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 10:40, 21 October 2010 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits →Running commentary...: lose that parenthetical, likely to be misinterpreted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:09, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,898 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (bot 
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 = 12
|counter = 52
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d) |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.


__TOC__
== Climate change ==
== Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area ==

:''']''' <!--] (]) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)--> : ]<!-- ] (]) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
*Glad to see some action on this front. Thanks. ] (]) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

=== typos and corrections ===
: There are missing spaces between words throughout the case writeup; I hope it's OK that I fixed those I saw. ] (]) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I can only think the missing spaces are an artefact of cut and paste. Odd though. ] (]) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Probably so, since they all occurred before wikilinks. I believe I caught most of them, and hope I wasn't out of line to do that (it seemed uncontroversial). ] (]) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One remaining minor typo: Principle 6 (]) records the voting as "Passed X to X" rather than recording the actual vote. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:And I meant to search for X, but forgot. On the other hand, seconds after I saved the huge text (I had to do it all at once for the time stamps to be the same), Misplaced Pages almost died on me. I think there's a couple of other minor fixes to make also, nothing that makes any changes though. ] (]) 17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

=== evidence page deletion requirement ===

: ] says evidence pages should be deleted or ''courtesy blanked'', while the write up here says they must be deleted: which is it? ] (]) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

::The specific remedy takes precedence over the broad principle. They must be deleted. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::: Thanks! I have courtesy blanked past evidence pages on other cases-- is that adequate? ] (]) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: The remedy is case specific but I suppose for other cases it probably would be best practice to delete them &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::: OK, thanks again! ] (]) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this page (]) subject to the requirement that it be deleted within 7 days? Could be argued both ways, I suppose. ++]: ]/] 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
: I should have thought it was. ] 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Well, I'm not going anywhere near it, but someone ought to drop a note to WMC or tag it, or something. ++]: ]/] 12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

=== commentary on case outcome ===
A four month case to hand out 6 month bans? That doesn't seem proportionate to me. Either the committee dragged its heels on this unnecessarily, or the punishments are beyond lenient for the evident disruption caused. ] (]) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

: You must mean ''protection'' because Misplaced Pages does not do ''punishment'' (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Didn't you just say to me the other day that you don't toe the party line? I'm disappointed, BW. (Unless I missed a sarcasm tag somewhere?) →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
:: Potato tomato. Although as you point out, taking four months to decide whether a six month protection period is warranted is similarly way out of proportion. ] (]) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:The topic bans are of indefinite length, by the way. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::No, you can do good work elsewhere and then come back to it in 6 months on appeal. But yes, for people like WMC who clearly don't get it and never will get it, they are as they say, burned. So it's not all bad.... ] (]) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify, what do you mean by "burned"? <small>Cheers,</small> ] (]) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)<small>small text added at 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC).</small>
::::Being permanently removed from the topic. ] (]) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Then you are simply wrong. The nice thing about the particular ban conditions is that good faith editors with a broad range of interests can take this as a forced vacation from a stressful area and spend half a year enjoying the nicer sides of Misplaced Pages and making new friends there – and maybe learn in the a priori harmless areas why some rules such as ] make sense. This is something that those editors who are indirectly (through large PR agencies) on the payroll of petrol companies are unlikely to do. Or if they do, it will either make them more easily identifiable (if they concentrate on other customers' interest) or motivate them to make up for the disruption they cause by producing valuable content elsewhere.
:::::I see this as a pragmatic approach to the problem that there is an infinite supply of CC denying sockpuppets but only a finite supply of experts willing to contribute to Misplaced Pages, who are moreover used to academic standards of debate rather than the mud-slinging that comes out of the PR agencies and their front organisations. ] ] 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Hans, I do not think referencing opponent editors to being on the payroll of petrol companies is appropriate and is not an encouraging remark when the case closed only a matter of hours ago. There is too much of attacking editors for being "right wing" or "connected to the petrol companies". It sets the stage for only "left wing people are welcome here", only people who match our POV are welcome to contribute here. The only things that you need to concern yourself with are ], ], ] and ] and other relevant policies and guidelines.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I am just being realistic in a general ''strategic'' consideration. This has nothing to do with any individual editor. The methods used by big PR companies are generally well known, and also their former impact on smoking legislation through clouding the public's perception of the connection between smoking and cancer. They manufactured the appearance of scientific uncertainty, which is exactly what they are doing now. They are using astro-turfing and "real grassroots" campaigns. It would be absolutely astonishing if they weren't applying such methods to the freely editable Google hit number 1 on many global warming topics, and I am sure Arbcom is aware of the problem. ] ] 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Hans, your version of ] may differ from other editors version of ] but wikipedia is not about ], it is ]; I repeat again it is about ], ], ] and ]. If you can accuse editors without any evidence of being paid by Big Oil, is it okay then for editors to accuse you and other editors of being in the pay of Big Carbon interests? Spreading ] about editors is not helpful, all you are doing is arguing that it is okay to continue to battlefield because you are in your view, ]. Climate change is a complex and very diverse subject matter, some things are known for almost certain, other things are less certain and so forth, so I am not sure what you are referring to as certainty? I don't think you get what the whole ArbCom case was about.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 00:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually I think it's quite appropriate to comment on WP:COI issues as a part of the problem of entrenched editors -- note he didnt say the whole problem. And especially as presented in context of the greater point he was making about 'forced vacation.' -<small>] ]</small> 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* Mick: Did you see how much evidence was actually submitted? (The answer is: a lot.) ] 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
*:Which is kinda the point.... ] (]) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
* An appropriate and well-reasoned decision. It may not really have been necessary to take four months to come to what seems, in retrospect, the obvious outcome, but then I'm not the one who had to slog through all that evidence, so what do I know... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
*: The total evidence/discussion ran to about 850,000 words. That's more than the Old Testament and New Testament added together; or twice the length of Lord Of The Rings. :) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
*::That is ... impractical. Have you ever considered imposing strict time and size constraints on submissions, like real courts do? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
*:::Yes, but it doesn't usually work. People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged and you start getting loads of overflow onto private sub-pages. It's extremely difficult to strike a balance. There's also the issue of people having their say on the talk pages and the ructions that are caused if they don't. On balance, these things are usually manageable but this case was exceptional in terms of sheer volume of words and the huge amount of accusation/counter-accusation. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
*::::I was thinking about a one-comment-per-day limit. I know you realize there are the dual issues, that it becomes unreadable, and that the amount of personal restraint will inversely correlate with the amount of text posted. But if editors don't comment as much, reasonable or otherwise, it makes it look like they don't care as much. A comment-per-day limit would force people to think ahead. This could at least perhaps been imposed later, when you were trying to get people to shut up. ] (]) 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* As Sandstein's colleague in defeat last election, I join in the praise and the caveat.--] (]) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:*<small>I don't remember partaking in any election?</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, brainfart.--] (]) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger: ''People who aren't very good/experienced at submitting evidence get disadvantaged''

