Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:09, 21 October 2009 editNovickas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,221 editsm /* Updating target dates , fix dates← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,386 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (botTag: Replaced 
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 = 8
|algo = old(4d) |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 =
] (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

== ] ==

:]<!-- ] 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) -->

== Speed of light: temporary injunction ==

: ].

== Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications ==

:]

== Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications ==

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the ], see the ] now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

]
{{hat|Closing this down as an alternative to imposing blocks on editors who are violating their topic bans. ] (]) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}}
===Discussion by Brews_ohare===
The decision states:
:''Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.''

My comments concerning this action may be found . By extending this remedy to all ''physics related'' pages and (as "broadly construed" is interpreted on the Project discussion page) to ''all Talk pages'', I am banned from not only physics but all "physics-related" topics such as: mathematics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, circuits, signals, systems, software, the history of such topics, and any philosophical, economic, newsworthy or humorous aspects. I am banned not only from contributing to these topics, I am banned from discussing them on their Talk pages and from discussing them with individual editors on their own Talk pages, or answering inquiries directed specifically to me on my own Talk page. This ban extends to minutiae like correcting typos or inserting paragraph breaks or providing sources. Any Administrator acting alone & without consultation can impose further sanctions at any time based upon their own judgment of what is "physics-related, broadly construed" or simply upon their personal priorities, and several Administrators have indicated they will interpret the matter extremely narrowly, and strictly as a procedural matter independent of whatever might be the particulars of any supposed infraction. The above rather substantial restrictions constitute a total ban from WP so far as I can see, at least so far as content. ] (]) 23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, that is not what the decision states; that is an extract from the Clerk's summary of the decision. The decision itself is here: ]. The remedy to which Brews refers, as applicable to him, states:

:<blockquote>4.2) {{user|Brews ohare}} is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.</blockquote>

:It is broad insofar as science goes (although not necessarily as broad as Brews's construction; not ''all'' of biology, for example), but it is nowhere hear a total ban from Misplaced Pages. ] ] 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::I fail to distinguish any significant difference in the two statements. The full statement also contains the advice: ''any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions…''. My interpretation may not be everyman's, but I am quite sure it is the interpretation of those in Case/Speed of light that got the thing drawn up and who will ride herd on Admins to insure its enforcement. ] (]) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::You may also be over-extending the scope of the ban; I do realize that physics is a far-reaching field, but if you were to edit the article on ], I for one wouldn't care one whit. Of course, any scientific field will have some articles that relate more to physics than others do, physics being essentially the foundation for all other sciences, but a good many of them relate only in the most tangential manner, if at all. If you're unsure about this, file a request for clarification as to how broadly "broadly construed" is. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Hersfold: You are a moderate in all this, and others will take a more severe stance. For example, biology includes the ] and the structure of DNA. Off limits. ] (]) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::::If you interpret the topic ban reasonably, you won't violate it. If you specifically seek out an aspect of biology that ''is'' physics, that would violate your topic ban. That is not all of biology, or even most of it. DNA structure? The physics of it (e.g., the quantum theory behind the chemical bonds) is out. Organization of the bases ought to be OK. If you try to walk on the edge, there is a good chance you will fall off. Should you be careful? Of course. Throwing away an expert's advice on how to interpret it ''reasonably'' or the suggestion that you can seek guidance from the Arbitrators, just makes your situation worse, not better. Topic ban or not, if you behave disruptively in disputes regarding any subject matter—according to policy (]), not ''your own'' idea of what is or isn't disruptive on—you will get yourself in more trouble. More importantly, your arguing around and around and around about all of this, with people who trying to help you here, with a counterargument to everything that everybody says, is just the kind of behavior on article talk pages that got you into this arbitration and led to your sanctions. Please, '''STOP IT''', for your own sake. ] ] 05:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Finell: you, I, Brews and a few others were involved in this Arbitration case. If you just tell Brews and me to '''STOP IT''', when we discuss some practical problems with the topic ban, then to me that's a sign tat perhaps you should "stop", as you are the one who seems to be irritated. What you just explained above about Brews editing biology pages is an interesting case that I think should be explored further as it clearly suggest why the topic ban is flawed.
:::::If I were Brews and I wanted to make sure to avoid the same problems I was in before (assuming that I was not under a topic ban restriction), I would focus far more on my general editing behavior (dominating talk pages, soapboxing etc. etc. to get my way). Whether or not the biology topic happens to be physics or not should be utterly irrelevant. However, according to the topic ban Brews is under what counts is whether or not the topic is physics. That's the problem. I'm now not suggesting that Brews violate the topic ban on this point. ] (]) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::And Finell is correct - the notices posted here, at AN, and on the parties' talk pages are a summary of the case's final decision, not the decision itself. The notices may leave out various details and could in fact be wrong if I misread something; the official decision on the case page is what is binding. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Clearly the Arbitrators did not think this through. Within most of the physics topics Brews has been active with, the problematic issues that were the subject of the arbitration will likely never arise. But I can easily imagine Brews being involved in a dispute about, say, consciousness on some biology page that proceeds along very similar lines as on the speed of light page.

