One thing that might not have been well articulated here is that handling it privately was meant to be a courtesy, not secrecy. To use a real world analogy, if you screwed up at work, someone like your boss or HR might pull you into their office and offer you the chance to resign. It's something we'd do for any volunteer. We're all human beings here - we make mistakes, things in our life affect us and sometimes we just get burnt out dealing with the constant issues on the project. Nobody deserves to have their dirty laundry waved around in public and be subject to the drama that seems to come with it if there's another way to handle the issue.
- I think this section needs to be linked to in the Evidence page, as there is information and discussion here that people need to see. And while it is rather old now, as a response to what Coren was saying at the beginning of this section, it seems to me that Rod is just as willing as anyone else to air this issue and doesn't seem to have any problem with there being a public case. Silverseren 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do. NW (Talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Making me do all the work. :P I suppose it was my idea. Fine, i'll go do it. Silverseren 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Silver seren, what I'm gathering from your comments is that you are more interested in reviewing the processes and procedures used by the Committee in coming to a decision to remove administrative privileges (as opposed to reaching a conclusion on the basic question as to whether administrative privileges should be removed in the first place). While a discussion about the process and procedure used here - and how to approach similar situations in the future - would be useful, I don't think that it is really within the scope of the Rodhullandemu case, and trying to shoehorn that discussion into the case would probably be distracting and detrimental to a proper examination of either. –xeno 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe that this case should have anything to do with Arbcom, which has shoehorned its way into control over what should happen to Rod, which has ultimately led to his retirement. This was never formally presented to Arbcom and is a situation that should have been dealt with by the community (and was being dealt with anyways, from what i've seen). If it was the community's decision to only create an interaction ban between Rod and Malleus, then that is the community's decision and Arbcom should not try to usurp that by utilizing procedures in a manner that they were never intended to be used. Especially when it seems that, to reverse Coren's analogy from the beginning of this section, Arbcom is the one that is out for blood by only targeting Rod and completely ignoring Malleus' actions in this situation that was just as bad, if not worse. Silverseren 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, a core duty of the Arbitration Committee is to "authorize expedient removal of permissions" in order to prevent harm to the project; this is something the community cannot do, for obvious reasons. –xeno 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that this is the first time that Level II Permissions have been used and the subsequent reaction by
the communityThe Community™, I think that says more than enough about said permissions. Silverseren 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)- I'm not so sure I would use the monolithic term "the community" - unless you truly believe that those commenting at WT:ACN and WP:A/R/C are a representative sample... In any case, this is something that will no doubt come up when the new Arbitration Policy is going through ratification. –xeno 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Come on now, Xeno. If more than five uninvolved senior administrators take major issue with your decision, it's fair to at least say that there is major dissent. NW (Talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are they taking issue with the decision, or the process? (I've already committed to examining the process with an eye to improving the handling of similar situations) And, even if they have an issue with the decision and/or the process, does that mean they have an issue with the Arbitration Committee's overall role in removing advanced privileges? In any case, these are questions that can't be adequately answered on your talk page, and please accept my apologies for taking up a seat here =). –xeno 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Come on now, Xeno. If more than five uninvolved senior administrators take major issue with your decision, it's fair to at least say that there is major dissent. NW (Talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure I would use the monolithic term "the community" - unless you truly believe that those commenting at WT:ACN and WP:A/R/C are a representative sample... In any case, this is something that will no doubt come up when the new Arbitration Policy is going through ratification. –xeno 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that this is the first time that Level II Permissions have been used and the subsequent reaction by
- On the contrary, a core duty of the Arbitration Committee is to "authorize expedient removal of permissions" in order to prevent harm to the project; this is something the community cannot do, for obvious reasons. –xeno 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have already drafted the evidence section and I am going to submit it now. Silverseren 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe that this case should have anything to do with Arbcom, which has shoehorned its way into control over what should happen to Rod, which has ultimately led to his retirement. This was never formally presented to Arbcom and is a situation that should have been dealt with by the community (and was being dealt with anyways, from what i've seen). If it was the community's decision to only create an interaction ban between Rod and Malleus, then that is the community's decision and Arbcom should not try to usurp that by utilizing procedures in a manner that they were never intended to be used. Especially when it seems that, to reverse Coren's analogy from the beginning of this section, Arbcom is the one that is out for blood by only targeting Rod and completely ignoring Malleus' actions in this situation that was just as bad, if not worse. Silverseren 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Silver seren, what I'm gathering from your comments is that you are more interested in reviewing the processes and procedures used by the Committee in coming to a decision to remove administrative privileges (as opposed to reaching a conclusion on the basic question as to whether administrative privileges should be removed in the first place). While a discussion about the process and procedure used here - and how to approach similar situations in the future - would be useful, I don't think that it is really within the scope of the Rodhullandemu case, and trying to shoehorn that discussion into the case would probably be distracting and detrimental to a proper examination of either. –xeno 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Making me do all the work. :P I suppose it was my idea. Fine, i'll go do it. Silverseren 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do. NW (Talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan and The Daily Mail