You say that like it's a bad thing. Since this is an encyclopedia a minimum level of competence can be assumed. Beyond that other editors may volunteer (as I have done in the past) to clean up evidence and whatnot to a point where it can be absorbed. --] 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, it's bad thing if people care disadvantaged. The problems usually arise in terms of seeing the wood for the trees. Either people don't know policy well enough or they rely on rhetoric instead of factual stuff. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Still, you have to admit it's a bit bad when people go on and on in evidence when a couple of diffs should be enough. --] 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::: Of course, that's the thrust of my point (if you see what I mean). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: As is, though, a couple of diffs can be ancedotally found pretty easily and make anyone look bad. The bar for asking for sanctions right now is higher than that, and should be.
:::: What it needs to be in big disruptive cases like this is an open question. But I don't want Arbcom taking two bad edits and imposing a yearlong ban or topic ban or somesuch. I'm reasonably sure I've made more than two really bad edits in my Misplaced Pages history, though I try hard not to.
:::: I think it may be a valid question to ask how do we get to the point that you have hundreds of obvious diffs available and the community / uninvolved admins haven't intervened yet. I think once it gets to Arbcom, though, the level of evidence should be appropriate to the complexity of the case. ] (]) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't taking "a couple of diffs" too literally :)) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::: The first arbitration I unofficially clerked for (this was in late 2004/early 2005 when there were no clerks, I was just being a good samaritan trying to help a guy who was being tormented beyond reason) ran to dozens and dozens of diffs all submitted by one guy. All the parties had English as a second languages and there were multiple socks; I think I was the only native English speaker involved. It took us many days to arrive at what would nowadays be a simple SPI. I think the bar for sanctions is a little lower now because the community is more pro-active. --] 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

=== topic ban and bloc neutralization ===
One aspect of the resolution of this case concerns me, but I did not follow all of the (TLDR) case closely enough to know if my impression is correct. It seems that almost everyone was caught up in the topic bans (noting some exceptions like AWickert, who always edits responsibly and courteously). If everyone involved in dealing with "blocs of editors" who "try to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's pillars" is caught up in the bans, this would seem to be a deterrent to attempting to neutralize POV articles which are "owned" by collective blocs of editors defending a POV. ] (]) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:There are a large number of folk who could have been included in the topic bans (if we use the metrics that were used to mete out the ones meted out) but who were not. If they change their ways, all will be well other than the sense of justice about who was named and who was not (but WP doesn't do justice, it is a project, not a system of government or a social experiment). If they don't change their ways, it comes down to whether the new enforcement regime is more sucessful at dealing with them than the old one was. And that in turn, in my view, will hinge on how many admins turn up and how even handed they are. Color me cautiously optimistic. Not the best decision, WMC got off exceedingly lucky to be merely topic banned, but not the worst by far. ++]: ]/] 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:: My concern is how this affects other similar cases, particularly when no admins will touch them. I requested 1RR at ANI once, and NW was the ''only'' editor to even respond; when you look at the CC mess, that's understandable. ] (]) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Nod. One thing that will be very telling is how the first few requests/actions go. If a number of different admins come in, and if ArbCom members back them up, it will go much differently (better) than if they get taken to AN/I or wherever and fed to the mob with no backup from ArbCom members. (even if AN/I can't overturn things in a specific case) ++]: ]/] 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Precisely my concern: further dispute resolution in other similar cases is stalled because uninvolved admins won't go near 'em, so the disparaging of other editors, disruption, and collective blocs of editors overruling Wiki pillars continues, yet because of the way new editors take the fall every time, an arb case wouldn't solve the problem. ] (]) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Given the "thanks" that have been meted out for the involved administrators in this case, I'm simply not seeing any upside for me or any other heretofore uninvolved administrator to step in and fill the gap left. ] (]) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Most uninvolved admins (LHVU, The Wordsmith, BozMo, and several others) got thanked and nothing more, except to be urged to stay out going forward as it is time for a new approach. One uninvolved admin was rightly chastised (via a finding) for letting the baiting and harassment get to him to the point of becoming battleground-ish at times himself. (that would be me) The other two admins named (StS and Polargeo) were not uninvolved. So I would urge you and every other admin considering participating to please do so. The more the better. ++]: ]/] 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Looks like a very reasonable decision to me. As for the concern expressed, if you have evidence of POV, ownership, and "blocs", ArbCom has made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. If, on the other hand, you make the accusations, but lack the evidence, ArbCom has also made it clear that it will deal with battleground mentality. I hope that ArbCom quickly moves ahead and applies this across the board.--] (]) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah, just because there were a lot of topic bans and a couple of "please ''do'' take a holiday from acting as an uninvolved admin on this topic until further notice" remedies, it's easy to overlook the fact that the content on this scientific topic is of stellar quality and most of those involved in maintaining it aren't touched by the arbitration. The editing atmosphere on the topic is likely to be improved a lot going forward. --] 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

===re Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and the talkpage===

Per the first bulletin point, are these pages to be dealt with by the ArbCom clerks - to be archived and marked historicial? ] (]) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Tony Sidaway appears to have done something with the page itself, although not the talk. It wasn't an archiving per se, and he's not a clerk, but that hasn't stopped him before. ++]: ]/] 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Looks like Tony blanked the page. When a clerk has the opportunity, it would probably be a good idea to restore the page, archive anything there, then mark the pages and all of their archives as "historical", possibly with a link to the Arbcom decision. Given that this is a clerical function in the true sense of the word, I expect that even clerks recused in this case would be able to carry this out. ] (]) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a clerk (and the page isn't part of arbitration so that's moot). I just made a soft redirect to ], as a start on closing the probation. --] 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Why? Why not leave it to an actual clerk to do a good job of it with proper archiving? I'm confused in general about why you like to clerk things. ++]: ]/] 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

===In hindsight, how to handle a case like this===
If this is more appropriately brought up in a different forum, please advise. I've had ideas on how a case of this nature might be handled in the future to avoid some of the difficulties this one has seen. I'm sure few if any of these ideas are original but maybe it's worth discussing them here.
# '''Use an inquiry-based model of arbitration.''' This should pervade the whole process. Right now the arbitrators often ask questions during the request phase. I'd like to see arbitrators pose questions (both collectively and individually directed) during the post-acceptance phases: to ask for evidence regarding specific claims, to get clarification on assertions made, to see if past behavior accurately reflects an editor's current attitude, to determine the bounds of the dispute, and to direct the conversation toward resolving the dispute rather than perpetuating it. (In this case, among other questions, I would have thought it useful to inquire further of William M. Connolley regarding his position on expert editors, to find out Lar's intent behind his "level the playing field" quote to see whether it reflected bias, and to ask each of the disputants about how far and in what ways they were willing to compromise.)
# '''Start with a statement of scope.''' After voting to accept the case but before starting the evidence phase, arbitrators should draft a preliminary statement of scope. Contribution to the arbitration process should be restricted to issues that fall within that scope. The scope should be altered only with good reason thereafter. Clerks should actively enforce the scope or have an "offtopic" page to where out of scope comments can be moved.
# '''Use milestones and iterations.''' <small>Why yes, I am a software engineer. How did you guess?</small> Rather than a single evidence->workshop->proposed decision->outrage-and-despair process, why not an iterative approach? Set a milestone a couple weeks out for an "alpha" decision, with the understanding that there will most likely still be holes left to fill in evidence and arguments, but with goals laid out regarding which parts of the dispute need evidence, resolution, etc. After the milestone ends, clerks and/or arbitrators should summarize what issues are still outstanding, what evidence is still needed, which topics have been excluded or included scope-wise, etc. Then begin the next iteration, again with a definite milestone. Continue iterating until the committee decides further iterations would bring nothing new to light. The decision should hopefully be apparent at this point, and the final vote can take place. I realize this could wreak havoc on the templates for tracking the arbitration process, but it may be worth the price.
Too radical a change from the current process? I'd appreciate some feedback&mdash;from arbitrators, clerks, participants, or even nosy bystanders like myself. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:: 3 was kinda in effect during this case already. The Arbitrators who decided this posted a framework, and waited for the response. When things didn't look like they'd be solved by the decision they worked further, and continued to refine and change the decision as the situation continued to devolve.

