| Revision as of 03:24, 16 September 2009 editHiberniantears (talk | contribs)9,044 edits →Courtesy blanking of case pages: Arbcom is a corrupt failure. Just ignore them, remove their bits, and give back the bit to WMC← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:28, 1 January 2025 edit undoAhri Boy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,141 edits →Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500k | |||
| |counter = 6 | |||
| | |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''Behaviour on this page:''' This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:AC/N|WT:ACN}} | |||
| = Discussion of agenda = | |||
| ] | |||
| = Discussion of announcements = | |||
| == Temporary injunction regarding ] == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Arbitration Committee motion regarding Locke Cole == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Arbitration Committee motion regarding Mythdon == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118 == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- | |||
| ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *I disagree with WMC's desysop based on my own principles on what should lead to a desysop. Sure there was bad judgment outlined and the abd block was a very, very bad move - but I fail to see how a full removal of his adminship is of real benefit to the site. ] (]) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll save you from reading about 2 MB of mostly content-free text: The case was moving toward a do-nothing result until Abd tested the page ban and WMC blocked him. This pissed off arbcom, so they desysoped WMC. Arbcom planned to essentially ignore Abd's disruption until Risker proposed the three-month ban in the final days. The end. ] (]) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's too late, I read through pretty much all of it over the past month in anticipation of the case's end. Pretty much sums it right up, though. ] (]) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yet another seriously flawed decision. Just plain lazy on the part of ArbCom. I've applied page bans before. I've also applied page bans on articles in which WMC was helping me out. He's a well reasoned, and highly dedicated administrator. To revoke his mop is childish. Hey ArbCom; Restore his mop. Now. You do not craft policy by holding people retroactively responsible for violating non-existent policy. ] (]) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, William violated existing policy. He blocked Abd during the case, when he was clearly too involved to legitimately take action. One could perform a ] to figure out how things reached that point, much in the same way the ] attempts to reconstruct the chain of failures leading to a plane crash, but it would be a depressing and academic exercise. If there is a moral, it's that admins who fail to recognize goading, swallow their pride, and ignore it will not be admins forever. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What MastCell said. There has been several issues of questionable actions with the admin tools in the past, and blocking someone you were in an arbcase with (at the time the ArbCom case is going on) is pretty much not going to fly, ever. ] (]) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WMC did violate policy - he responded to the deliberate provocation of an editor even ArbCom agrees is disruptive and tendentious. It would have been wiser for WMC to resist the temptation offered by the bait. More importantly - and much more disappointingly for Misplaced Pages - it would have been wiser for ArbCom to consider what was in the best interests of developing high-quality encyclopedic content rather to act on the afront it felt about WMC's unwise block. Unfortunately, the messages from this ArbCom case are (i) that ArbCom either cannot or will not control its own case pages; (ii) that the quality of the science content of the encyclopedia is not a priority of the Committee; and consequently, (iii) that the Committee will not offer any encouragement for adminisatrators to work in contentious areas but rather will continue pretending that science-literate uninvolved administrators (a highly endangered or extinct species) are in plentiful supply. The burnout and departure of science-literate editors is also apparently not a reason for concern. The Committee could have acted against WMC with a forced break and acted in a way that loudly reinforced their dedication to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Arbitrators but the decisions their judgements and priorities in this case have been poor. ] (]) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Aye, it is very foolish to do such things while ArbCom is actively looking at you. It's not smart to do them in the first place, but during an arbitration is asking for trouble, sadly. Still, the main result was right: since his return from a block in 2008 Abd has been on a path of escalation to burnout. It's remarkable he's lasted as long as he has before being blocked for a long time especially given his tendency to scream "cabal" at every turn. After the last arbitration he seemed to believe that he'd been fully vindicated and carried on precisely as before (if not worse), which is one of the things that sent me on a long wikibreak. Life is too short for your hobbies to be dominated by obsessives with no goal in mind other than to hound you for failing to agree with ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have no problems with the eventual outcome, but I was alarmed at the degree to which attempts to demonize expert editors were successful. Just because somebody has expertise in a subject, does not mean he has a conflict of interest. We've seen on Misplaced Pages for some time now concerted efforts by the wilfully ignorant to set themselves up as somehow in opposition to expert editors and to attack their excellent work. Instead of dealing with those people for timewasting, there has been a tendency to treat them at their own evaluation--as somehow being engaged alongside those who have taken the trouble to study the subject in an endeavor to improve Misplaced Pages. That isn't the arbitration committee's job. It ''must'' recognise that some of these "disputes" are in fact political attacks, often openly orchestrated off-site, and intended to distort the facts and weaken the integrity of Misplaced Pages. --] 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Something that should be taken into account by the Committee when considering their practice of allowing people to keep evidence in userspace and link to it from the Evidence case page is that there are hundreds of thousands of bytes of smears and innuendos, insinuations and unfounded accusations about other editors in Abd's user space that were entered as part of Abd's "evidence" in this case. When I complained about the extent to which my positions, intentions, actions and motivations were misrepresented throughout the case, an arbitrator said, as a way of consoling me, that since I wasn't mentioned in the final decision, I could assume that none of that was taken seriously by the Committee, but that if I felt strongly enough about it, I could ask to have the material blanked. Well, I guess I'm not very consoled, since I value my reputation for integrity and am sincerely offended at being so throughly defamed without any discernible purpose, and I'm not sure how blanking the inaccurate and misleading accusations could be accomplished, when the misrepresentations of fact were strewn liberally throughout the case, and much of the offending material is in Abd's user page. | |||
| :The "cabal" userpage has been nominated for MfD, but a common argument against deleting it is that it is part of evidence in an ArbCom case so can't be deleted. There is an entire page-long section about me on that page, and the "evidence" is just an attempt using synthesis and OR, using a couple of quotes from user talk pages totally out of context to try to make a case that I had an "axe to grind", simply because I said that in my opinion there were sockpuppets involved in the delegable proxy mess, because I felt that Kirk Shanahan's preferred version of the cold fusion page was more neutral than Abd's preferred version, because I had once supported Science Apologist, and because I had said that I didn't find discussion with Abd to be a particularly productive way to spend my time. These are honest opinions, I hold them still, but for them to be entered as evidence of my "involvement" with a "cabal" is simply beyond incredible. There is no credible evidence for any "involvement" with the other editors listed in the cabal, even if collusion isn't part of the definition. I believe this entire page should be blanked; I request formally that at least my section of it should be blanked. It seems to me it's the least the Committee could do, to remedy a little bit of the harm that's been created by this case. Thank you. ] (]) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't hold your breath waiting. ] (]) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I prefer to AGF; after all, I was specifically encouraged by an arbitrator to make this request, so I'm making it. But it's really a bigger issue that I'm raising here: encouraging editors to exceed the evidence limit by linking to unlimited text in userspace can have at least two unintended consequences: (1) it can lead to a proliferation of mudslinging and unsubstantiated accusations cloaked as evidence, as in this case, since it effectively voids the requirement to keep evidence concise and supported with specific diffs, and (2) it creates the problem of evidence in the case not being kept on the case pages and archived with the case. It's just out there in userspace; users could alter it, delete it, add to it, do anything they want with it, rather than it being protected with the case for historical reference. I just think the Committee should think about the consequences when allowing this practice in future. ] (]) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suspect the problem you describe may be pretty unique to the editor. As for reference, just link to old revisions or copy/pasta into your userspace. ] (]) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Woonpton, thank you for reminding me about this. I will go and carry out the courtesy blankings now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, when you've finished holding your breath, do you think you could give arbitrators a chance to respond before you insert a cynical soundbite like that? ] (]) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley === | |||
| {{hat|We closed it because nothing productive was going to come of it. Doing so doesn't necessarily require your assent, though that is preferable. Please stop pursuing this. ] (]) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' | |||