I don't agree with you that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for information of that nature in the Lara Logan article. Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Misplaced Pages's guidelines, no matter what the topic is, and that includes science and medical articles. If the details of the attack on Ms Logan are omitted, and that's fine, it should be for different reasons than whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source or not. BLP and other guidelines or policies are valid reasons for excluding that material. It's just that I get exasperated seeing editors argue that major newspapers or major broadcast media sources are not valid sources. We've got to stop that nonsense. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, sometime you should actually read Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing instead of going by what you imagine them to be. For example, at WP:IRS you will find statements such as "Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable," which directly negates your statement "Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Misplaced Pages's guidelines, no matter what the topic is." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- SBHB, you're taking that quote out of context. The purpose of that paragraph is to explain that some news sources are openly and/or admittedly biased or inaccurate. Of course, sources like that may have problems. The intro paragraph for the section states clearly, "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." Remember, for example, that editors have repeatedly asked at the reliable sources noticeboard if Fox News is considered a reliable source because it is openly partisan. The answer from the regulars there is "Yes, it meets WP's policies as a reliable source." Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you truly not see the difference between "generally considered to be reliable" (what the guideline says) and "indisputably classified as reliable" (what you say)? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Major newspapers with circulations as large as The Daily Mail? I don't have a problem using the word indisputable with regard to sources like that meeting that sentence "generally considered to be reliable." Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The National Enquirer has a circulation that is a third of the size of The Daily Mail's. I hope you don't consider that to be a reliable source too. NW (Talk) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the largest circulation newspaper in the UK is The Sun. Following Cla68's standards its reliability is greatest of all, "no matter what the topic is." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Caution: citing the Daily Mail can probably give you cancer, or perhaps not (late caveat) Their stories may not be consistent, but if using social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of cancer, what does that say about WP talk pages???? . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The snippet of WP:IRS quoted by Boris cautions against equating a newspaper's circulation or popularity with its reliability. I think that the Daily Mail is basically exhibit A of this phenomenon - that is, a large, high-circulation publication with a poor reputation for accuracy and objectivity. MastCell 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to pile on, but I'm afraid that I have to agree. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've read, the Daily Mail's reputation is not at all in the same league as the National Enquirer, which certainly does have a poor reputation, in spite of being the source which derailed Edward's presidential campaign. That paragraph in the policy appears to be directed at papers like the National Enquirer, not the Daily Mail. Here in Japan, tabloid papers often are the first to break stories on corruption in the government or industry, because they aren't under the same pressure as the mainstream newspapers not to offend government officials or their advertisers. If the source is controversial to some, and it appears that a few of you personally don't like the Daily Mail, then we attribute it and allow the reader to make up their minds on the veracity of the info, we don't presume to do it for them. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Previously you said "Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Misplaced Pages's guidelines." But now you're saying that at least one large-circulation newspaper (the National Enquirer) is not. What caused you to change from blanket acceptance of major newspapers as "indisputably" reliable? I'm glad to see you adopting a more nuanced approach, but am curious as to the reasons for the volte-face. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would include the National Enquirer in the definition of "major newspapers". I think the National Enquirer should send some of their senior reporters to Japan to observe how a tabloid should really be run, but I'm sure they probably feel that their current model of operation is fine for them as long as they keep selling enough copies to pay for the judgements they lose in libel court cases. Cla68 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The National Enquirer breaks news too, as with Gary Hart and his dalliances. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- ... and, of course, the Daily Mail is notorious for losing libel suits, most recently when they claimed that a Tamil hunger striker had been caught by the Metropolitan Police secretly sustaining himself with McDonald's hamburgers. The claim was, apparently, completely false, although it succeeded in turning the public against the hunger striker until the truth was able to struggle its way out. One can only speculate as to whether it was a mere failure to perform the most basic fact-checking before publishing an inflammatory allegation, or a more intentional fabrication, but either way I think this is the sort of thing that should raise WP:IRS red flags. MastCell 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- ... interesting link, for those cautious about the Graun, Auntie also covered the story and The Sun was suitably contrite. Now, if Freddie Starr ate my hamster is more to your taste..... dave souza, talk 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- ... and, of course, the Daily Mail is notorious for losing libel suits, most recently when they claimed that a Tamil hunger striker had been caught by the Metropolitan Police secretly sustaining himself with McDonald's hamburgers. The claim was, apparently, completely false, although it succeeded in turning the public against the hunger striker until the truth was able to struggle its way out. One can only speculate as to whether it was a mere failure to perform the most basic fact-checking before publishing an inflammatory allegation, or a more intentional fabrication, but either way I think this is the sort of thing that should raise WP:IRS red flags. MastCell 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The National Enquirer breaks news too, as with Gary Hart and his dalliances. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would include the National Enquirer in the definition of "major newspapers". I think the National Enquirer should send some of their senior reporters to Japan to observe how a tabloid should really be run, but I'm sure they probably feel that their current model of operation is fine for them as long as they keep selling enough copies to pay for the judgements they lose in libel court cases. Cla68 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Previously you said "Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Misplaced Pages's guidelines." But now you're saying that at least one large-circulation newspaper (the National Enquirer) is not. What caused you to change from blanket acceptance of major newspapers as "indisputably" reliable? I'm glad to see you adopting a more nuanced approach, but am curious as to the reasons for the volte-face. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've read, the Daily Mail's reputation is not at all in the same league as the National Enquirer, which certainly does have a poor reputation, in spite of being the source which derailed Edward's presidential campaign. That paragraph in the policy appears to be directed at papers like the National Enquirer, not the Daily Mail. Here in Japan, tabloid papers often are the first to break stories on corruption in the government or industry, because they aren't under the same pressure as the mainstream newspapers not to offend government officials or their advertisers. If the source is controversial to some, and it appears that a few of you personally don't like the Daily Mail, then we attribute it and allow the reader to make up their minds on the veracity of the info, we don't presume to do it for them. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to pile on, but I'm afraid that I have to agree. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The snippet of WP:IRS quoted by Boris cautions against equating a newspaper's circulation or popularity with its reliability. I think that the Daily Mail is basically exhibit A of this phenomenon - that is, a large, high-circulation publication with a poor reputation for accuracy and objectivity. MastCell 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Caution: citing the Daily Mail can probably give you cancer, or perhaps not (late caveat) Their stories may not be consistent, but if using social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of cancer, what does that say about WP talk pages???? . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the largest circulation newspaper in the UK is The Sun. Following Cla68's standards its reliability is greatest of all, "no matter what the topic is." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The National Enquirer has a circulation that is a third of the size of The Daily Mail's. I hope you don't consider that to be a reliable source too. NW (Talk) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Major newspapers with circulations as large as The Daily Mail? I don't have a problem using the word indisputable with regard to sources like that meeting that sentence "generally considered to be reliable." Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you truly not see the difference between "generally considered to be reliable" (what the guideline says) and "indisputably classified as reliable" (what you say)? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- SBHB, you're taking that quote out of context. The purpose of that paragraph is to explain that some news sources are openly and/or admittedly biased or inaccurate. Of course, sources like that may have problems. The intro paragraph for the section states clearly, "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." Remember, for example, that editors have repeatedly asked at the reliable sources noticeboard if Fox News is considered a reliable source because it is openly partisan. The answer from the regulars there is "Yes, it meets WP's policies as a reliable source." Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
unclear standard
NW, I'm sorry, but you've made it seem (to me, anyway) as though I cannot mention Mathsci at all without fear of getting a block. I doubt that's your intention, but it's not clear to me what your intention is. And please don't merely respond "I shouldn't talk about R&I" because in fact R&I is the only reason that Mathsci is commenting on this case - that mess defines our relationship. I need some clearer statements about what I can and cannot do with respect to him, and I'd like it if you'd make some clearer statements about what he can and cannot do with respect to me, because I am tired of him talking trash about me. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2, I have participated in many ArbCom cases and I cannot say what my motives were or are. It was very easy for me to stop editing in R&I: I have no vested interest in that subject and it has no relevance at all to this case, which involves issues of conduct and procedure. Having been advised by clerks and arbitrators not to mention me or R&I, you should be able to do so as a kind of academic exercise. I would forget about your "relationship" with clerks or arbitrators. We are all in the same boat: they are volunteers like us. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh... Mathsci - I said nothing about my relationship with clerks of arbiters. I said my relationship with you is based entirely on R&I. I was barely aware of your existence prior to that mediation, and since that mediation the only interactions I've had with you were where you popped up in the middle of some discussion I was having to talk trash about me. As far as I'm concerned you are a (purportedly) good editor with some very bad habits when it comes to fringe topics. when I mention you at all it's over some troubling behavior you've engaged in historically, and not something I would generally talk about further (beyond that simple mention) except that you start whining and screaming in a major way at even the slightest implication that you ever might have done something less than perfect. I understand if you have trouble looking at your own behavior objectively (most people - including myself - do) but I am annoyed by the fact that I'm being held hostage to your hysterics. I am trying to get NW to clarify precisely what I can and cannot do so that I can refer to you in the case without getting in trouble when you throw a fit over it (as you all-but-inevitably will, no matter what I say, based on copious past experience with you). My advice to you is to let let NW answer the question and abide by what he says (as I intend to do, if it's not technically impossible). I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter because I find your opinions supercilious and self-serving, and I just want to get through this whole thing with as little cross-chatter between us as possible so that I can go back to studiously ignoring you, because you just plain straight-out annoy me. Is that all right with you? --Ludwigs2 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This case isn't about Mathsci. It isn't about R&I. It is hardly even about fringe editing. But if you are concerned that Mathsci's comments on you will look bad in front of the Arbitrators, then I advise you to simply leave a note saying nothing more than "Mathsci and I have had some run-ins at , , and before". Frankly, beyond that, I see no reason why he need be mentioned at all. NW (Talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because he's adding evidence and proposals. You can't seriously be suggesting that I cannot respond to him at all, and I don't want to be in the position where I respond to one his proposals and you block me because he whines that it's a personal attack (which he will most likely do, at some point or other, because something like 60% of the comments Mathsci makes to me are unfounded accusations of personal attacks). Normally I would use my best judgment (which isn't perfect by a long shot, but is pretty good when I pay attention), but I no longer expect anything I say in this case to be taken in good faith, so I want a clear boundary from you about what I can and cannot say. Or at least an overt statement from you that ou will give me a reasonable benefit of the doubt on posts I make, so that I don't have to deal with silly wikilawyering about technical violations. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody is free to add evidence and proposals. I have for example, not very willingly, just presented evidence in the Noleander case. At this stage I am not sure whether I will be proposing any findings or remedies in the AE case. There seems to be a little too much control freakery happening at this stage. But even if I propose something at a later stage, it can and probably will be completely ignored by arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning your right to add evidence, just the limits of my ability to respond to your presentations. None of this thread is actually about you in any way, shape or form, except as a burr in my saddle. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- ???? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- @ Ludwigs, a burr in your saddle? Are you feeling a little hoarse? . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, just tired of people trying to cow me.
--Ludwigs2 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, just tired of people trying to cow me.
- @ Ludwigs, a burr in your saddle? Are you feeling a little hoarse? . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- ???? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning your right to add evidence, just the limits of my ability to respond to your presentations. None of this thread is actually about you in any way, shape or form, except as a burr in my saddle. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody is free to add evidence and proposals. I have for example, not very willingly, just presented evidence in the Noleander case. At this stage I am not sure whether I will be proposing any findings or remedies in the AE case. There seems to be a little too much control freakery happening at this stage. But even if I propose something at a later stage, it can and probably will be completely ignored by arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because he's adding evidence and proposals. You can't seriously be suggesting that I cannot respond to him at all, and I don't want to be in the position where I respond to one his proposals and you block me because he whines that it's a personal attack (which he will most likely do, at some point or other, because something like 60% of the comments Mathsci makes to me are unfounded accusations of personal attacks). Normally I would use my best judgment (which isn't perfect by a long shot, but is pretty good when I pay attention), but I no longer expect anything I say in this case to be taken in good faith, so I want a clear boundary from you about what I can and cannot say. Or at least an overt statement from you that ou will give me a reasonable benefit of the doubt on posts I make, so that I don't have to deal with silly wikilawyering about technical violations. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- This case isn't about Mathsci. It isn't about R&I. It is hardly even about fringe editing. But if you are concerned that Mathsci's comments on you will look bad in front of the Arbitrators, then I advise you to simply leave a note saying nothing more than "Mathsci and I have had some run-ins at , , and before". Frankly, beyond that, I see no reason why he need be mentioned at all. NW (Talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh... Mathsci - I said nothing about my relationship with clerks of arbiters. I said my relationship with you is based entirely on R&I. I was barely aware of your existence prior to that mediation, and since that mediation the only interactions I've had with you were where you popped up in the middle of some discussion I was having to talk trash about me. As far as I'm concerned you are a (purportedly) good editor with some very bad habits when it comes to fringe topics. when I mention you at all it's over some troubling behavior you've engaged in historically, and not something I would generally talk about further (beyond that simple mention) except that you start whining and screaming in a major way at even the slightest implication that you ever might have done something less than perfect. I understand if you have