::Since we're doing a bit of a post-mortem here, I think the clerks and arbs did a good job in the latter half of the case when things spiraled out of control time and time and time again (despite the vociferous complains as section after section was hatted or archived), i think that we need to make that more standard in curbing the back and forth sniping, and voluminous postings that these Arb cases cause. Perhaps saying "Post your evidence and workshop remedies to the appropriate pages, but don't use the talk page unless the arbs or clerks have questions" would be beneficial.. and be harsher on those who engage in constant conflict during an arb case. I know several people were removed from the talk pages due to constant conflict, we need to determine if this was an outlier due to the heat of the debate, or something we should look towards doing more of, going forward. ] (]) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I think if the talk pages are going to be curtailed like that, there needs to be much more interaction initiated by the arbitrators&mdash;hence my point 1 above. Basically, the participants need near real-time feedback on their lines of evidence and argument so they don't feel they need to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Plus, if a participant has to thoughtfully answer questions posed by a neutral arbitrator, it might provoke more self-reflection and voluntary concessions than aggressive challenges from opponents might. And there's a chance that warring parties will realize, through the inquiry process, that some of their assumptions about their opponents' motives or reasoning were faulty, making reconciliation a bit more possible. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Nod. Carcharoth asked me some thoughtful questions during this case, which I in turn gave thoughtful answers to... but I didn't see where my answers had any impact on much. (They may well have HAD an impact, but it wasn't ''visible''). The feedback processes needed to be much stronger... another example of that problem is the questions that everyone posted at the beginning of the case, which appeared to disappear without a trace, near as anyone could tell. Again, these may have influenced how the case unfolded but there was no acknowledgment of that, no way to tell one way or the other. ++]: ]/] 12:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::Responding to Alanyst on point 2 - There is often significant disagreement about the proper scope, and until evidence is in it's hard to rule scope issues in or out. Also, related problems may become apparent that were outside the initially cast case (behavior on other similar pages or topics, other editors that weren't initially considered parties, etc).
::Learning lessons from big ugly case and changing things that are necessary or useful on many other cases are two different things, in looking at learned lessons. Not all issues with this case will come back again often enough to justify structural change. ] (]) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Good points. I think scope changes could be addressed at the end of each iteration, but during the iteration the discussion should be focused on the goals and scope defined for it. And you're right&mdash;this approach may not be suitable for "typical" arbitration cases (if such exist) but might work for omnibus-style cases that may appear in the future. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::::I strongly agree with point #1, and made the same point following another recent RFAR. If arbitrators were more pro-active in asking questions then it would help them and the participants alike. It'd help keep the evidence focused on what matters and save participants from wasting time collecting unhelpful evidence that the arbitrators need to plow through. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::::To combine #1 and #2, when a case is accepted the ArbCom could, informally, say something like:
::::*''It looks the charges in this case concern personal attacks, advocacy, and citations. Could participants please provide 5 or 10 examples of personal attacks? The advocacy charge is unclear; could participants please explain it better and give examples? The citation issue is probably not important for this case since it concerns content, so unless there is a behavioral aspect please don't dwell on that. Also, it isn't in anyone's posting but the ArbCom has learned that there is an issue with socking by user:X .''
::::After a reasonable interval the ArbCom could respond with a second informal reply:
::::*''We have enough evidence about the personal attacks. Is there any more evidence about the advocacy issue? Sock puppetry by X and Y turns out to be a significant issue too, please add any relevant evidence.''
::::That sort of thing. While it seems like extra steps that'd take time, effort, and discussion, if the result is arbitration cases that are more streamlined and focused then everyone benefits. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

: I disagree with #2; I participated in an arb case that was brought by an admin, and the most significant outcome of that case was that the admin was desysopped. It was turned into an omnibus case, that took (I believe) about four months. Only as the case unfolded did the arbs have the opportunity to see the real offenses, although the admin's conduct was not part of the original scope of the case, and there were no significant findings against the editors against whom the case was originally filed. In terms of length, it took a very long evidence page to show the issues, and although my evidence was long, a former arb wrote to tell me years later that it was the most effective evidence in the case. On the other hand, I participated in a different case where several arbs intimidated and threatened the participants attempting to submit evidence, which led to less than optimal outcomes in the case, which ended up taking much too long to resolve, with an unsatisfactory outcome, and unnecessary delays in the offending editor being finally banned. When dealing with blocs of editors who are POVing entire suites of articles, it takes more than the "normal" amount of diffs and evidence to show the pattern, and by the time these cases get to ArbCom, they are complex-- the arbs get the big bucks to sort through it, and overly restricting evidence size in such cases might not be helpful. ] (]) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::We've all seen cases where the final decision didn't focus on the issues in the initial complaints. That's especially the case when someone goes crazy during the arbitration process. The scope of a case needs to be flexible, but that doesn't mean it can't be "sketched" out. I agree that complicated cases may take more text and diffs, which is why feedback from the committee is important to keep it focused. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::: My apologies for editing my post above after you responded, Will Beback-- I'm having eye problems. I submit that sketching out the scope of the case beforehand might cause the very problems seen in the second case I indicated: the heavy hand of two arbs in that case led to more serious problems in the ultimate resolution of that case, and those delays affected many productive editors. In the first case, one arb did specifically request certain types of feedback, and attempting to comply with his specific request led to my very long evidence page, which he later said was the most helpful. So, I'd not like to see anything that might lead to the kinds of heavy-handed arb or clerk intervention that resulted in the delays in the second case. ] (]) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the arbitration committee did a pretty good job, and they followed more or less the same process they always have, by analysis of submitted evidence and deliberation. I don't think there's any reason to propose a different way of proceeding that would be unfamiliar to them. --] 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
: But I still don't have a satisfactory answer to my query several sections above: when a situation become complex enough, admins won't touch it, productive editors and admins are tangled in the drama and disparaged, poisoning of the well occurs, dispute resolution forums are rendered ineffective, and a messy arb case is likely to result. I'm unconvinced that the outcome in this case will encourage admins to engage in complex disputes. ] (]) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Give them a chance. ] is pretty good at handling this kind of situation. --] 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::: AE is only for cases that have already appeared at ArbCom; ANI is not effective for helping to ''avoid'' lengthy arbcases, and what productive editor wants to take four months to present a complex case? My immediate concern is whether the outcome in this case will encourage admins to get involved in helping prevent such lengthy cases. Specifically, when I requested 1RR be implemented to help resolve a messy case, only one admin (NW) even bothered to weigh in, while the childish squabbles over non-issues persist at ANI. ] (]) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: If I'm reading you correctly, I think the best answer you'll get is that ArbCom did pass a principle on casting aspersions without providing evidence to back it up. Unfortunately if the community lets editors make unsupported attacks on admins ''ad nauseum'', and the admins then come to offer choice words in response, I think it becomes quite difficult for ArbCom to put all responsibility on one side, regardless. In my view the real answer is for the community to step it up in addressing groundless or tactical criticism when it happens. ] (]) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