| ::{{{1}}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| }} <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| :What Skomorokh said. You want WMC to have the mop back, then write an RfA and get him to accept it. That or his appeal to the Committee are the only ways he'll get it back, and this is a waste of time and a drama-magnet. → ] ]<small> 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| This is neither the time or the place. WMC can seek community support for adminiship through RfA if he so chooses. ] 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Instead of trying to influence the discussion with "archive," collapse box, strikeout, or similar censorship technologies, let's apply the principle of good faith and move this to RFA. ] (]) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley: | |||
| #'''Support''' ] (]) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #I will not be referring to myself as a "Wikipedian" until this travesty is reversed. ] (]) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Roux and Sko... Come on! Look at the thread below and tell me I'm wrong. Pastor Theo was a banned user. OMG, WTF, WMC??? Why do I need to have this discussion at RfA? You're asking the community to undo an asanine decision in a forum that is historically vindictive towards former admins. Way to put process before the encyclopedia. Maybe one of you two could tell me what you think this project is, exactly? I was under the impression we were a free Internet encyclopedia. If this is actually a place for fan boys to smack people around to compensate for their real world existence... Maybe I should just sign onto some kind of comic con thing. | |||
| This thread ain't closed... | |||
| Your's truly, | |||
| ] (]) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it is closed. And you should be conducting yourself in a more appropriate manner. WMC is welcome to go to RFA is ''he'' wishes to have his admin tools back. You should talk to him about that, not rant here. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A. I started this thread. B. You guys closed it without consulting me. C. I am free to question the decisions of ArbCom. D. Fine, I brought it to RfA. E. Why did you spell he as "he"? Did I miss some gender bending element? I haven't bothered to read through the case owing to the aimless, sophist structure of your process. ] (]) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Opposing the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley === | |||
| # WMC seems to show persistently poor judgement. In addition to blocking Abd during an Arbcom case involving Abd, WMC , with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up". On 25 June 2009 he indef blocked ChildofMidnight. When questioned about this, WMC responded - either that's a particularly tasteless joke or WMC is totally irresponsible. Either way WMC is unfit to use the powers of admins. --] (]) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # No way in hell. This case was just the thin end of the wedge of WMC's failings as an admin. ] (]) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| My thanks to the open minds willing to discuss the transparency of the committee's decision. Oh wait, you arrogantly closed this thread. I guess absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Once again, any editor is free to disagree with your decisions. Any editor is free to voice this disagreement. Likewise, any editor is free to have these disagreements heard openly. Lastly, any editor is free to wield a minority opinion, and have it not be silenced. I urge you guys to remeber this. ] (]) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Policy Discussion === | |||
| In regard to item 5 of the Arbcom decision: | |||
| {{bquote|5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.}} | |||
| I have created a relevant discussion page at ]. ] (]) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. When I have a few moments, I will try to post some background that will be relevant to this discussion. ] (]) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is also ongoing discussion at ], probably the better place. Based on an initial thought expressed there, I have drafted a proposal at ] that would generalize the "discretionary" sanctions approach used by the ArbCom in various cases. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Courtesy blanking of case pages=== | |||
| Following on from Woonpton's request above, I have courtesy blanked the following pages of this case: the proposed decision talk page, the evidence page, the evidence talk page, the workshop page, and the workshop talk page. I also intend to blank the user subpages that were used to present evidence in this case (or move them to subpages of the evidence page and blank them, but need to leave a note at an ongoing MfD first). I ''think'' Abd and Enric Naval used subpages in this case - will need to check that. Starting this section to enable discussion of these actions because WMC saying he objects to the case pages being blanked. I don't object to my actions being changed or reversed (e.g. by adding a link to the pre-blanked version in the page history), but if some discussion and input from others (including other arbitrators) could take place first, that would be good. ] (]) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I disagree with this decision and wish it to be reversed ] (]) 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: As a thoroughly naive onlooker, I am perplexed at this flurry of "courtesy blanking"? What exactly is the difference here between "courtesy blanking" and "attempt at suppression"? --] (]) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I too don't get the "Courtesy" bit. Presumably the main effect of blanking is to exclude the content from searches? If so it is a tricky call. It is in all our interests to rebuild Arbcom's credibility and brush some of all this under the carpet. No admin will put the project first if Arbcom cannot be relied upon to be careful and fair. At the same time there is an issue of fairness to WMC and negatives of drawing a veil over the repute of some other individuals concerned which will be unhelpful to the project (e.g. in that it will adversely affect quality of decision making in the next Arbcom elections, it will make identifying other trolls a tedious job from contribution history rather than an easy one etc). On balance WP favours openness so I think the pages should not be blanked. A gui, de to their content might help--] ] 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Reading through the case it is not easy for an uninvolved editor to get a handle on things in the first place. The de-sysopping of a longtime administrator performing substantively correct administrative actions in protecting the encyclopedia against disruption, over what look to be procedural violations, seems extraordinary. Perhaps I just don't get it. I am certainly going to get it a lot less if Arbcom blanks pages of evidence and deliberations. Arbcom cases are supposed to be handled in a transparent way, aren't they? If you blank the record, I would hope you would vacate any findings and sanctions to which that part of the record applies. Otherwise it becomes a secret tribunal, something that should be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances. There are other ways to avoid ongoing damage from unwise things some may have said. ] (]) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Courtesy blanking is usually asked for if someone has been needlessly harangued or the parties require some privacy due to real-life concerns. The article history still has the entirety of the information on it, so the information is not being deleted, merely hidden from casual view. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 09:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And if some other involved party, such as WMC above, feels that "courtesy blanking" compromises the history of what had happened to them, where does that leave things? --] (]) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In the page history, two clicks away. '''\''' ] '''/''' (]) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Although it doesn't help in deciding what to do in the present case, it is worth noting that a major cause of the problem that now exists is the breakdown in control of the case pages. There certainly needs to be a discussion of the lessons that this case has for case management, and I'd like to know whether ArbCom and the Clerks are planning to have any such discussion, and if so, whether it will be on wiki. ] (]) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, even though WMC behaves sometimes like a complete idiot, warranting a thorough rap-over the knuckles, he is still, all in all, one of the more useful administrators Misplaced Pages has been privileged to have, and something has gone significantly wrong here. --] (]) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC), | |||
| There is a confluence of interests here. Woonpton is (rightfully) bothered at Abd's unfounded smears. Arbcom completely failed to maintain control over this sprawling case, so it is in their interest to keep it out of casual view. Thus when Woonpton asked for blanking, Arbcom was all too happy to oblige. ] (]) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It rather looks as though C has misinterpreted W's request; see ] (]) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Who was it supposed to be a courtesy to? ] (]) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** Woonpton; see top of this thread ] (]) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Courtesy blanking is just that, a courtesy, born out of common decency for others who feel that their lives will be adversely effected by the page being open to casual view. If anyone is so curious as to see the Scandal! that they believe was there, they merely have to exert more effort. Now, we can spin our wheels in glorious cynicism about who is gaining what advantage over the political machinery of a website, but I'm entirely more concerned about maintaining the above common decency on the off chance that someone's real life is adversely effected because of something stupid that happened in the backstage of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Vair nice, but as it is now clear that W doesn't want the pages blanked, and I don't want the pages blanked, and no-one else has asked for them to be blanked, please explain (since arbcomm, as usual when things get sticky, has suddenly gone silent) for whose benefit the blanking has been done? ] (]) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Here's the deal. There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case—at least Abd's evidence. Hell, there was an aborted blanking campaign right in the middle of the case ], including some of the people commenting here. I found this to be a reasonable request, so the pages are now blanked as a courtesy. If in fact no one wants them blanked, I'm confident we will undo it. | |||