:::So, I think this topic ban can be ignored should the need arise per ], if sticking to the topic ban would lead to absurd situations. E.g. if I think I can settle a matter quickly by talking to Brews, I will do so. I was suggested that I should instead raise the matter at WikiProject Physics. But that's just ridiculous. I think I should be able to talk to that person who I feel is the most approprate person to direct my question to, topic ban or no topic ban, provided the factors behind the topic ban are not going to be at play (and that should be so obvious that no one would disagree with that). The need for that could arise if I were to edit an article that was previously edited by Brews. ] (]) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't think IAR is a valid reason to ignore an arbcom ban, at least not in this case. The correct procedure here would probably be to request clarification or an amendment to his case to allow him to make the edits he wants. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::@Brews - If you are not sure whether you are allowed to work on a page, I suggest that you ask an arbitrator whether that page would be okay for you to work on. This procedure has worked for ], who is currently banned from working on Fringe Science pages.

:::@Count Iblis - Telling Brews to apply Ignore-all-rules to an Arbcom ban is awesomely bad advice, which, if he were to follow it, might quickly gain him a long block. For example, ] got a three month block for correcting a few typos on a fringe science page, after being told not to edit fringe science topics. ] (]) 03:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying he should just ignore the ruling. What I'm saying is that Brews should be able to give a straight answer to a question asked by someone on his talk page without fear of prosecution. This would then also be a violation of the topic ban (Arbitrators made that clear after a question by WMC). But in such a situation, that would really be ridiculous and it would go way beyond what ScienceApologist did. ScienceApologist deliberately tested the topic ban by correcting a typo on a page from which he was banned. There are millions of Misplaced Pages pages, so why would he correct a typo on exactly one of those few pages from which he was banned? But ScienceApologist would certainly not have been banned had I asked a question about some test debunking of some parapsychological phenomena and he would have answered my question. ] (]) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Reply to ]: QED: enforcement is intended to be to the letter. Asking if a particular page is OK to work on will not work: what is added to a page or linked to a page or sourced on a page may exceed the limits imagined by the permission granter. It may not seem to either of us to exceed the bounds, but those watching every detail may find some reason to complain. So basically each contribution will have to be cleared, not each page, and events will unfold that were not anticipated. Of course, among reasonable folk, all this could be dealt with. But reasonable folk are not evident in Case/Speed of light, and it is the like who will be watching. ] (]) 04:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Brews: I don't think it is hopeless, and the decks aren't stacked against you. But I'm not going to spend any more of my time telling you how to make things better for yourself when you are determined to make things worse for yourself. Either try to get along here or don't. But please lose the self-pity, or at least keep it to yourself. You have no one but yourself to blame for the result of this arbitration (although following Tombe's advice certainly didn't help, and now Iblis thinks he is helping you with his terrible advice). ] ] 