trouble looking at your own behavior objectively (most people - including myself - do) but I am annoyed by the fact that I'm being held hostage to your hysterics. I am trying to get NW to clarify precisely what I can and cannot do so that I can refer to you in the case without getting in trouble when you throw a fit over it (as you all-but-inevitably will, no matter what I say, based on copious past experience with you). My advice to you is to let let NW answer the question and abide by what he says (as I intend to do, if it's not technically impossible). I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter because I find your opinions supercilious and self-serving, and I just want to get through this whole thing with as little cross-chatter between us as possible so that I can go back to studiously ignoring you, because you just plain straight-out annoy me. Is that all right with you? --Ludwigs2 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, I didn't say that you cannot respond to Mathsci. I said that discussion of Race and intelligence is off-limits. You are free to respond to his proposals. Just don't make those responses personal. NW (Talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Those Brits...
Why don't they know how to spell properly? :)
Thanks for the fix. NW (Talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hahaha, no problem. This particular convention always seems jarring to me too. :) —David Levy 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Spill it
What happened? Since you seem to be in the know, I would assume you know what prompted this. Because a lack of explanation in this matter is absolutely unacceptable. Silverseren 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have my suspicions, but it would not be appropriate at all for me to say anything. Sorry, you're going to have to ask the Arbitrators themselves. NW (Talk) 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that the entirety of this case has been plagued with the issues about Arbcom's lack of transparency, it is completely irresponsible of them to not offer explanations or even a simple reasoning for this matter. True, if it is something personal, they shouldn't say exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean that they can't say something about it. Furthermore, because of aforementioned issues that were raised, this only furthers suspicions that Arbcom is doing this to further its own agenda and is making up reasonings where there are none for their actions. At least, that's how I see it. After this, I don't see how anyone can actually trust Arbcom or the supposed neutrality of their decisions. Though, I suppose, most editors don't trust them anyways. Silverseren 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let me clarify though that my suspicions are really just that, suspicions. I know nothing more than you do. NW (Talk) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know, i'm just venting to you because I know that trying to argue with Arbcom is purposeless, since they are truly the "judge, jury, and executioner" of Misplaced Pages and above the law within it. Funny enough, I think Arbcom would be harder to combat than Jimbo, since the community already lost faith in Jimbo back in the pornography incident. But Arbcom has already had a rocky relationship with the community for a long time and, in a way, this shields it from any actual actions of the community against it. It's a funny little paradox. Silverseren 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since the last mystery had a deeply anticlimactic revelation (I'm refering to the "cold, dead hands" remark, that caused such trouble), I wouldn't bother much with this one. I suppose there is a philosophical quandary here akin to framing a guilty man, in that it's arguably the best for everyone for the worst of reasons. But on a human level, I think the guy is better off not being exploited by Misplaced Pages. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know, i'm just venting to you because I know that trying to argue with Arbcom is purposeless, since they are truly the "judge, jury, and executioner" of Misplaced Pages and above the law within it. Funny enough, I think Arbcom would be harder to combat than Jimbo, since the community already lost faith in Jimbo back in the pornography incident. But Arbcom has already had a rocky relationship with the community for a long time and, in a way, this shields it from any actual actions of the community against it. It's a funny little paradox. Silverseren 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let me clarify though that my suspicions are really just that, suspicions. I know nothing more than you do. NW (Talk) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that the entirety of this case has been plagued with the issues about Arbcom's lack of transparency, it is completely irresponsible of them to not offer explanations or even a simple reasoning for this matter. True, if it is something personal, they shouldn't say exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean that they can't say something about it. Furthermore, because of aforementioned issues that were raised, this only furthers suspicions that Arbcom is doing this to further its own agenda and is making up reasonings where there are none for their actions. At least, that's how I see it. After this, I don't see how anyone can actually trust Arbcom or the supposed neutrality of their decisions. Though, I suppose, most editors don't trust them anyways. Silverseren 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet account Taciki Wym
This user was identified by Shell Kinney as a long term stalker of mine, who is under an interaction ban with me. He posted on the AE workshop page and was blocked indefinitely shortly afterwards along with another related account. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Hans Adler seems to want to make this some form of major issue. ArbCom is fully aware of this wikistalking since it become confused with ip-sockpuppetry by another banned user (site banned by ArbCom and indefinitely banned by the community). I have clarified all these matters with an arbitrator. This year the wikistalking also involved outing me. Is there any point in allowing the discussion to continue? It has nothing to do with the case, as far as I am concerned, and Hans Adler seems oblivious to the outing issues. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The comment above is completely incomprehensible to me. Mathsci appears to be demanding that a discussion which he does not like stop because at some point a banned editor got involved. The imputation that by not following that demand I somehow supported that editor is baseless, scurrilous, and should have consequences for Mathsci.