| Perhaps this was a mistaken reading of the participant's sentiments, but ''selectively'' blanking the pages is not an option we've ever entertained. ] '']'' 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''Perhaps this was a mistaken reading'' -- indeed, Woonpton said "it blows my mind" that Carcharoth (and now you) could interpret her request in this way. But stuff like that doesn't surprise me anymore. ] (]) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright then. My apologies (I think me and Carcharoth were on a similar wavelength here). | |||
| ::Now that it's understood that blanking is an all-or-nothing proposition, does anyone want the evidence pages blanked? ] '']'' 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It isn't clear whether you're speaking for yourself or arbcomm at this point; if the latter, how and where this decision has been made. I would assert a distinction between pages in user space and those in arbcomm space. I maintain my desire to see the pages in arbcomm space unblanked ] (]) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if anyone wants them blanked, but I say, leave them as is. It is the Arbitration Committee who let things run completely out of hand, and now the involved users feel negatively affected. I don't think that blanking is the solution to that. I don't like rugs, but for those who do, this does not belong under it. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wouldn't go so far as to say that "it is now clear" that I don't want the pages blanked; the statement on my talk page simply clarifies that my specific request was about a particular section on Abd/Cabal rather than a request to blank the case; it didn't occur to me at that time that anything could be done about the false accusations and extreme distortions of fact that were liberally larded throughout the case, but at least I wanted that one section with my name at the top of it to be blanked. My feelings about the blanking of the case as a whole are mixed, as anyone reading my statement with any feeling for nuance (I'm realizing that this seems to be a scarce commodity in Wikiedia) should be able to see. On one hand, I would prefer that the false accusations, insinuations and accusations about me not remain fossilized here for everyone to see; on the other hand I can see WMC's argument too, that the case should be preserved for the record. But isn't it true that if you go back in history to the version before the blanking, it's all still there? So doesn't the blanking serve both purposes: conceal smears from public view without eliminating the content? Or does it really affect the usability of the information in some way? | |||
| ::It is my personal opinion that this case was a complete disaster from beginning to end, and the damage that the case will have done to the encyclopedia will remain, no matter what happens to the case content. I will assume that if the blanking of the case was indeed done in response to my comment, it was an honest attempt to be responsive to my concern (although strangely late; the problem should have been stopped while the case was ongoing, and I find it curious that arbitrators who had no interest in my complaints and the complaints of others while the case was going on should suddenly become so attentive to our concerns, after the horse is long out of the barn). But I'm not the only one to be considered here, and I wouldn't want my ambivalence about the blanking to be taken as a signal to unblank. There are others who have been equally affected, who should speak for themselves on the issue, although at least one of them is unable to at the moment. | |||
| ::@Tznkai: my concern isn't at present a real life concern; I just don't like being lied about. However, there are others who are affected who may well have real life concerns; I wouldn't want to be seen as speaking for anyone else. ] (]) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the clarification Woonpton, and in general, I think the same principle applies even for mere emotional dislike, though it is obviously less of a big deal than say, impending job loss.--] (]) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Beetstra perhaps I've completely misunderstood you (and if so I apologize), but it seems to me what you're saying is the following: 1. ArbCom has mucked up, failing to address 2. a mess where a bunch of people got unjustly attacked and thus 3. ArbCom should not courtesy blank the same so their mistakes are transparent. That seems to leave keeping the mess that adversely effects innocent parties, because you want to punish/expose ArbCom.--] (]) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Tznkai: I want Arb.Comm. to come with a real solution? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: @W: Apologies for misrepresenting your views. Thanks for stating them clearly here. Would it help at all if a header was put clearly at the top of all these pages, something along the lines of "These are the preserved record of an arbcomm case; the presence of an allegation in these pages carries no implication at all that it is true"? ] (]) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if CHL's ref'ing etc is trolling or just a failure to understand. Assuming the latter: that was a last-gasp attempt to do arbcomms duty for it and try to keep some kind of order on the pages. Alas it failed; arbcomm voted for the current disaster area. Which is indeed part of the point: you've failed to keep any order during the case; it is just too late now to say whoops lets shovel it all under the rug. If this info was so terrible that allowing people to stumble over it is terrible, then how could it be allowed on the case pages for months on end? That position makes no sense. Also where does ''There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case'' come from? ] (]) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not trolling. Other parties do not have the right to control the presentation of another's evidence ''during'' a case. Nor should others control how evidence is kept ''after'' the case is closed. | |||
| :To clarify an earlier question: I'm speaking only for myself here, and you should always assume that's true unless I explicitly say otherwise. That said, I don't think many arbitrators would support selectively blanking evidence from one party of the case without a ''really'' good reason. | |||
| :There's no rug-shoving going on here. Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked. You might note that I didn't even participate in the deliberation of the case; the interpretation of a cover up did not occur to me until several users here made the accusation. ] '']'' 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked'' - I assume that is true. Indeed, you said: ''There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case''. However, I've asked you above why you believe that and you're distinctly reticent on that point. Do you now accept that is an error? ] (]) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Past tense, per the widespread support of blanking ]. I am not now sure whether there would be support for complete blanking, but I do not believe selective blanking is acceptable. ] '']'' 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A point of data: I am generally in favor of blanking procedural pages as a matter of routine (or at least on simple request) at the end of a case. This, obviously, does not include the decision proper; nor does it include deletion. This ''is'' a matter of simple courtesy.<p>Suggestion of ''selectively'' blanking ''parts'' of pages because one doesn't like them is... ethically unacceptable. I'm surprised anyone would even consider such a thing— obviously that will ''never'' be allowable. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I would strongly discourage you from doing so as a matter of routine, and ask you where you think your mandate for doing this comes from. ''or at least on simple request'' is regrettably ambiguous - do you mean, one request from any one participant (not even a party) is enough for you to blank, even against the expressed wishes of parties? A simple majority? I don't think you should do anything after a case that hasn't been decided during a case. If you want this as a matter of routine, you should include it as a routine motion in each case. That would give everyone a chance to express an opinion in an (ahem) orderly fashion, instead of this rather all-too-typicaly disorderly process we've ended up in. Anyone seen Carcharoth around recently, BTW? Blank-n-run seems rather poor form ] (]) | |||
| ::You're making, I think, the unwarranted presumption that there is value to keeping the case pages around after a case has closed. Certainly, the arguments and reasoning have historical value and need to be ''kept'' for transparency, but they do not need to be displayed or (worse) mirrored by the myriad leeches out there that are uninterested in keeping that material off search engines.<p>As far as I and most other arbs are concerned, the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages (and the talk pages) are mere ''artifacts of the process'', and can be blanked without bureaucracy. In fact, many of us have express dismay on how complicated doing seemed to have been in the past. I would have agreed with your concerns if there was discussion of ''deleting'' the pages (which is generally not done), or of ''altering'' them in a way that can twist their significance; but a simple blanking that leaves the history intact is at worst harmless and at best can help put a matter to rest and keep possibly prejudicial crap off the search engines. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Coren, this is helpful. Perhaps I misunderstood the arbitrator who told me on the proposed decision page that if I was unhappy about false accusations and inaccurate statements that had been made about me, I should feel free to request that the material be blanked; I understood that to mean that I could request that parts of the case be blanked. (And while no one has answered my question about whether blanking affects the usability of the content, I found that when I went to bring up that diff to link to here, I wasn't able to bring it up. So that's a problem, I agree). | |||