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Finell: If this ruling doesn't "stack the decks against me", what would, eh? I don't think it's exactly "self-pity" to point out the very poor phrasing of the ban, which Count Iblis has explained much more carefully and clearly than I have myself. I know, Finell, that you want everything to be nice and work right, but the points made by Count Iblis and myself are valid ones, and make editing under the ban rather obnoxious if even possible. The point here is just to underline some of the problems. Although you would like to ameliorate matters, the ban as written is effectively a ban from WP for a year, even without the provisions that any Admin on their own discretion can decide I'm out of line. I have ample indication that this authority will be used to the letter of the law, not in the spirit of keeping me in line, but with the notion of excluding my participation. Even if there is an appeal process to a dubious action (which I doubt) , I certainly wouldn't want to go through months of argument over some small edit trying to get reinstated. ] (]) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Count Iblis: "Clearly the Arbitrators did not think this through." What arrogant, self-righteous nonsense. And how many people have to warn you ''not'' to undermine Brews' chances of ever to regaining broader editing privileges by violating the Arbitrators' final decision? This arbitration is over and that should be the end of this controversy. Stop stirring the pot. ] ] 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I gave a detailed explanation after that sentence explaining what is wrong with the ruling. On certain points, sticking to the ruling would be plainly ridiculous and per ] one can then ignore that. I also did acknowledge that I was wrong when I suggested that a direct violation of the topic ban would trigger an appeals process. So, I'm not all that "self-righteous" at all. ] (]) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Reply to ]: Please avoid adjectives like ''arrogant, self-righteous nonsense'' to describe legitimate analysis of the consequences of the remedies against Brews_ohare. Although in charge, the ArbCom is not ''ipso facto'' wise, and Case/Speed of light is a clear demo of this fact. There is absolutely no likelihood of my regaining privileges until the ban ends in a year, so no worries about my being tempted into some action that will aggravate my circumstances, which can be made worse only by extending the ban. Having a year to find other activities and break my WP addiction, it is uncertain that I will return when that is over, which will leave you to deal with the (adjectives fail me) band of characters and their "behavioral anomalies" revealed by this inquiry. ] (]) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

===The final analysis===
I would like to finish up with a few quotes from ].

{{quotation |1= Well, by and by somebody said Sherburn ought to be lynched. In about a minute everybody was saying it; so away they went, mad and yelling, and snatching down every clothes-line they come to to do the hanging with. They SWARMED UP towards Sherburn's house, a-whooping and raging like Injuns, and everything had to clear the way or get run over and tromped to mush, and it was awful to see. ''Mark Twain 1884''}}

This is comparable to the hysteria which erupted in the scientific community when the news broke out, that the new metre results in a state of affairs in which the speed of light, when expressed in terms of that metre, amounts to a statement that is as useless as saying that the speed of light is one light-year per year.

And now for ] on consensus,

{{quotation |1= Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town? ''Mark Twain 1884''}}

