Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 15 August 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration motion regarding MarshalN20

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds closed

Original announcement

I wanted to thank the committee for a swift yet well reasoned decision in this case. I remain of the opinion that dragging cases out for multiple months is seldom necessary and never helpful and am glad to see this one wrapped up in a reasonable time frame. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the relatively low number of arbs (due to recusing and inactivity) made the case pass more quickly? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, although most cases have been closed pretty fast as of late, with the exception of the tea party movement one, due to its high complexity. — ΛΧΣ 00:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, the Tea Party is the new Scientology... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a banned editor, why is Kiefer.Wolfowitz being allowed to use his talk page to further comment on his case and to promulgate his views? He has no need of talk-page access, as no admin can unblock him on the basis of a normal unblock request, and his only option for reinstatement is to go through BASC or ArbCom, both of which can be reached via e-mail. I would like to request that his talk page access be shut down, and the two comments he posted after being banned be deleted. Perhaps the talk page should be fully protected as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask the ArbCom member who is happily conversing with Kiefer on that page? Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• If I'm allowed a little joke here, this was a case of MAD behavior. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, addressing this on the individual user level is just playing Whac-A-Mole. It should be decided that users who cannot be unblocked through a talk page unblock request can post to their talk pages or that they can not, and this decision should be applied consistently. While making that decision, it would be a good thing to also clarify whether normal blocked editors can make edits to their talk pages other than unblock requests -- the same reasoning applies. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. To me there is a qualitative difference between a site ban and an indef block. The former is only applied to the most egregious cases, and only after community discussion or an arbitration -- and, generally, limits are placed on when reinstatement can be requested. An indef block, on the other hand, can end at any time, and it seems to me that many of them end relatively quickly. Also, an ArbCom-banned editor can only be reinstated through BASC or the Committee, so the talk page has no function as a place to post unblock requests. I'm inclined to say that an indef blocked editor should have access to their talk page until they abuse the privilege, whereas site banned users should have access removed at the time of their banning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Noting that I have no preference on this -- I don't care if they are or are not allowed, I just think that whatever gets decided should be applied consistently -- I am not sure that I agree with your reasoning.

You say that an indef blocked editor should be allowed to use his talk page for purposes other than requesting an unblock, but a banned editor shouldn't be allowed to use his talk page for purposes other than requesting an unban. Clearly you didn't decide that based upon one being allowed to request an unblock and the other not being allowed to request an unban -- why would that alone drive a decision about posting material that isn't an unban/unblock request?

So clearly you made the decision based upon, as you put it, being an egregious case. The question is, is that true? Is it true that site bans are only applied to the most egregious cases? I don't think they are. Site bans are applied to the most egregious cases that make it to Arbcom, but Arbcom deals with the most difficult to decide cases, not the most egregious cases.