| :I didn't see any reasonable way to blank comments that were threaded with other comments, so I wasn't requesting that information be selectively blanked out of the case pages, and I wasn't aware that the entire case could be blanked on request. I just made this little request about this one section that had my name at the top of it and was all about me; it was really just a token request, as a protest against the wholesale defamation of editors in this case. I didn't realize that this was not a reasonable request, especially as I thought I'd been encouraged by an arbitrator to request the blanking of defamatory comments. But (to clarify again) I was happy (delighted, in fact) with the decision to blank the entire case and felt that my concerns were finally being heard; my understanding was that the courtesy blanking was "on behalf of multiple users" so I felt this was a response not just to me but to concerns of the community. I thought that was the best solution to the whole mess, so I was surprised (blown away) this morning to see Carcharoth's statement above that it was done solely in response to my request, and I was also surprised to find that there were people who were very unhappy about it. I believe Luke when he says he was genuinely trying to respond to concerns (and he's right that a number of people commenting on the MfD thought the page should be blanked; where are those people now?). I guess I just want to go ahead and leave, and you guys can do whatever the heck you're going to do about this. I thank those who tried to be responsive to my concern, and wish you well. ] (]) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Just a quick comment to say I'm aware of the responses here, and to reply to WMC's "blank-n-run" comment above. If you look at my contributions log, you will see that I started the courtesy blankings between 00:44 and 01:14 last night (UTC). My computer then crashed (as was noted in my edit summaries later on) and as it was late I decided to finish things off in the morning. I saw WMC's comment on my talk page and between 07:48 and 08:22 I replied, finished off what I'd started the previous night, and started this section as a place for discussion to take place (the latter action was prompted by WMC's objections). I then went to work. As it turned out, I had to work late, and then I had to get a bus home because of flooding on the London Underground (heavy rain here today). This is why I haven't been around to answer questions. (If anything is ever ''really'' urgent, I can be contacted by e-mail during the day). I had always intended to return to this section, so a bit of patience would have been appreciated, rather than "blank-n-run" comments and wonderings about where I'd got to. Having said that, I do need to deal with something else urgent now (trying to set priorities here, and making this post here was my first priority, but there are some other things that need attention as well), but I will come back to this later tonight (in a few hours), and respond further to what has been said here. I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings. In particular, please note the last sentence of the post I made to start this section. ] (]) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:Just a brief update to point to what I said (replying to WMC on my talk page). It doesn't cover everything that was said, but hopefully it will answer some of the questions. As I said there, I want to say more tomorrow, time permitting. Bottom line is that either everything that normally gets blanked is blanked, or nothing. No selective blankings. The diff of what I originally said to Woonpton is . I think she was looking for that. Hopefully that will clear up a few things. I've been consistent with what I said in that diff, and I stand by what I said there. ] (]) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| What on earth is all this crap about? ''Blanking'' a page changes nothing as to what actually happened <u>on</u> a page. It just removes it from search view. So long as the main ArbCase page remains, every single one of the links are there and as noted, several editors are aware of the History tab. I'd also be thinking that consolidation of several other "evidence" pages should be moved under the parent case page ''and'' blanked. Many more than the participants and adjudicators of this case are aware of what a black stain it is - but there is no reason that various search engines should casually pick up and rate the various search phrases, surely that is an unintended consequence. There is no doubt that many people will retain an institutional memory of what happened here and will be able to find links quite easily. | |||
| So what exactly is the rationale to <u>not</u> courtesy blank all the relevant pages (and move them into case sub-pages)? So long as the main or ''index'' page which leads to all the rest is present and public, what is the compelling reason to preserve every one of them? Selectivity is unfortunately not an option here. It's ''all'' a bad scene... ] (]) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === This is corrupt === | |||
| Flawed decision. Inept arbitrators. Together, the blanking just makes you look so incredibly corrupt that it is painful. Who else agrees???? ] (]) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of administrative access == | |||
| ] | |||
| :Who is the banned user? And is this block/desysop politically based, or for the good of the encyclopedia? Thanks in advance for your answers. ''']''' ] 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::We don't disapear people for political reasons. Revealing further identity may disclose real life identities, so the committee has not yet come to a decision on what, exactly, to announce. I expect we'll be in a good position for a more detailed announcement in a day or two, though. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"We don't disapear people for political reasons..." This is absolutely untrue, but I look forward to seeing who his former identity was, and whether this reaction was justified. Cheers, ''']''' ] 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did you mean political as per this: ]? I don't think anyone on the list was aware of that issue. We've just been informed. ] '']'' 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, this is certainly germane to that RfA. Has A new name 2008 been informed about the status of their confidante, or is it more complicated than that? ] (]) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From what I can see at the RFA, he is aware, and is re-confirming his identity through Thatcher. Who I'm pretty sure isn't a sock of anyone this time. ;-) ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It isn't just about reconfirming identity -- if ''A new name'' has put sensitive information at risk by revealing it to ''Pastor Theo'', he needs to be informed of the level of risk. ] (]) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please disregard the above, now I am aware of who it is. I agree a block/desysop was very appropriate. ''']''' ] 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And how, pray tell, do you know that, when the only people who should be aware are checkusers and oversights? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eh, the walls have ears; some people are really good guessers; functionaries-en is ''not'' leakproof. It doesn't really matter. And Majorly ''is'' a checkuser, just on a different project. ] 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a very good guess, that's all. Perhaps 99% certain. The facts all add up. No one is leaking anything to me. ''']''' ] 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So the community as a whole will never know who pastor theo was a sock of? Only those who have good hearing, and who are good guessers? ] (]) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Note above that Coren says Arbcom is still discussing how to handle it. ] 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes. People may need to be patient for info (the arbitrators should take their time to decide over a day or two), but the details will likely surface soon IMO. ]''']''' 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Coren said "I expect we'll be in a good position for a more detailed announcement in a day or two". So I expect we'll see more in a day or two. Either way, he was put out to Pastor. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Oh that's bad. ]''']''' 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: As disappointed as I am in seeing all this, this really makes me laugh. Baseball Bugs, I never understood why so many people thought you were funny, now I finally do :) ] (]) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My recollection is that this is not the first time a banned user has been elected admin. A strong case can be made that all successful admin candidates be checkusered as a routine matter. I'm really sorry for ], and feel that "the system" let him down badly. ] (]) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course, A new name could have run on his current edits and not tried to take credit for an extra 10K (for that matter, his user name is itself a poor choice for avoiding drama). Certainly the situation has turned out more poorly than he could have expected though. ] 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're right, it's all his fault. No need to do something silly like improve safeguards against this happening in the future.</sarcasm> ] (]) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a view I expressed long before Theo got popped. In any case, the proposal to checkuser all admin candidates has been floated many times. The checkusers would probably honor a request from the bureaucrats, but the bureaucrats would not make the request without a large community consensus to make it a regular part of RFA. So go start the discussion (again). And, note that this would probably only catch admin candidates who were unprepared for it. ] 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::True. Checkuser is useless if the subject has half a clue and knows it's coming. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed. (I'm not a CU, but have enough experience parsing httpd log files that I suspect I've got a good idea of how CU works.) Any other suggestions as to how this might be prevented in future? Even with my poor memory, this is at least the second time I can recall in the past year or two. That's twice too many. ] (]) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The idea "Checkuser all RFA nominees" comes up perennially. For reasons above, it's pointless. Most serious socks are nailed by behavior not checkuser data in the end anyhow; for example had the user in this case obtained his adminship and then acted legitimately, none of this would have followed. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In response to me disputing whether this merited an immediate desysop under Level I procedures, I was informed explicitly (and confirmed when I requested clarification to be sure) that Pastor Theo was i) operating a second account in contravention of ] very recently, and ii) had used his/her "advanced permissions" on the PT account in association with this second account. If this is the case, then I agree that Level I removal is acceptable, however I'm posting these two pieces of information to this noticeboard so that everyone else is aware of the ''full'' rationale behind the decision to use emergency removal procedures (as "currently operating a second account and using advanced permissions in relationship to it" wasn't included in the rationale posted to ]), and to ensure that when the announcement by the Committee is made, there are no discrepancies between what has been explicitly and unambiguously divulged up until now, and the statement by the Committee itself. ] (]) 01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *...and, by my not-very-extreme powers of deduction, the second account in question is probably {{userlinks|Mrs. Wolpoff}}. If so, there's a lot of double-voting going on, most notably Xeno's recent RfB, amongst many others. ] (]) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **] Just a guess... --]''''']''''' 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***. --]''''']''''' 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****It's definitely not Archtransit who is the "banned user" in this saga, to clarify any confusion. ] (]) 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****At least ] opposed Theo's RfA, unlike Archtransit's unanimous one.--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******Well, it ''was'' just a guess. I am unfamiliar with the Pastor Theo case, but one must admit, without priviledged information, there ARE some striking commonalities between PT's case and the Archtransit one. I trust that it is not him, but still, we have now then been burned twice by two different persons doing essentially the same thing. --]''''']''''' 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******But there were , too. ☺ ] (]) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **As for the double voting, it doesn't seem particularly successful at AFD. Wolpoff's favorite vote is "Per Pastor Theo", but the two accounts didn't get used in very many close calls. The real fun question is who gets to delete all those contributions?—](]) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, is indeed a particular weak comment for an AfD, i.e. no argument, just a vote and sarcastic question. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***On the contrary, ''if'' the above is correct we have ] and ], where the non-administrative account comments in the discussion and the administrative account closes it.<p> is interesting, by the way.<p>The bigger concern is the personal information that someone has apparently sent to this person, though. ] (]) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****No way to know if Wolpoff is Theo without solid evidence, but at the very least it's interesting they were blocked at the same minute and for the same reason, and with the same comment to take any questions to arbcom - and further that their user pages were cleared at the same minute and with the same generic block notice. But that doesn't necessary prove anything, as there could have been a hundred others at the same minute. Or 58, anyway. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***** Using Checkuser and nothing else, there is never any way to know for sure, because {{pixiedust}} ... All CU can do is suggest likelihood or unlikelihood. ++]: ]/] 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Holy Wow! I think this is like someone escaping from prison, adopting a new identity, and doing just about everything right, before their previous identity is found out and they get sent back to prison. When things like that occur (and I know of several prominent examples of such people), some people would invariably comment that these people should be let go because their track records as fugitives show that they were not threats to society anymore. Although I understand the rules in the book, in this case, it's hard for me not to sympathize with Theo, since I had not the slightest suspicion of who/what he previously was. I just thought that maybe if he had been a bit more careful, then he might have gotten away with it longer... ] (]) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering he used a sock account to double vote, it would be more like someone escaping from prison, getting a normal day job, but breaking into houses at night. Being a sock of a banned user was not the only issue. <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span> 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. I have no sympathy for them. Every time someone so blatantly undermines the confidence we have in each other, calling into question ] and further tarnishing Misplaced Pages's credibility, we all lose, every one of us. This user's (mostly) productive edits on this one account do not forgive all that. -] (]) 03:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am confused here and hope there isn't a double standard. Take for example, ]. He is a sock of banned ] and ended up admitting as much. Moreover, he was even confirmed by ] to still be using socks, but even then was only blocked. ] was a sock of at least two indeffed accounts, but was allowed to start over and multiple times. I have only encountered positive edits from Pastor Theo personally. Has his current account done anything so eggregious to justify being rebanned, given how tolerant we have been of the above and various other examples? Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Be careful there. Every case is unique, and we should not cloud issues from this case with anything going on anywhere else... --]''''']''''' 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. We wouldn't want any double standards with the use of alternate accounts. ] (]) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::At least one apparent difference is that Oakland owned up to his previous name, whereas New Name has owned up to being a renamed user but not to what his previous name was (sorry, but "just trust me" doesn't cut it), and Theo hasn't owned up to ''anything'', except by inference since he immediately retired upon being exposed. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::A Nobody, given that you have been caught and blocked twice for socking, I really did not expect to see you show up here arguing for more lenient treatment of users who abuse multiple accounts. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Eh, did you expect him to show up here arguing for ''harsher'' treatment of users who abuse multiple accounts, then? ++]: ]/] 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I expected he would see the wisdom in not inserting himself in a discussion that was likely to shine bad light on his past behavior, given that a possible outcome of this discussion would be to have no sympathy for past bad acts and treat past sock abusers as being unreform-able. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Good point. You may be expecting too much, though... ++]: ]/] 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ec}} Well, harsher treatment can be quite ]; it can help develop an editor's perspective and can result in the added benefit of <span class="plainlinks"></span> useful edits to non-en:wp projects. Cheers, ] 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The ] always have the news first ] It seems that the lesson here is if you have skeletons in the closet, don't become an admin. --] 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm surprised as I thought "Theo" seemed like a good editor, but if the community banned previous account is who it is alleged to be (and the pieces fit together quite well) then this block is a good one. ] (]) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :After being horrified by the Arbcom Sam case, I posed this question: ] on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations. | |||
| : If arbcoms and admins are regularly creating socks, our most trusted editors, then this is obviously a systemic problem. The only partial solution is to allow routine check user for anyone who asks. | |||
| :I think the bottom line is that sock puppets do not effect the financial well being of wikipedia like BIO scandals, so the sockpuppet issue will continue to be ignored. ] (]) 12:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The current checkuser policy allows broad discretion in running checks, but only for the stated purposes ("to prevent disruption" is the most broad). There needs to be some reasonable showing of how checking will prevent disruption, usually this involves evidence of current disruption or behavior that raises at least a strong reasonable suspicion of hanky-panky. Checking accounts on a whim or without a strong reasonable suspicion would represent a major change in policy. You're welcome to start a discussion at the appropriate places to get consensus for this. ] 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep. That "appropriate place" would be somewhere on Meta I expect (or perhaps the Strategy wiki) as it's foundation wide policy. ++]: ]/] 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't say I'm surprised. He overdid it with the "pastor" stuff. ] (]) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::So there's speculation that he was Ecoleetage? Wow. ] (]) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well Ecoleetage was blocked on of this year and the Pastor Theo account was created on . So, it all lines up. Wouldn't be surprised if it's true.--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The behavior of ] is the key here. --] (]) 15:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If this is true, and the new account was created a whole 1 day after the old was blocked, would it be too bold to suggest preventive checkuser for the next day - or even two - to stop an exact repeat? <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">] ]</span> 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Anyone caught twice has probably figured out the two most frequently used ways to catch socks (whatever those ways are), so preventive checkusering does have limits. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Suggestion=== | |||
| The community needs to decide whether it wants to allow sockpuppetry or not. Over the five years I've been editing, I've not been able to detect any consistent pattern in how we deal with socks. Some sockmasters are warned, some blocked briefly, some indefblocked. When they return with new accounts, some are allowed to continue, others are indefblocked as soon as they're spotted. Some are allowed to have old user pages deleted so they're harder to find again in future, others aren't. Then we find banned socks are running admin accounts, and we're shocked. But it's because we're sending out the wrong signals. | |||