And a final thanks to arbitrator Stephen Bain for his common sense and enquiry, which led him to the tip of the iceberg as regards the truth surrounding this absolute monumental fiasco. ] (]) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:You can cite no reliable source for the proposition that "hysteria ... erupted in the scientific community" as a result of what you call "the new metre", which is how you refer to the definition of the metre adopted 26 years ago. And it must have been a pretty quiet eruption since, by your own admission, you didn't even hear of the 1983 definition until July or August this year. And you are not supposed to be discussing physics on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 05:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but the arbitration case beats any reliable source for demonstrating the hysteria. ] (]) 14:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::I don't know about new metres, the speed of light, or the scientific community, but the Twain quotes do seem to describe pretty well how ban discussions tend to proceed on Misplaced Pages. I guess human nature hasn't changed between the 19th and 21st centuries. ] (]) 12:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Are you suggesting that your fellow editors engage in extra-judicial killings based on racial hatred? If not, you and the original posted ought to refactor your highly trollish remarks. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Lord Jehochman, your comments never cease to amaze me, do you ever tire of baiting and personal attacks against other editors? Talk about a reprehensible strawman argument. ] (]) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Ikip, do you ever tire of (drop in thing you're not doing)? That's called ] and it's a ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I think you are right now violating the topic ban in a way I find unacceptable. We can discuss everything about the topic ban and I have made it clear that some aspects are so problematic that it is not reasonable to stick to it on those points (e.g. private discussions with Brews on some technical physics topic). However, you are now doing exactly the kind of soapboxing that was seen to be the problem and for which the topic ban was actually intended. ] (]) 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David, comparing your experience with ArbCom to a lynching is historically ignorant and deeply offensive. Lynch mobs carried out racially motivated hate crimes - typically murders. These crimes were carried out without regard to the legal apparatus of a civilised society. You have not been murdered, David. The editors who have disputed your views and called for your ban did not round up a lynch mob, they appealled to the dispute resolution apparatus of wikipedia. ArbCom are not some Kangaroo Court or Star Chamber. Frankly, I think you owe the science editors who disagree with you an apology for suggesting they resemble a mob carrying out hate crimes, and you owe the Arbitrators an apology for suggesting they have presided over or sanctioned a lynching. ] (]) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Commenting more generally, this sort of comment following cases is one of the reasons that ArbCom are considered to not communicate adequately with the community. Arbitrators are absolutely justified in declining to respond to criticisms as offensive as those above. Unfortunately, the result of the 'noise' from comments which should never be made is that the 'signal' of criticisms (perhaps harshly worded) that address genuine issues with Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes is lost. I have certainly raised issues only to be disappointed by silence from ArbCom. Posts like the one that started this thread are one reason why I and others continue to be frustrated with communication issues - and thus these sorts of posts are interfering with the improvement of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:Calling the Case/Speed of light the actions of a lynch mob certainly is not flattering, but at this stage of things one cannot go into chapter and verse as to the mishandling of matters, the rabid misstatements and distortions, the complete lack of discipline against clear violations of guidelines and so forth. To summarize the proceedings as that of a lynch mob is simply to choose a pretty accurate brief summary of events, and seems to me perfectly acceptable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, a summary of events after the fact won't change matters, and in particular, won't cause any of the actors to see their actions differently. Nothing will be learned, because nothing is at stake for the participants. Their interests and those of WP are not aligned. WP takes the hit. ] (]) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::I will not stand here and tolerate being called a lyncher. I insist that the remark be stricken, or the remark maker be blocked indefinitely for gross incivility and personal attacks. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Don't take it personally: ], you are not singled out here, and acted neither better nor worse than many. ] (]) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Jehochman has been in a bad mood since a few days already ] :) ] (]) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Another counter-constructive remark from Count Iblis's. However, Jehochman does have a newborn in the family and might be sleep deprived. ] ] 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my first experience with arbitration. Is it typical for disputes to flare up right after an arbitration decision decides the disputes? Do the sanctioned parties believe, erroneously, that things can't get any worse for them, so they can let off steam? Do other parties believe, erroneously, that the sanctioned parties are fair game for more criticism? ] has been ]ing Brews mercilessly on Brews' talk page; ] and I both warned Price. I respect Jehochman and agreed with all his actions in connection with this matter. However, his statement immediately above is not consistent with the excellent advice that he consistently gives others: disengage. I don't condone Brews' statement, but I can understand his frustration about what just happened, just as I can understand others' (including my own) frustration with Brews' behavior. Isn't it time for everyone to just let go of these disputes and move on? Maybe go edit a ''non-contentious'' article? ] ] 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