===Probation notices to be removed===
There is a list of articles formerly under probation on the following page:
* ]

At or near the top of the talk page of each there is an instance of {{tl|Community article probation}} which needs to be removed. I have done the As and Bs. If you'd like to help, please pick a letter and remove the templates from talk pages of articles starting with that letter. --] 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
: For technical reasons the list above contains links to both the articles and their talk pages, so it's twice as long as you'd expect. Only the talk pages need to be processed. --] 12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:: <s></s>. Sounds like an AWB task...although, shouldn't we replace it with a discretionary sanctions notice anyway? ] (]) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::: That one also has non-CC articles in them, oops. ] (]) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all of these articles still at least in theory subject to probation, just under a new regime? OR is the thinking that all should be removed, to be followed by adding almost all of them back again sooner or later? Why not just carry out a review instead of removing, then adding? Or am I missing something entirely, and probation, as a concept, is completely gone? ++]: ]/] 13:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:They are no longer subject to "community article probation" but "arbitration discretionary sanctions". Removal may not be a good idea, maybe replacing with a version of {{tl|sanctions}}? ] (]) 13:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Yes, replacement is probably what is needed. --] 13:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm now replacing the old probation notice with the following:
: ''<nowiki>{{sanctions|See ].}}</nowiki>''
--] 11:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
: I've more or less finished doing this, although there are still tons of potential articles to tag. The ones I have done are those that have seen problems in the past or seem to be likely trouble spots. --] 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

== What does topic banned mean? ==

Does it extend to user talk pages? Can a user present information he or she would like to see added to an article and then talk to proxies about how best to carry out the edits, for example?... to give a concrete example, is an example of proxying to get round a ban or is it perfectly normal and acceptable? It could be argued either way, which is why I ask. Some clarity from the Arbs now would be helpful as it would help avoid issues later, after things get more set in. ++]: ]/] 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:The is described in the decision. The ban explicitly applies to articles, article talk pages, and Misplaced Pages processes; it does not include user talk pages. While I cannot read the minds of the Arbitrators, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they deliberately left an opportunity for subject matter experts to contribute positively without getting back onto the battlefield. ](]) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:Ugh, that's why I always use "articles, discussions, and other content" when imposing topic bans. Broader and less opportunity for gaming. ] (]) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::There is a policy description of topic bans, ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I would assume that the fact that Arbitrators chose to specifically enumerate the areas of applicability of the topic ban in their decision, rather than include WP:TBAN by reference or simply state 'topic ban, broadly interpreted' implies a deliberate decision on their part to clearly craft the scope of the ban (and indeed, to supersede any other interpration of the scope). ](]) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I'd say the question would be the meaning of this: ''(3) from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles.'' Does this mean only proccesses like AFD and the like, or does it include the broader editing process such as the discussion of sources on user talk pages.--] (]) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'Processes' generally means (loosely speaking) 'stuff that happens on process pages', distinct from pages primarily concerned with editing. That's AfD/MfD/XfD, RfC, WP:AE, WP:AN and associated subpages (except, presumably, to respond to complaints filed against them), and no doubt a whole bunch of lesser-used alphabet soup. Reading in the extremely broad definition of all 'editing processes' would be a blanket inclusion of virtually every page on Misplaced Pages; it would render the first two parts of the statement of scope (which define specific classes of article and article talk pages included in the ban) superfluous. It wouldn't make sense for the remedy to be phrased as it is if the ArbCom intended such an unsually broad interpretation of (3). ](]) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::For what it's worth, relevant templates and categories and ''their'' talk pages do not seem to fall under the ban, but they ''would'' fall under ]. I'm sure an edit war and discussion in regard whether one climate change category is a subset of another is still possible, without a technical violation of the ban under 10's interpretation. — ] ] 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Sure, sounds like a fine plan for those who want to find themselves banished in perpetuity to the dark side of the Moon under discretionary sanctions :) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Per SPOV - there is, actually, no "dark side of the moon." Cheers. ] (]) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::with respect to the :), should we expect clarification on the serious questions?--] (]) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure how much clearer the ] could have been. I expect editors exporting the conflict to other areas, trying to game topic-bans (by ignoring the spirit), and generally continuing battlefield conduct, will find themselves facing discretionary sanctions very quickly. This dispute isn't moved into exciting green pastures areas; it's winding down. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Which would sound to me that the talk page discussions themselves aren't forbiden, but once one of these discussions generates conflict then the hammer is going to fall. Close to the mark?--] (]) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages. It is for other editors to make actual edits to articles, r participate in AFDs, or other processes. They can, of course, be influenced by what e.g. William has said on his talk page. But then, you can also read a scientific paper written by William, talk to him via email, or meet with him in real life. The point is that any editor who is allowed to edit the CC pages, is responsible for his/her own edits. Acting as a meatpuppet, as Lar suggests could happen, is never allowed, regardless of any topic bans. ] (]) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is acceptable, It looks like there will be a need to clarify where the line is. If the previous section is fine, would participating here also be fine? Arbcom should clarify now, or be prepared to see the official requests for clarifications start rolling in before a week passes.--] (]) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections. Other editors were free to make the edits or to not make the edits as they saw fit. I'm not offering to meatpuppet, but I appreciate Cube lurker for bringing up my talkpage offer. Since a number of content experts were topic-banned, I feel like we should provide a space for them to offer their suggestions on wiki as long as it doesn't spill over into article space. ] (]) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::Perhaps a "CC noticeboard" can be created for this. This would make the involvement of topic banned editors transparant. At the same time, one should ask all editors to communicate with the topic banned editors only via that noticeboard on issues related to editing CC articles. The noticeboard has to be moderated by an Admin to make sure that the only discussions that take place there discuss some climate science issue, that it is relevant to editing some Wiki article, and that having input from one of the topic banned editors is reasonable. There should be zero tolerance for fighting any disputes there.