- As usual, Mathsci appears to be mixing things that he wants with things that he has discussed with functionaries. Innocently or not, this is unfair because it creates the appearance of backing from higher up that may not exist. I would not be surprised to learn that Arbcom would like the discussion in question to stop. However, I would be surprised to learn that Arbcom chooses to say so through Mathsci. Hans Adler 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop
Hi, the page is now used mainly for bickering among non-parties about issues that are, at best, peripherally related to the case. This degrades the usefulness of the workshop page. Do you think that the clerks could do something about this, such as tell the users to take their disagreements to their own talk pages? Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with Sandstein (see the section above). There seems to have been some misunderstanding about wording I used to describe proposals I would be making. I am quite happy for the discussion to be closed, archived, deleted or moved to whatever other page is considered appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion is important evidence about the behaviour of Mathsci and needs to be preserved in some form. The Arbs have to make up their minds about whether Ludwigs2 is disruptive, and if so, how much of a problem that is. It would be deeply unfair to do so without taking into account the general standards in the project. Mathsci is giving a good example of what one can get away with for a long time if only one is perceived as being on the right side.
- That said, large parts of the discussions there are off-topic with respect to their respective headings. It would be reasonable to archive them to the talk page or to the page history, provided that prominent pointers remain which actually encourage Arbs to read them. Hans Adler 17:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Ludwigs2 is right this way, as is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Mathsci. Perhaps we should open them both and do some comparison bitching. I know I'm bad-tempered, but I'm usually bad-tempered for a reason (and usually very clear about what that reason is) and I don't rise to the level of disruptive except in the minds of people who are unwilling or incapable of dealing with me in good faith. And their opinion I don't much care about.
- You my be right about some restructuring is needed, but I'm a little leery of it. the problem is that too many people have been indulging in spin-doctoring on the page, and so any restructuring has to be done in a way that doesn't privilege or legitimize one spin over another. best if all spins could all be removed, of course, but that would mean we'd have to remove all the comments of several current participants, and than I'd lose a lot of evidence about the entrenched anti-fringe bias. Unfortunately, for this topic area honest, thoughtful appraisals are as rare as bald spots in a Rogaine commercial (and objected to by many for much the same reason - not good product branding). whaddayagonnado. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, please go ahead and collapse/refactor/whatever the thread following the statement I made about my workshop proposals. I am now starting to post my proposed findings, the first of which already prefigured in this edit on 15 March. Just to reassure Ludwigs2, as far as proposed remedies are concerned, at this stage I do not think that anything beyond a very gentle reminder to Ludwigs2 about issues of conduct is appropriate, considering the scope of the case and what the central issues appear to be (in particular they seem to be unrelated to his editing). Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- You my be right about some restructuring is needed, but I'm a little leery of it. the problem is that too many people have been indulging in spin-doctoring on the page, and so any restructuring has to be done in a way that doesn't privilege or legitimize one spin over another. best if all spins could all be removed, of course, but that would mean we'd have to remove all the comments of several current participants, and than I'd lose a lot of evidence about the entrenched anti-fringe bias. Unfortunately, for this topic area honest, thoughtful appraisals are as rare as bald spots in a Rogaine commercial (and objected to by many for much the same reason - not good product branding). whaddayagonnado. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)