=== proxy editing for banned users ===

The actual material that Brews wanted to be added is not contentious, is that right? It's just the methods he was using, and conduct on the talk page, that was contentious? So if I offered to proxy-edit for Brews, but to rigorously abide by talk-page / 3rr / etc rules would I get into trouble? That seems like a good way to get good edits into WP, and avoid problematic behaviour. ] (]) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::Reply to ]: The material is considered noncontroversial by some, but not by all. There are a few, EdChem below being one, and possibly Michael C Price, who think I have said something different from what was actually said and cannot get clear what is being said. There are others, Dicklyon perhaps, Abtract certainly, maybe Martin Hogbin who stress the issues are not technical but behavioral. Some discussion can be found and a basic presentation of my views is and an example is . ] (]) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:As far as I understand, Brews agrees with David's position that the 1983 definition of the metre created a second speed of light, one unrelated to the physical phenomenon of propagation of light. Such a position is arguably a violation of ] and is certainly inconsistent with the mainstream consensus of scientists in general and physicists in particular. As such, any such edits are likely to be highly contentious. Whether Brews might propose less contentious edits on other physics topics is a separate question, but my advice would be that proxying would be a potentially hazardous activity - and most especially if you are not well versed in physics and thus able to identify potential controversies over content. As for proxying for David, please don't. It would be a disruptive but likely rapid path to being sanctioned. ] (]) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::Reply to ]: I wish to point out that the following is not about physics, but about misattribution of position, and therefore is allowed discussion under the ban. I have explained in great detail what my position is, not only during Case/Speed of light but directly to himself. That being the case, I don not understand how it is possible for such a misrepresentation of my views to be made again and again. The details of my views are . There is no way on Earth that these views are as described by EdChem. ] (]) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::Brews has a record of many good contributions to a large number of physics articles. In his case, the speed of light dipsute is just a small footnote that unfortunately exploded into something much bigger. I think the Arbitrators, who know little about physics, may have mistaken Brews for the typical crank. I agree that violating the topic ban directly by letting Brews edit via a proxy should not be done. It would be better to have an appeal so that Brews can be allowed to edit directly again. ] (]) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Generally, I would recommend that any editor who thinks a topic ban is too broad should respect the ban and edit elsewhere for some period of time, weeks at least. Then assemble some evidence that the ban was overbroad (his good contributions on related articles before the ban) and make a formal appeal to have the ban narrowed. Filing an immediate appeal only annoys the arbitrators who really do put a lot of time and effort into their votes and rarely embrace the chance to do it all over again right after the case closes. I have not read the case at all, but I will comment that, in general, topic bans are proposed for editors who have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to work cooperatively with others, preferring instead to harass, intimidate, harangue or edit war (individual details vary, of course) and successful appeals usually involve some demonstration that the editor really can work well with others. ] 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I agree with this w.r.t. Brews himself editing physics articles again. I think a good case can be made for appeal, but we then do have to await an appeals process. There is, however, a more serious problem with this topic ban. It also restricts people from discussing anything related to physics with Brews on his or their own talk pages. A question by William Connoley asking clarification on this specific point was answered this way by Arbitrators. I think this particular aspect of the topic ban is extremely problematic as explained in the section above. ] (]) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to go into the mis-representation of Brews' views; that's not appropriate for this page. Please note that I wasn't offering to proxy-edit for David. ] (]) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Raul654 ==


]