There are cases that don't make it to Arbcom because an admin took immediate action. Imagine an autoconfirmed user who suddenly and rapidly outs a few celebrities, posts some child pornography, violates some copyrights, posts legal and death threats, spams, and anything else I didn't think of. That would be far more egregious that any recent Arbcom case, but it would result in an instant indef and rollback/revdel of all edits. We wouldn't need a site ban because nobody is going to unblock that account, ever. Notice how many Arbcom cases involve one admin blocking and another unblocking? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We appear to have somewhat different understandings of what is "egregious". I would contend that the hypothetical case you cite is not really all that egregious, it's just a whole bunch of standard vandalism. The indef block would come quickly (probably even before all the activities you posit would even have a chance to occur), and talk page access would be routinely denied for this editor who has nothing to contribute. All of that is just normal stuff. No, the really egregious cases which get editors banned are long-term disruption, which tend to get handled by the community after numerous admins have issued numerous blocks, and those cases which go to ArbCom, which frequently involve trusted and otherwise valued users, such as admins or normally productive editors like KW, who have, for one reason or another, gone off the rails. These cases are egregious because they involve a betrayal of the community by someone who's been an accepted member of the group. It is these people who ought to be disallowed from any participation on the project, until they are able to make the case that they deserve another chance -- and that means no talk page access should be provided to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see your point. Makes sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• As Newyorkbrad was recused on this case, it's quite possible he wasn't aware it had been closed and hence that further discussion should be halted. As to continued talk page access for Kiefer at the time of the block: it is the usual site practice that blocks are issued at the lowest level required to effect the desired outcome, and that has, to date, included blocks related to Arbcom bans. Such blocks can be extended if necessary to include email blocks and talk page blocks, should the banned user continue to "litigate" the closed case or otherwise behave inappropriately. In the case of a user talk page, I would personally be inclined to protect the talk page for a set period first (which has the added benefit of preventing other users from baiting the banned editor, another issue that we see fairly often). Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO its really quite easy to fix. Just take the page off your watchlist's (I did) and let him rant. Problem solved. If someone chooses to reply, its their time. Aside from that he's blocked so he can't post anywhere else. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with both you and Beyond My Ken. Ideally, ignoring KW is the best thing to do. But there is a strong point to be made about allowing someone who was site banned largely because of their interactions with one individual to post links to an external attack site about the same individual. I would argue that is pretty much continuing to "litigate" a closed case. Resolute 03:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That would be handled by the standard practice of revoking talk page access if a blocked editor abuses it. No need for any special rules in that case. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Agreed, and my impression is that this is exactly what Beyond My Ken was asking - at least at first. The discussion seems to have moved into a different direction since.. Resolute 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • That is clearly not what Beyond My Ken was asking for, he was asking for KW's talk page access to be removed as a matter of procedure. Eric Corbett 13:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Like I said, I interpreted his first complaint as being a request to deny talk page access due to abuse. Namely, KW continuing to push his grudge against Ironholds by adding links to an attack site. The discussion subsequently became one of locking down access as a matter of procedure. Resolute 13:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Resolute is correct. In this specific case, I believe that KW has already abused his talk page access and should have it removed, and I then responded to Guy Macon's question about general procedure with my thoughts on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN addresses the issue but doesn't create a bright-line rule: "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail." That's pretty weasely. By using the word "may" it's almost not saying anything. Even a blocked user's talk page may be revoked. Still, the sentence implies that it's more common, and a little chart below says that talk page access for a site-banned editor is "usually not allowed". If I were making the decision, I'd revoke talk page access. I see no constructive need for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That's true but that's also the way I feel about using the terms "broadly construed" that's usage seems to be standard practice these days. By making the wording so loose and open to interpretation it keeps from having to make a major decision and unfortunaetly allows it to be abused (on both sides). It also makes it really easy for folks to argue about it. As with many other things, our desire to keep the rules loose and flexible have also made it so its easy to argue about. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I am of two minds on the issue of "loose" language. In some instances, it provides administrators with reasonable discretion to handle situations differently depending on the circumstances. I realize that may lead to what some editors describe as inconsistent results, but as long as the results are within an acceptable range, I don't necessarily see that as per se bad - and it's often fairer. However, in other cases, like this one, I don't see the need for discretion. I would prefer a rule that site-banned editors' talk pages are restricted. Of course, if someone can justify the need for discretion, I'm certainly open to arguments that haven't occurred to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I generally believe we need to be concise and rather specific when we define things like this pertaining to legal or policy matters. we have more than 1400 administrators eahc with their own minds, some from differing cultures and beliefs and legal systems. To define something as broadly construed is not reasonable, it is an invitation for abuse (accidental or intentional). The "may" issue you bring up is the same way. If the person is banned, then they are banned and shouldn't be able to edit. With that said, indefinately banned in Misplaced Pages doesn't mean forever (in fact in general I believe 1 year is probably reasonable under most instances) so they still need to have a venue to appeal. If we shut off their talk page and revoke their email they have no way to request to come back. What we end up with then is someone who waits a couple months and creates a new Username. As long as they don't continue to be disruptive and change their editing patterns we'll never know and in fact our rules essentially influence that outcome. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, they do. Appeals to ArbCom bans go to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, afaik, and are discussed via mailing list - disabling the ability to email specific users does not prevent the banned user from contacting ArbCom. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with that unfortunately its an all or nothing thing. Its a limitation with the software I would be glad to see changed so the user can only contact Arbcom and not be able to Email anyone else. With that said, as I said above, if the user is only talking on their talk page and isn't really doing anything but vocalizing their irritation, then its really not that significant of a problem. I do admit though that in a perfect world a banned editor should not be able to do this. Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? Arbcom's email addresses are publicly accessible. You don't need access to EmailUser to email it. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, otherwise who do we know its them? Do we require some proof of ID? I would doubt that since its not required to identify as an editor I would doubt we would do that. Additionally, I would assume that some type of verification would be required to ensure its not someone else. I doun't think that would be an issue in this case but in some Arbcom decisions it could be. So it seems reasonable to me to allow the user to contact Atbcom so that their identity can be verified. Otherwise, generally and with some exceptions, they would need to be that user to be able to login. With all that said I'm really not trying to advocate that KW keep his access. I'm just saying that to me, the easiest way to make the problem stop is to remove the talk page from your watchlist and stop responding. If someone wants to respond and entertain discussions, then that's up to them. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that, at least in this case, the user has emailed ArbCom before, but your point is well taken. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For verifying identity there are at least two options for a user who has had their email access revoked and is unable to verify themselves without directly accessing their wp account -

• Arbcom could email the appellant through their talk page (AIUI only the sending of email is blocked) and include a phrase for them to include in an email direct to the (sub-)committee
• If that failed, then an arbitrator could restore email access for an agreed finite period of time to allow the sending of a single verification email. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting take on inconsistent results. After thinking about it a while, I rather like the idea of intelligently deciding how and when to apply something like this. What I don't want to see is it applied inconsistently just because someone happened to notice one case and not another. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)