::E.g. in a recent discussion on the global warming talk page, Stephan told that Boris would probably know a few sources on CO2 lifetime. If Boris isn't around here, and if William is known to also know about this, then one could ask William to post the sources on the CC noticeboard. ] (]) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems a shame that Lar can't let this go. No better proof of "involved" is needed ] (]) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid that this discussion, ''if'' Lar is not otherwise involved, would be ''exactly'' what an uninvolved administrator should do — seek clarification of the ArbCom decision. However, as he cannot act on it, because Arbcom found (by a combination of points) that he cannot apply sanctions under the new system, the question does seem questionable, but still needs to be asked, as he's not the only one who thinks it unclear. — ] ] 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that Lar's question was reasonable. Somewhere between WMC not being allowed to answer an IP's question on his talk page whether he can recommend a good university for studying climate science, and a programming language for describing edits on WMC's talk page that are then automatically performed by a BAG-approved bot, there is a reasonable interpretation of Arbcom's words. Based on the discussion so far (especially Arbcom's choice of non-standard rules and the ScienceApologist precedent) I think I can guess the course of the intended lines. Plural because I am under the impression that there may well be two lines – crossing one will get you in trouble, and reporting someone who didn't cross the other will also get you in trouble. ] ] 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
*I think the point that some of you have missed despite it being the central purpose of this whole decision is that we (and by we I mean everybody not directly involved in this toxic dispute) want this to end. Don't go looking for ways to do and end-run around the decision, the community is absolutely fed up with this nonsense. If an edit could be interpreted as even approaching a violation of the topic ban, '''don't make that edit.''' Try to act in the ''spirit'' of the decision as opposed to looking for loopholes in the language of it and just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Move on to another topic area or expect to be blocked. ] (]) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
*: It looks to me as if you've misread the discussion. We all know what the Remedy 3 topic ban says, and the discussion above has established that there are well understood existing norms.
*: In the case of William M. Connolley we've got an on-site expert whose very moderate and mainstream opinion of a subject in which he has published primary research is very welcome. We'd be mad to interpret the topic ban in such a way as to forbid all communication from Dr. Connolley, if only because it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be strongly against an application of the topic ban too far beyond what is written. --] 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Given that the problem with WMC is behaviour toward others, having a situation where he can give technical comments to those brave or interested enough to approach the beast but where no one else need to seems an elegant solution. He can give references and explain things all he likes. Perhaps it was intended. I hope that is where we have got to. As for the proxying bit if we starting seeing "tell him he is stupid" type comments resulting in people being called stupid we will need to think again. Trying to ban this would drive it off wiki and into email which would be a strange thing to do. --] ] 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::As far as I'm concerned, user talk pages (where invited, or on the sanctioned person's own talk page) should be fine; where not invited, it probably shouldn't result in any more sanctions than an unnamed person. I would hope that editing in Template, Category or Portal or their respective talk spaces about climate change articles, should result in a block. ''That'' clarification by ArbCom would be helpful. — ] ] 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments. One characteristic of the more abysmal aspects of this case has been strident crowds turning up uninvited on people's talk pages with torches and pitchforks. This is stressful, intimidating, and wholly unnecessary. I anticipate admins will issue topic bans to deal with this under discretionary sanctions if the problem rears its ugly head again and I, for one, will happily endorse them. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup>
::::I can't imagine what clarification you expect beyond , which as far as I am concerned wasn't even necessary. I would actually prefer it if Arbcom did ''not'' "clarify" every, or indeed any, little detail of the form "What will happen if I break the spirit of my topic ban by doing X, which is not covered explicitly the way it's formulated?" The purpose of the topic bans is to take the steam out of the topic. If a topic banned editor is allowed to do X, then a topic banned editor from the "opposite" camp will also do X. If that can easily be predicted to lead to stressful interactions between the two it's clear that X is covered by the ban, regardless of any wikilawyering one could do on the subject. (Of course this requires a pragmatic choice of X that takes context into account, see below.) By not micro-managing the extent of the restrictions Arbcom can force the topic banned editors to think about the consequences of their actions. (Something like this also applies to other editors, and I personally feel on thin ice when editing in the area. Since one person's robust response to disruption is another person's disruption, this is not a nice feeling. But I believe it's necessary.) We will see what happens when the first "uninvolved" admin blocks an editor for doing something that did not break the spirit of the rules but is superficially similar to something that does. (E.g.: Topic banned editor A taunts topic banned editor B on B's talk page and gets blocked. A week later B leaves an apology regarding some earlier disagreement on topic banned editor C's talk page and gets blocked for the same length of time.) IMO everything hinges on Arbcom's firm response in such a situation. They seem to have thought about it, so let's see how well it works in practice. ] ] 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Roger raises a valid point, as talk page interactions were a constant irritant throughout the case. That is, someone issuing "warnings" and scolding messages to other editors, thereby sparking conflict. There's nothing wrong with people using their talk pages to list useful or new sources, and any effort to curtail that just simply offends the sensibilities as far as I'm concerned. It's just wrong, and trying to keep people from doing that is going to cause far more trouble than it will avert. However, editors who are topic banned simply can't or shouldn't go to other people's pages to carry out warfare there. I doubt that any of them will do so, but it's always a possibility down the line. ] (]) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps every editor involved in CC should put the notice: ''<nowiki>{{sanctions|See ].}}</nowiki>'' on his/her talk page. ] (]) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Topic banned editors already have notice of the decision, and then some. ] (]) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::As I suggested above, the best thing for anyone mentioned in the topic ban to do is to stay away from all CC related articles and topics. Period. Then you don't have to worry if you are violating the ban or if someone on "the other side" is watching to see what you can get away with so they can try it as well. Why would you be discussing something on your talk page if you can't even edit in that area to begin with? There has to be at least ''one other thing'' each of you has interest in, go edit in that subject area. ] (]) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I fail to see the harm in editors who understand the intricacies of CC science exchanging views on scholarly articles. ] (]) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::William may also have information on some CC topic that no other Wikipedian has, but which is needed in an article. An obvious example where that is likely to happen is in case of ]. ] (]) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would be willing to make an exception for that article, yes, but not any other articles. And do note that even the subjects of BLP articles are not automatically entitled to post to the talk page of said articles. There are many cases of BLP subjects (some dealt with in private to avoid embarassing said BLP subjects) who disrupt the articles and talk pages of the articles about themselves, and their socks and IPs are blocked and they end up de facto banned (usually no-one realises it is the subject of the article causing the disruption). What often happens then (and this is the crucial bit), is that they often reach out by e-mail to someone, and are directed to OTRS (or other off-wiki venues) to make their point in a way where their concerns can be dealt with without them disrupting things for everyone else. In other words, the conduct of a BLP subject on the talk page of their article, is still subject to the normal restrictions and the need to avoid disruption. ] (]) 01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place. There is a sense above of editors thinking that certain pages or issues are so difficult or complex that it requires certain editors to deal with them. This is anti-thetical to the entire concept of how Misplaced Pages works. No single editor is indispensible, and no single editor should be necessary for Misplaced Pages to work, or for a page to attain a reasonable standard. Trust in other editors (who have similar levels of expertise) and the system to cope with any problems that arise. And no editor should be so tied to a topic that they are unable to walk away from it when asked to do so. In other words, those who have been topic-banned are being asked to ''leave the topic area alone in its entirety''. Do other stuff for six months to demonstrate both that you are capable of acting collegially elsewhere and that you are capable of staying away from this topic area (or indeed any topic area) when asked to do so. Make notes off-wiki if you must, and then make your case at the right time for the topic ban to be lifted, but don't spend the next six months poking on-wiki at the edges of the area that has just been arbitrated. ] (]) 01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:As an uninvolved non-arbitrator, I am with Carcharoth on this. Banned means banned, which means if one is topic banned, that person should not be involved in the topic. In any form. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. As Carcharoth alludes to, if a person is topic banned it is because they have become a net negative in terms of work in a topic area. That is, the topic is better without them, and worse with them. The ban is in place to make Misplaced Pages better, and as such, it should not be tested around the edges. To put it bluntly: Why would we allow someone to make a topic worse, but only a little bit. If its reached the stage of topic banning, then the person just needs to stay away. --]''''']''''' 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::Well, I'm the opposite of Jayron, but agreed. A Topic Ban means you stay away from the topic area. ] (]) 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::<small>When you said "I'm the opposite of Jayron", I pictured you as a really hot, skinny, black woman with a pleasant voice and an active social life. But, I guess that's not what you meant. --]''''']''''' 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
::::I think it says something about this case that this point seems clear to those of us who are not on either "side" of this dispute and just want it to end. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels the ban should broadly interpreted and that even looking for loopholes in the language is a sign that the message has not quite been received. I know it's not easy, but I recommend to every named party that you clean out your watchlist of anything related to climate change and really, truly just ignore the topic for the time being. <small>(and I doubt there are many hot, skinny women with pleasant voices who spend their Saturday night editing Misplaced Pages)</small> ] (]) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::<small>Yes, but us pudgy white men with high-pitched, loud voices would like there to be --]''''']''''' 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*@Carcharoth (and other arbcom members): Hypothetically, if WMC and/or other topic banned editors congregate off-wiki and post citations and articles, does it become meatpuppery or proxying for banned users to make use of those sources in Wiki articles? I'm asking because I imagine that would be the next step if talk page posts on scientific articles are banned. This is not a remote possibility, and I can see it happening with more than one editor and more than one POV. ] (]) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::IS there a bit of "move on to another topic" that's difficult to comprehend. We've asked the topic-banned users to avoid this topic entirely. We don't speculate as to what might or might not constitute a breach of this, on wiki, off-wiki or theoretically. Hypothetically, if they all go and work on ], or ] (and that's not a reference to the planet in 50 years time) then they'll have got the message. All users who are committed to wikipedia should be assisting these particular users in doing something constructive and unrelated, they shouldn't be corresponding with them on this topic, not wikilawyering around it on their, or engaging in the hypothetical of "what happens if".... You want to help them and wikipedia? The message is clear MOVE ON.--] 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Scott immediately above. Several users were banned. That means they need to leave the topic area while the sanction is in place. That does not mean that they can try to wikilawyer around it and push the boundaries as far as they can. If they do so, they are liable to have harsher sanctions placed upon them. I, for one, would be willing to use any means at my disposal (including discretionary sanctions) to keep order in the topic area, even if it requires me to take further action against already-sanctioned editors. The best thing for these editors to do is to edit a non-controversial area for a while, and then come back in six months with a well-reasoned appeal that shows that they are capable of collaborating productively. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