I think this was the right move, however I would like to raise a point; In the West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case, there was ] principle which states; ''"Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions."'' Now, I recognise that this doesn't specifically mention bureaucrat's, but I personally believe that they should be held to higher standards than those of other users and I would think the ''"position of public trust"'' part of the above principle would cover bureaucrat's. Whilst I respect that you have decided that Raul should keep his admin bit, I'm not sure that his position as a bureaucrat here is still tenable given what the audit subcommittee has found. Does anyone (both arbitrators or other users) have any thoughts about this? I could be completely off the mark. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:He doesn't appear to use the 'crat tools that often... –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:What is your specific concern with him remaining a 'crat? How does his over zealousness when dealing with a persistent vandal effect his ability to work as a 'crat? I'll listen to opinions, but so far I've not thought of a reason that removal would be automatic based on the investigation and Raul654's response to it. ]] 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::I haven't got a specific concern Flo, I just was of the (possibly personal) belief that bureaucrat's should be held to a higher standard than that of normal administrators. In much the same way that Jayjg lost his CU and oversight bits due to unrelated issues, I think there's an argument that the same may be the case of Raul and his bureaucrat bit. I'm not saying that I definitely think he should lose it, but I do think it's worth discussing. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 19:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I see. I'm reluctant to break new ground by removing this permission unless there is a specific reason that Raul654 continuing in the role would bring the project into disrepute. From your comment then I see this as a more general discussion about how the package of special access permissions should be given and removed. Perhaps this would better discussed as a general topic for later application? ]] 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I for one, think OS, CU, and ArbCom are far and away different from 'crat, sysop, and even21 MilHist coordinator and the like. Oversight, Checkuser, and (the way things are now) Arbitration deal constantly with information that can violate privacy and have impact on the real world, while sysops and bureaucrats and the like do not. The stakes are different, the skill sets are different, and what the community should be looking for is also different.--] (]) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:Bureaucrat is probably the most overblown position in the whole of wikipedia, so no, I don't think that any higher standard ought to be expected of them than any other administrator. --] ] 19:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 is a useful Admin, particularly on the Global Warming page. He did a lot of work in the . I just read from the Arbitration page that he stopped working as Checkuser some time ago. Perhaps this is linked to the more frequent appearance of Scibaby sockpuppets. ] :( ] (]) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Raul can still be trusted to rename users and gauge consensus at RFA. Everything there is out in the open and accessible to everyone, so if the crat bit is misused (not that there are very many opportunities for misuse, especially given how little he uses it), everyone will be able to see. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*(a slew of edit conflicts later) If what we're talking about here is non-neutral checkusering in the context of content disputes like global warming, I'm not worried about Raul's 'cratting: 'crat tools (promoting, changing usernames, and approving bots) are pretty far removed from these sort of content disputes. If there's anything to be worried about, I would be more worried about his admin tools: deleting, blocking, and protecting, since such tools are often used in the midst of and in response to content disputes... I wouldn't suggest doing anything with Raul's adminship either though, until we see actual problems with those tools. As for general trustworthiness, the concept of 'crats being above admins in a sort of linear "trust heirarchy" seems a little overly simplistic to me, and given the amount of damage admin tools can do compared to crat tools, may even be wrong. -] (]) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:Scientific articles, like the one on Global Warming, are not written from a neutral point of view, they are written from a scientific point of view. Usually it is helpful to have an Admin who is heavily involved in editing such an article. This is fundamentally different from the case of an article on some political subject. ] (]) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::In either case, the ability to use 'crat tools isn't an immediate concern here. Probably neither is use of admin tools, as I mentioned: if actual abuse of them occurs in the future, we can revisit, but until then, I don't think there's any need to desysop. -] (]) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

* In response to Ryan's points, I agree with what was said above: if Raul is fit to retain his administrator tools, then he probably is fit to retain his bureaucrat flag too. In terms of standards of professionalism, there is little difference between both offices. ] 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*Arbcom has made it fairly clear that they're out to beat up on those who believe that ] and related articles should ] what is contained in ]. This is their first shot. ] (]) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:You might want to watch how wide you paint with that brush.--] (]) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

==Updating target dates==


__TOC__
Some are out of date right now: ] and ], they had respective target dates of Oct. 20 and Oct. 19. Maybe in these situations you could authorize clerks to (somewhat arbitrarily) bump the target date forward by a week? ] (]) 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (fix target dates, ] (]) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024

Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

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.
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.