| I suggest we start a discussion somewhere -- maybe via an RfC, or by posting a policy proposal -- to gain consensus for three issues: | |||
| *(1) random and regular IP checks on all admins and candidates; | |||
| *(2) no alternate accounts allowed unless the ArbCom has been given the name of the second account. That includes people leaving and returning. So if you start life as User:X in 2006, don't edit for years, then pop up as User:Y in 2009, you have to e-mail ArbCom that you used to be User:X, and | |||
| *(3) consistent penalties for those found to have socked e.g. community ban for anyone trying to gain a second admin account, or a first admin account if you were previously banned; one year ban for anyone caught socking with a non-admin account. | |||
| The above wouldn't stop sockpuppetry, but it would drastically reduce it. Sockmasters would need to maintain separate IPs for accounts and ''never'' make a mistake, which requires executive secretary skills that many people don't have, and even if they do have them, can't be bothered using. Only the fanatics would be left with their multiple accounts. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :One factor you have not addressed is that it's important why the individual was banned in the first place. If a user is banned for repeated POV editing on topic X, and he or she comes back a few months later and edits in a perfectly acceptable manner on articles entirely unrelated to topic X, and never seeks adminship, then (i) often the fact that the person is a banned user will never be discussed, and (ii) a lot of people would say that we shouldn't make an issue out of the individual's status. (I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is certainly true.) On the other hand, if the user's ban resulted from harassment, threats, or other more grievous misconduct, the reaction might be very different. As I've observed in a couple of different contexts this year, unfairness can often consist of treating like cases differently; it can also consist of treating unlike cases the same. ] (]) 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's true. That's why I think we should periodically allow people to return to see if they've reformed. It's trivially easy for users to start a new account, and I would much rather have them do so more transparently. ] '']'' 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think that's why ArbCom does not ban for more than a year. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd support that, SV. → ] ]<small> 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Easy fix - admins should have to confirm their identity. ] (]) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **To whom? ] (]) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****To the people they expect to trust them. ] (]) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***(ec) Absolutely not. How exactly would who you are IRL end sockpuppeting admins?--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****One real life identity gets no more than one admin account. Not rocket science. ] (]) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **That is a bad idea. We need more admins who approach adminship more casually. By casual, I do not mean uncaring or unethical, but less vested. The more of a Big Deal something is, the more likely they get emotionally involved, get worked up about protecting their reputations, and have the incentive to cheat. --] (]) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Most admins already treat their tools as The Biggest Deal in Town. Requiring a bit of up-front honesty from admins would weed out some of the worst ones right off. ] (]) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****Most admins are inactive - I believe at last count there were around 900 or so active (Mbisanz has been keeping an eye on it I'm sure), and I can name maybe twenty or thirty off the top of my head. If I did a comprehensive study, I could probably get a list of many, many admins who have way to much ego for their own good - a much smaller population of that set lets it bleed into their work past the point of mere annoyance, and an even smaller population actually has enough clout to cause Horrible Things. What I'm saying is that requiring that bit of upfront honesty may stop problem individuals, yes, but also increase their proportion within the general active admin population.--] (]) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****Inactive admins are another problem - they clearly do not need the tools (if they did need them, they would use them) - yet try to remove tools from them and they kick up a stink. ] (]) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******If they're inactive for some stretch of time then they should be de-sysopped. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *******That is a gigantic can of tangentially related worms.--] (]) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ********Well, someone else brought it up. But what's the point of having adminship if they don't use it? If someone hasn't used it in a year, why would they need it? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Agreed, no. Administrators are volunteers. A good number of them are minors, or were at the time they were sysopped. They should not be required to submit some form of identification to the foundation or whoever to get two extra tabs at the top of each page that say "delete" and "protect". Administrator rights are not so important that we need to pre-emptively sanction people in this way. You get no access to private information by being an admin, and all of your actions are reversible with a few clicks of the mouse. Administrator rights are in no way the same league as checkuser or oversight, where damage ''could'' be caused by unscrupulous persons. Situations like this aren't fun, but no lasting harm occurs. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****(ec)The rights may be, to you, trivial, but the status is routinely abused by most active admins in discussions. Pastor Theo's misuse of his status in a topic ban discussion is one of the reasons I find it so hard to contribute to this encyslopaedia. ] (]) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****Agreed. I want to emphasize the major gulf between crass deceptiveness and dickery on Misplaced Pages and messing around with personal/private information.--] (]) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****Why on god's green earth do we allow minors to be admins? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******Same reason we let the elderly.--] (]) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *******And the sockpuppets, apparently. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****That's funny DH. How is it that PT's actions in a topic ban discussion caused it to be difficult for you to contribute say more than a few days ago? I agree that his actions should have been stopped but let's wonder how indentification would have stopped them? Do we require registered editors to identify themselves? Could he have submitted ''real'' and ''valid'' ID and still socked on the other accounts? '''Of course'''. So I really have trouble seeing this as anything more than an attempt to make adminship generally more burdensome. ] (]) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******As was clear from the context, I was making the point that adminship isn't merely about the tools, it is also about the status. Try reading the thread properly in future before making stupid comments. I want admins to be more honest and open - I am sorry that you find honestly and openness burdonsome. ] (]) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *******I figured you just wanted to bitch about admin abuse. My bad. As others have said, elevating adminship to a status beyond that necessary to do the job is a bad thing and will be made worse, not better if admins are forced to identify (making them more 'real' than registered editors). ] (]) 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ********Well, a thread about a corrupt admin and you object to someone complaining about corrupt admins? What's your problem? What are you hiding? ] (]) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *********Haven't you heard? I'm PT's other sock! ] (]) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That and I imagine that checkusering enough people enough times to catch 10-15% more socks would make a mockery of our privacy policy to say nothing of requiring more checkusers than we already have. ] (]) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I would support number 3 (though with less specifics), but that's it. Number 1 makes adminship way too huge of a deal (besides a bunch of drama, there was very little damage from this and similar cases) and as Protonk said is inconsistent with our privacy policy. Number 2 is just pointless. Who cares if someone leaves and returns? Especially if they're gone for 3 years. Unless they're doing it to evade a sanction, it shouldn't matter in the slightest. We shouldn't punish people just because they didn't fill out the necessary paperwork. <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span> 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Number 2 will do a bit more than that. It will A. punish the honest and B. give a sort of legalistic cover to anyone who wants to ban an account that they suspect/discover/confirm is a reincarnation/alternate account. Putting aside the costs of legalism for a moment, this will put a lot of levers in the hands of those emotionally invested enough to hunt, and INCREASE unaccountable ArbCom power, which I thought was out of style. Having a culture of voluntary honesty is one thing - making it a rule is something else entirely. --] (]) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***We don't have a culture of "voluntary honesty" - we have a culture if "Get away with whatever you can". ] (]) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****I agree with the first half of your sentence, but not the second. My point was, creating a culture of honesty will be far and away more effective then trying to policy this problem into submission.--] (]) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *The important thing to bear in mind is that these changes would be widely posted, so people would know in advance what was expected of them. If you're entering an online community firmly opposed to socking, and you sock, it's a gross violation, no matter the reason. If you're entering one that hedges its bets, as we currently do, then it's not a gross violation. And that's why we have so much of it. We have to stop sitting on the fence about it, or else we have to stop complaining about socks. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I don't think these people are socking, or being banned and coming back and posting an RfA, because they think its OK and people won't mind. We do treat incidences of socking on a case by case basis, yes; different outcomes in different incidents based on the individual circumstances, which vary widely. The ultimate aim, the benefit of the encyclopedia, stays the same - but that aim is not best served by an iron rule, no matter how much simpler pure consistency would make things. ]] 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:(e/c) To be honest, I think the ''fundamental'' problem is that any sort of allowance for sock flies in the face of our desire to run everything by consensus. Socking destroys consensus, because it skews discussion even when it's not taking place: just look at how badly some of the more controversial discussions fare once accusations of socking start. It's that simple. I agree with you (SV) that we need to stop sitting on the fence; any undisclosed alternate account is a problem and should be both forbidden entirely and slammed down systemically. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*We're conflating problems; banned users socking is not the same thing as normal users using multiple accounts. Neither should be tolerated, but the type of response called for is quite different and reasonably so. We don't, in any sense, tolerate socking by banned editors; I don't believe our response to normal users socking is that uneven. The "discipline" applied varies based on the circumstances, and can we seriously entertain arguments that this is wrong? ] policies have a pretty spotty track record, and provide a long list of examples of ]. ]] 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *No need for any of this. At my count, there have been 2 admins over the past 2.5 years who have managed to "get away with one". We must promote more than 100 admins a year; that's less than a 1% "bad apple" rate, and any draconian "checkuser them all" measures aren't going to catch anything of significance. Furthermore, lots of people run alternate accounts, even admins, even ArbComs. The requirement that all people run one and only one account misses the point that there are many legitimate reasons to run multiple accounts, listed at ], including seperating public computer and home computer accounts, maintaining bot accounts, etc. etc. Dealing with "sock" accounts must, by neccessity, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, based on the MANY MANY factors before deciding the appropriate reaction to a discovered sock. We cannot treat a newbie who is unfamiliar with policy the same as Grawp; nor can we treat someone who makes a single error in judgement the same as people who create multiple disruptive socks for the sole purpose of socking. Predetermining punishments based on arbitrary criteria prevents admins using good judgement in issuing blocks; any admin action can be reviewed and overturned or modified in community discussion. There should be no changes to the way anything is done over this incident. Someone pulled one over on us. Good for them. We caught them. Now lets get back to doing whatever it is that we do... --]''''']''''' 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Checkuser for admin candidates is probably a waste of time and effort. Behavior is what matters. Even if someone was a banned user and has reformed himself, he could be worthy of consideration. Sockpuppeteering while being an admin obviously requires removal of sysop tools. And claiming X number of edits under a previous user ID while not disclosing that ID is dishonest and should disqualify a candidate. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think everyone can agree that this is a repeat problem, that is going to happen again. | |||
| Boiling this discussion down to its simpilest components: we have Slimvirgin suggested change, and we have editors opposed to Slimvirgin suggested change. | |||
| If you don't like Slimvirgin's suggestion, please suggest your own. Otherwise you are simply advocating that the status quo is okay. ] (]) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing wrong with advocating the ''status quo'' is OK. There does not always have to be a change after every incident. One may disagree with SlimVirgin's "solution" and still want a change, but there is also the distinct possibility that someone may disagree that any change is called for. Such people have a right to speak up as well. --]''''']''''' 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :UGH. No. If we shot all rapists upon arrest we would not have a situation where convicted rapists were released to later kidnap and rape again. that doesn't mean that those of us opposing the summary execution of suspected rapists upon arrest are guilty of advocating kidnap and rape. Seriously. ] (]) 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jay, I agree with you. Just defining the parameters, if you advocate the status quo, I respect that. | |||
| :::Protonk, alrighty then, don't know how to respond. Bordering on ] now. ] (]) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::One suggestion my be that you retract your bizzare assertion that failure to advocate some "solution" makes editors advocates for the status quo. As many people have said above, behavioral evidence is what gets especially pernicious socks. Not procedural stricture. Not technical measures. And not some future 'clarification' of the alternate account policy. But we can't argue that (according to you) without somehow being complicit in the problems presented here. That ends debate far more effectively than a reference to hitler or an analogy to kidnap and rape. ] (]) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Jayron32: "At my count, there have been 2 admins over the past 2.5 years who have managed to "get away with one". We must promote more than 100 admins a year; that's less than a 1% "bad apple" rate…" | |||
| :And just the other day, you would have counted but one, which we know now to be inaccurate. | |||
| :We lift up one rug in our home, and a roach scurries away. We lift up another - lo, another roach. ''None of the other rugs have been lifted''…yet you're confident there were only two roaches, and there is no need to lift another rug.] (]) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To continue your analogy, the proposed solution ammounts to setting the house on fire for the sake of the roaches; yes, it will get rid of the roach problem but at what cost? I'm not sure that upending the long-standing expectations of privacy at Misplaced Pages, coupled with completely outlawing legitimate alternative accounts, and the idea of an ill-thought out zero-tolernace/mandatory-sentancing policy for all violations of WP:SOCK are measured responses to this situation. They seem way out of whack for what has so far been a few isolated incidents. We have 2000 admins. How many do you seriously think are like Archtransit and Pastor Theo? Another 4 or 5? Are these drastic changes to the way we handle adminship, multiple accounts, and checkuser policy worth the chance to catch those 4 or 5? Look, in both of these cases it became very obvious on behavioral grounds that the admin in question was not on the up-and-up. That is, they actually did shit which was clearly wrong and THAT brought attention to themselves. There is no need to change anything based on what has happened, except to maybe be aware that there may be more like this out there, and to raise our general awareness to the problem. That's about it. --]''''']''''' 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to imagine that most admins are not Evil Sockpuppets, merely because most admins are tragically boring.--] (]) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jayron32: "That is, they actually did shit which was clearly wrong and THAT brought attention to themselves." | |||
| :::He did do things that were very wrong, but that's not how he was discovered - User:Pastor Theo was at the end of a trail which began elsewhere, one which would have been aptly characterized as speculative vetting.] (]) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: You can't require admins to reveal their RL identity to the community as a whole, we would never be able to police some articles if we did that. But I can't think of a reason we should not ask them to confirm to the arbitrators or the office. We ask OTRS volunteers to confirm identity, there is an established precedent, and this is obviously a recurrent problem causing distrust among the wider community. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'd endorse SlimVirgins #2 and #3, but I don't agree with #1 (for obvious and previously discussed-to-death reasons that can be rehashed if needed). We can probably put "All RFA candidates and other nominees for positions should be checkusered" and "All admins should randomly be checkusered" (and anything like these) on the ] list. | |||
| Arbcom looked at abusive adminship in January 2008, following the Archtransit case. RFA doesn't help an abuser that much. Most admin actions are tightly constrained and watched. So it's hard to abuse the tools persistently and not reach Arbcom or community attention. Most abusers also want to use admin tools to further a specific agenda yet not be noticed. It's very difficult. | |||
| The main areas of abuse are stacking or !vote abuse, abuse of unblocking, mis-closing of discussions (AFD, ANI, etc), and what could be called 'abuse of standing' (ie: "User X is an admin so they can get away with stuff in a dispute"). There are a couple of other risks, but those are the main ones. | |||