==Will Ed Poor prove that ArbCom got it wrong?==
:) . ] (]) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid Ed is editing according to Misplaced Pages policies, for the most part, although he's still (begin understatement) a bit (end understatement) abrasive. — ] ] 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:There is a history to all this, but (this is directed at Count Iblis) this noticeboard is not the place to raise this. If you (Count Iblis) have concerns, go to Ed Poor's talk page first, rather than trying to make a spectacle of it here. The smilie is not appropriate, either, nor is the depiction of this as a show to sit back and watch. Taking that attitude does nothing to improve things, and reinforces the impression that you are just commenting from the sidelines. ] (]) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, of course, one has to be pro-active in case of problems. What we may see now are "new" editors apearing that actually aren't new but people who stopped editing the CC pages in 2007 when they failed to gained consensus for more prominence to dissenting opinions in the main global warming article. ] (]) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

== Polargeo's administrative permissions ==
::] <!-- &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) -->

{{discussion top}}
Are the edits or actions Polargeo made with alternate accounts contrary to Misplaced Pages policy visible to ordinary editors? I skimmed the edits of the accounts Hersfold blocked as his socks and didn't really see anything (a few edits that didn't seem related to his other fields), so I'm wondering where the charge of multiple-accounts abuse is coming from. I ask this as much because he appears to be indefinitely blocked for what he did as because of this decision on admin privileges. ] ] 04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

:The main purpose of the motion is to tie up a loose end about the administative tools, which weren't explicitly resigned forever and which could therefore conceivably be transferred to another account later. Without going into too much detail, there are more accounts involved than just those which Hersfold blocked. The applicable bit of ] is ''The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to ... disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block.'' &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::So the disruption was using other accounts than the ones I'm seeing? I'm guessing the information on exactly what he did and with what accounts is sensitive and can't be revealed publicly? ] ] 05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I echo Heimstern's call for transparency here. If there are other accounts where abuse occurred, they should be made public. ] (]) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::: Ditto. Where is the evidence of abuse? ] (]) 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::If I understand Roger Davies correctly, it may not be in Polargeo's interest to go into further detail. Have you tried asking Polargeo directly by email? ] ] 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::: I've talked to PG by email. He is entirely happy to go into detail, and has no interest in arbcomm's cloak of secrecy ] (]) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This is moot. Polargeo has resigned the tools. If he wishes to stay without then, then examining whether or not there's been abuse, and putting his actions under the microscope is unneccesaary (unless he wants to raise it). If he wants the tools back, then the community will want to take a look at the socking and make up their minds whether or not it is consistent with being an admin. Arbcom are not saying he can't have the tools back - they are just saying "if he wants them back, the community will want to discuss". Unless he chooses to initiate that discussion, there's not need to demand or investigate anything.--] 16:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:How is he supposed to initiate any conversation, since all his accounts are blocked indefinitely for this supposed sock abuse? If this were just a technicality to force him to do another RfA then that would be a different matter. ] (]) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::If ArbCom didn't block his many accounts, and decide that he must have another RFA, then another group of users would be saying that there was a cover up of an admin socking if Polargeo reclaimed the bit later when he returns to editing. So, for Polargeo to have the confidence of the community when he uses his tools, another RFA is needed. From reading the comments on site, it is obvious that correspondence between Arbs and him has happened over the last few weeks. Like all blocked users, he can discuss the situation with ArbCom by mail, or leave a message on his talk page. ]] 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Heim-where does it does it's okay for anyone, much less an admin (now former admin), can create multiple undisclosed accounts? Besides, Flo is is right, if we didn't do this we'd get accused of covering up admin socking. Another case of arbs are doomed no matter what.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I think you have some copy and paste problems in your comment - or at least one of us is more drunk than is good for them. As for "doomed either way", if it's no difference, doom yourself with more openness and transparency. Go out in glorious infamy, not sneaking through the back door. --] (]) 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::<code>s/does it does/does it say/</code> ] ] 17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::<s>R: The sock policy is to prohibit, not to allow, so I'm afraid I think your question is written backward; that is to say, the proper question is not "where does it say it's OK..." but "where does it say it's ''not'' OK..." And I'm afraid I can't find anywhere where it says it's not OK to create multiple accounts, but rather only that it's not OK to use them abusively: to deceive, to disrupt etc. And that's all I'm asking: Where is the disruption? (I'm mainly concerned with his block here rather than his admin permissions.) Now, some people below appear to have answered that question, but still, I just wish that answer had been made clear from the beginning. ] ] 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)</s>
:::::Try the lead where it says "one user, one account", with a very few exceptions likes a public computer one, etc. Polargeo's weren't covered by the exceptions. It doesn't say "you can have as many as you want unless..." I'm afraid you've got it backward ;-) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::<s>Nah, it says "generally expected". That's not a prohibition. Sorry. Even if it is (and it is not), enforcing policy via blocks where there's no disruption is distinctly against our blocking policy (cannot be preventative if there's no disruption to prevent). Now, this is moot since we finally got an answer about where the disruption was. Still. Committee needs to be open about this stuff from the beginning. ] ] 23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)</s>
:::::::Nah, it also says such accounts should be disclosed, to arbcom in private when necessary and he didn't do any of that either.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::<s>"Should" is "advisable". Not "mandatory". For an admin, definitely needs to be done, and not doing so is grounds for desysopping, but is under no circumstances grounds for an indef. In this case, there seems to be a lot more to it, so I'm not complaining about this indef, though.
::::::::I would also appreciate if you would stop treating me like a n00b. Your interpretation of policy is not the last word, and if you Arbs are going to use your status to lord your interpretations over others, let's MFD the whole committee now. I'm frankly disgusted that you'd be this condescending to me when all I did was ask for a little transparency. If this is what people get for asking for transparency I want nothing more to do with Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I'm going to be away for a while due to real life and so I can recover my good will toward the site. ] ] 07:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)</s>
:::::::::You're treating me and acting the same way so what's the diff? We disagree on interpretation of a policy, that's all.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Another triumph for an arbs diplomatic skills ] (]) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Loss of tools is one thing. Being indef blocked for "abuse" with no clear evidence of same is distinctly dodgy. PG says his talk page access is blocked ] (]) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

:Talk page access is not blocked at ]. –]] 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::If I may, on several ocassions Polargeo has mentioned he no longer has access to that account. (Password scrambled I believe.)--] (]) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Is his (new) prime account {{user|Polargeo 2}} then? Perhaps talk page access should be allowed there? –]] 17:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::(That I don't know, but I'd imagine someone with email contact can answer.)--] (]) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::: I can. PG2 is his current account ] (]) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
(od) He wasn't indeffed by ArbCom - it was an independent checkuser action - though the block looks perfectly good to me. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
: OK, if it looks good to you - what diffs do you see as justifying an indef block? Hersfold isn't answering ] (]) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: As one example, look at ], an account I indefed after it admitted to block evasion. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I looked over a sample of the edits, and found no sign of abuse. Where did you think he admitted to block evasion? As far as I can tell, his main account was never blocked, but is inaccessible. Some admins then started blocking alternate accounts because he should use the main one. This could have been very much avoided and de-escalated with a bit more carefulness. --] (]) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Perhaps more to the point, why is it appropriate to change accounts on a daily basis, resurrect old accounts to evade blocks and range blocks, and parachute into talk pages using the new accounts to restart discussions? As for the indef blocks, these are preventative and pretty much standard practice when multiple accounts are involved. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::: @JEH: your block summary there says "‎(Block evasion: User admits block evasion)". That doesn't seem applicable here - there was no block to evade (as I've just e/c'd with Stephan on).
::: @RD: Two answers: 1, is someone is changing accounts, the tradiational answer is to restrict them to one. In this case, PG2 is the obvious one, so should be unblocked. 2, I don't think PG is changing on a daily basis - many/most of the blocks are for accounts that are old. OK, I suppose I'd better check: Scottie Mccall - no edits; Wivaronth - no edits; Seenock - no edits; Nallith - no edits; Althea Faulkner - no edits. I got bored at that point. So which of these (admittedly many) accounts do you say that PG has been using "on a daily basis"?
::: @RD: and a question: as you say, the block is "preventative". What is it intended to prevent? ] (]) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

::::There was - and is - a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo. As far as I could tell, he ''had'' been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::: OK, so, things become clearer. <s>PG2's access to his talk page isn't blocked</s> ] (]) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)], *but* the IP range that PG2 uses is blocked (see? I told you that you could read these logs better than me). Now it appears that you blocked PG2 because you were under the impression that PG2 was limited to one account (is that correct?). But I don't understand that - the account PG2 was created *after* all those accounts (no?). So if PG2 was indeed restricted, he couldn't have known that when creating those accounts. None of which (no?) have been even used since the PG2 account was created. Moreover, you say "As far as I could tell, he ''had'' been restricted to Polargeo 2, since that had been created for him by an administrator", but is that restriction indeed true? Moreover, you say "Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block", but I don't know what you mean by "that block". You mean the range block? That says "2010-10-06T17:39:36 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked 194.66.0.0/24 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (<nowiki>{{checkuserblock}}</nowiki>)" (so now we know that Coren is the shy admin you wouldn't talk about). How could anyone have anticipated that? ] (]) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Prior to Beeblebrox's modification, the ticky box that allows talk page access was unchecked - though it wasn't mentioned in the log entry, for some reason. A bug, perhaps. –]] 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
*As it has been clearly established that ArbCom was not involved in the actual blocking I don't see why this is still being discussed here. If PG wants to request unblock he can use Polargeo2's talk page, I've just modified the block to allow that, or he can email ArbCom directly. ] (]) 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: See above, PG2 is range-blocked ] (]) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:If the range block (as I understand it) predates all the socks (the socks having been created to avoid the rangeblock, correct?)...why was there even a range block targeted at Polargeo in the first place? ] <sup>(]•]•])</sup> 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: The range block was put up 2010-10-06, as I've already said. ''2010-09-29T12:34:42 Althea Faulkner (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ ''; ''2010-09-29T12:40:49 Nallith (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ ''; ''2010-09-29T12:41:49 Seenock (talk | contribs) new user account ‎ ''. Well, you get the pattern. PG2 was created on 14th Oct: '2010-10-14T05:37:32 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) created new account User:Polargeo 2 ‎ (talk | contribs)'' ] (]) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Mmk, my bad. I was going off the part of Hersfold's comment above that says "a block on his network range. Most, if not all, of these accounts were created on proxies in avoidance of that block, which could only have been targeted at Polargeo". Thanks for clarifying. ] <sup>(]•]•])</sup> 19:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Indeed, I don't understand what H meant by his comment either ] (]) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic. Perhaps the matter of the checkuser block should be moved to a more appropriate noticeboard. --] 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(od & ec) I'm must be missing something here. We have a user who retired very publicly while a topic ban was in the process of being voted on; who has probably operated between 15 and 20 accounts, none of which seems to have been mentioned at either of his RfAs; and has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban. Are we seriously suggesting that this is acceptable? That it's not disruptive? That's it's not evading scrutiny? That it's not helped create a false impression of support? etc etc &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:So why is ] still blocked? You already have assurances from Polargeo that he will limit himself to that account and that account only if he wishes to return to editing. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::I'll hazard a guess that the assurances haven't been terribly convincing. It's not okay to operate multiple accounts the way Polargeo was doing. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Maybe Polargeo can be unblocked so that he can use his Polargeo2 userpage to request an unblock, if he so desires. Until or unless that happens, we're just going to be speculating. ] (]) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