| By their nature these abuses are not hidden, they are public and behaviorally visible to the community. Behavioral detection, or admins with integrity quietly alerting the functionaries team/Arbcom/ANI has been a very reliable and historically strong waty to identify such cases. Almost every socking admin case (80%+ at an informal guess) was not only spotted behaviorally, but the admin had taken steps to avoid checkuser in many of them. Even looking back, checkuser was at best merely a further source of confirmation in the majority of these. It would not have been much of a route of detection. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I will simply point out that there are currently over 10.5 ''million'' registered accounts on the English Misplaced Pages, not including any IPs that have edited. The number of those accounts that are alternates is likely in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands. The overwhelming and vast majority of alternate accounts are no problem at all, violate no core practices of the encyclopedia, and are either reasonable alternate accounts (for example, I have doppelgangered my RL name to prevent a vandal from usurping it, as declared on my userpage), or are "new" accounts of someone who forgot their password or forgot they'd edited months or years before. IP addressses change, without necessarily any rhyme or reason, in most of the world. The number of abusive alternate accounts that are not caught almost immediately is infinitesmally minute compared to the user base. Only a handful of administrator accounts have been identified that were used in an abusive manner in concert with an alternate account, in the 8 years the encyclopedia has been around. The only time that there is a problem with someone having more than one account is when two or more of those accounts are used in a way to alter consensus. There is no realistic way to verify whether an account abandoned a few years ago is related to a current account. And, perhaps most importantly, routine checkusering of any accounts is a direct violation of the WMF privacy policy (link at the bottom of every page). Given the number of accounts on the wiki, one cannot justify such routine checks as "prevention of disruption". ] (]) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the privacy policy is concerned only with the release of private data. It doesn't (so far as I know) regulate who is checked and why. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: There are three policies that affect CheckUser/Oversight: the ], the ], and the one you're after, the ] (included in ]). | |||
| :: The global policy on checkuser states ''"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.... There must be a valid reason to check a user."''. I read that as meaning: | |||
| ::# There must be some specific basis for a reasonable concern that abuse might indeed be going on with some user or issue, '''and''' | |||
| ::# there must be reason to believe the checkuser tool can help to check, reduce, or prevent it if so. | |||
| :: To me, the essence of CU policy is checkusers cannot check specific users or IPs at random. There must be some specific rationale particular to that user or case, and a basis of evidence/concern that others can double-check if needed, that leads a checkuser to reasonably believe that there may be actual editorial abuse going on. Not just "lets see if these users are clean". We stretch that to a few other types of harm prevention (suicide threats, bomb threats, collateral damage checks, etc), but not by much. There must at least be a specific basis of concern in each case, and some rationale or evidence that others can review if wished. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Sockpuppetry isn't the major issue, here. === | |||
| Jayron32 has hit the nail on the head. Sockpuppetry isn't the major issue, here in this case. It wasn't the major issue the last time around, either. People who want a Big Discussion of How Multiple Accounts Are Bad (and ] is here to tell you that they aren't) are missing the issue entirely. ''This'' incident isn't egregious because of sockpuppetry. The Runcorn incidents weren't egregious because of sockpuppetry. The Ecoleetage incident wasn't egregious because of sockpuppetry. There were factors such as ''real world stalking'', ''workplace harrassment'', and ''on-line identity theft'' that made them egregious. Focussing on the ballot-stuffing sockpuppetry in issues such as these is to miss the important things for the comparatively minor. ] (]) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :We are not talking about permissive socks like ] we are talking about abusive socks. Bluring the line between the two does not futher this discussion. | |||
| :Ecoleetage came back from an indefinete ban as a sockpuppet, and became an admin. None of us here are talking about Ecoleetage's past behavior, that was already dealt with, you are the first person to bring it up because it is completly irrelevant to this discussion, except that someone who was banned for these grevious issues was able to later become an admin. | |||
| :As I wrote above, this argument seems like support for the status quo. ] (]) 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who did Ecoleetage return as an admin under? I don't remember that, maybe it was during my break, but all I remember is his last failed RfA. Also, I believe Uncle G mentions Ecoleetage because he is mentioned above by Keepscaces. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe UG mentioned Eco because the running theory is that PT==Eco. ] (]) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personally, I'm hoping PT ≠ Eco. Because {{user|A new name 2008}} revealed potentially personal info (I have no idea how personal or if personal at all) to Theo and Ecoleetage was blocked for off-wiki harassment. The possibility of an ] is entirely possible here.--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 18:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If there are "real-world stalking issues" then the past behaviour of Ecoleetage is germane in at least one way, and possibly another, bigger way. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm curious to believe the rumors for my own reasons but I'm unwilling to believe for certain until someone reveals some more convincing information. I'm curious as to the account Ikip is referring to when he says "Ecoleetage came back from an indefinete ban as a sockpuppet, and became an admin.". Is that an assertion that PT=Eco, or is it based on a different account name? Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A more formal statement from ArbCom regarding exactly which accounts/users were involved in this incident is forthcoming. At this point, any assertions of who PT was are simply suspicions, not supported by technical evidence. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Smashing, I'm sure it'll make an interesting read. Thanks. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hersfold: "At this point, any assertions of who PT was are simply suspicions, not supported by technical evidence." | |||
| ::::] (]) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see any reference to PT there, nor do you have the checkuser flag. Thank you for proving my point - any assertions of who is who are simply guesswork. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hersfold, it's clear cut. In addition to the above, Eco's real-name imdb page shows a picture of the same person that was on Pastor Theo's user page. ] 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::At some point arbcom will understand that they work at ''wikipedia'' the place where large numbers of editors make seemingly intractable problems trivial ]. It will be interesting to see how long they wait until they make a clarifying statement, if one is forthcoming at all. ] (]) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::One ''will'' be forthcoming, Protonk. I know ArbCom is working on it, because they told us that they are (although they did not share the text of it with us on func-l). Being that this does relate to people and their real-life identities, can we please show just a little more patience with ArbCom as they decide how to best handle an ugly situation? Thanks. -- ] (]) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Not sure who the we is. I have respect for the ugliness of the situation, but the cat was out of the proverbial bag once the account/sock were blocked. My suggestion is that foresight of that fact for the next similar event would be beneficial for the committee. ] (]) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The point of waiting isn't that we intend to keep a secret, but that any statement from the committee needs to be just that: from ''the committee''. This normally entails a delay of some hours at the least, and often up to a day given the timezones and availability of the arbitrators to agree on the contents and detail of the statement. In some cases, this is complicated by uncertainty about what, exactly, the committee should say — though there are no such complications in this particular case and I expect a statement to be posted shortly. That some (many?) people could or did figure out part of what needs to be said does not obviate the need for that synchronization. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::... or I could also just look a little silly by not noticing while I type this that the statement ''did'' get posted a few minutes earlier. I suppose that means I was more accurate than I expected when I said "shortly". :-) — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't think anyone is trying to keep things secret. A variant on ] might be "never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by bureaucracy". I suspect that you guys are doing your best. I'm just saying that once something like the original announcement gets out, independent investigation is inevitable. It would be up to you how to go about avoiding speculation (or whether it is worth it to do so). I am just pointing out that the speculation will occur (and was evidently quite accurate). ] (]) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The alternative would have been some days-long ANI drama meltdown and RFAR request if someone had raised these concerns in public, instead of coming to ArbCom. Since that didn't happen, and we were made aware of this, we (with the checkusers) dealt with it within a week or so (with no accompanying drama), and once it was clear a desysop and blocks were needed, we moved swiftly to enact that, and then issue a confirmation statement just over a day later. I think this approach actually minimised drama. Think about the alternatives. If we had waited to desysop and block only when the full statement was ready, it would likely have hit ANI or RFAR first, and spiralled from there. As it is, all we have is this thread here. The possible impact on an ongoing RFA is unfortunate, but we weren't aware of that and hopefully that can be sorted out. ] (]) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Confirmation of desysopping=== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Trial unblock of User:Life== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Full clerkships== | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ] | |||
| == Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025 == | |||
| :Congrats kids.--] (]) 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) 00:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| *Farewell Ferret. Your service has made us even better. ] (]) 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:28, 1 January 2025
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025
- Farewell Ferret. Your service has made us even better. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)