@RD: I don't understand ''has used those some of those accounts as SPAs to revisit the topic ban''. I've just looked through Althea Faulkner / Nallith / Seenock / Wivaronth ‎ / Scottie Mccall / Telziath / Jbtscott ‎/ PolargeoShutdown ‎ / Jack Vine ‎/ LilyNiviaq ‎/ Yugosithlord ‎/ Polargeo 2. None of those have any edits that match your description. Which accounts were you referring to? Where is the "false impression of support". Do you have any diffs? ] (]) 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

: Polargeo doesn't need a lawyer. WMC, let him speak on his own behalf if he wishes to. Your very persistent involvement here is not helping him at all. He can post an appeal to his talk page, and the matter will be considered. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::Maybe we can just sort of wind this up as long as we're certain that P can state his case on-wiki. I mean, that's a ''lot'' of alternate accounts, for heaven's sake. ] (]) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: @JEH: actually, PG certainly did need someone to speak for him, because H erroneously blocked his talk page access (or possibly there was a bug; see Xeno's comment on H's page). If you don't want to discuss this you don't have to ] (]) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
*A quick note: The original blocks were done by me for continued disruption on the proposed decision talk page (with three named account and from an IP). It is well established that participating in process is ''not'' an acceptable use of alternate accounts &mdash; let alone to snipe at participants in an arbitration case. Routine enforcement of basic rules. Polargeo was then offered to edit from any ''exactly one'' account of his choosing. He picked one, slapped a retirement tag on it, then proceeded (as noticed by another unrelated checkuser) to create and revive a number of ''other'' socks. The IP range, incidentally, is only ''soft'' blocked and does not prevent him from editing any talk page.<p>As far as I'm concerned, Polargeo can still pick any one of his accounts to to be unblocked. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::If you're in communication with him, and he knows that, then I don't see what more there is to discuss here. ] (]) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::He does, and ] does not have talk page access blocked. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Now'''. --] (]) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
On a policy point, " It is well established that participating in process is ''not'' an acceptable use of alternate accounts" should read "...''not'' an acceptable use of '''undisclosed''' alternate accounts." I use the Tasty monster account, which I do my utmost to disclose without being too in-your-face about it, on lots of process pages, and often intertwine comments from my two accounts during the course of the same discussion on the understanding that my signature is enough to indicate my identity. That is okay I hope. It it isn't please take comments to my user talk page to avoid cluttering this discussion. --] 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:I've replied to your specific case on your talk page, but even disclosed accounts may not be okay unless it's immediately clear to someone reading the discussion (possibly years later) that they are the same editor. Referring to the other account in the third person, for instance, is always a no-no. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:Which of course still doesn't answer the question why the old alternate accounts weren't disclosed at either RfA. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason that Polargeo may not have one (and only one) account unblocked to resume proper editing. I would expect him to use only one account from now on (I don't think he has any problem with that), and of course the sanction voted in the Climate change case would still apply. He has also agreed that he may not seek to regain adminship without first going through a new RfA. ] (]) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:Please note that there now is a comment up at ], in which PG maintains that many of the supposed sock accounts are mis-associated with him. He also requests unblock for the PG2 account. --] (]) 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:Noting that Polargeo 2 is now inblocked and that there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts, including but not limited to: ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:: ''there's no dispute about ownership of many accounts'' - that is a rather incomplete description of the situation. There ''is'' dispute about a number of accounts which figured in the block, viz: Telziath, Scottie Mccall, Wivaronth, Seenock, Nallith, Althea Faulkner. PG denies having anything to do with these accounts, and they have figured largely in the block reasons. Perhaps the magic pixie dust was carelessly scattered ] (]) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:::{{Pixiedust|ArbCom}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

== Running commentary... ==

If people are not yet aware of it, there is at least one "sceptic" blog keeping a running commentary on the CC ArbCom case and its repercussions. See . Make sure to skim the comments, e.g. "''Those of us who are working to correct the bad science behind the CO2 global warming scare, must give a high priority to making Wikki a fair and balanced source. I urge my highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros to organize a committee to take on the project of editing the pertinent Wikki articles. You will be reaching far more people than by publishing papers and writing articles in journals. By correcting the information in Wikki you can make a huge impact on the outcome of the issue.''" I don't know how many highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros "the Wikki" will get, but I do hope that people here are prepared to deal with a wave of meatpuppets. --] (]) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:See also and . ] (]) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
::You'd think someone watching wiki would learn how to spell it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Probably too busy doing their PhD-stuff... --] (]) 21:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
::::If Jimbo were to create Wikkipedia.org, as a mirror of Misplaced Pages that anyone can edit but whose content is periodically reset to that of Misplaced Pages, that would also solve the problem :) ] (]) 22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:This (potential) problem is another good reason to implement my idea to put all new editors on 1RR for a while. New editors need to demonstrate that they can edit without causing trouble by sticking to 1RR for their first 1000 edits, before the 1RR restriction will be lifted. In case of a violation of 1RR or a block for edit warring without an 1 RR violation, the edit count will be reset to zero. ] (]) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Interesting idea <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blogs like this can be safely ignored, I think, in terms of a threat to Misplaced Pages. We're perennially warned on-site about the dangers of meat puppets turning up in droves, but in the year I've curated the talk page ] I've seldom seen anything more than an earnest wish to provoke thought. Occasionally somebody comes out with something that has to be removed on BLP grounds, and to be honest most of the stuff is simply so dull that it gets archived quickly to avoid clutter. I don't know whether some or all of it comes from blogs like the one run by Anthony Watts, but even if it is we've got no problem dealing with it.


*I get the sense Ivana either refused to respond or they were unrepentant and doubled-down. Either tends to be a very good way to get a site-and-topic-ban combo. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
And if this blog is encouraging people with relevant doctorates to come and help us out, then I say thank you very much. --] 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*{{u|Huldra}} was very publicly accused of misconduct, is there any public statement on whether or not that evidence indicated any malfeasance on her part? And if it did not, is there any reason why such a public accusation is not met with just as public a refutation? ''']''' - 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:And here I thought I dig British humour... --] (]) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*:The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of ], as do we all. That means they can do just about anything legitimate under Misplaced Pages policy, and we will observe our ] guideline. This is our chance to demonstrate why Misplaced Pages has an enviable reputation as a collaborative community. I can't imagine why anyone coming from Mr. Watts' blog to Misplaced Pages would ever want to go back. --] 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*::The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. ''']''' - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::: You may suffer from a failure of imagination. ++]: ]/] 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
*:::Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. ] ] 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I recall suggesting something similar during my time on the committee (2015). However one of my fellow arbitrators (I don't remember who) was firmly of the opinion that every finding of fact should directly support at least one remedy. The same argument was made (I think by someone else) more recently when I suggested that things which were directly necessary for the situation being adjudicated to occur but which were themselves neutral <small>(I don't remember the context for this, but I do remember using the analogy of a rail accident investigation into why a train ran away - that it was on a gradient was necessary for the runaway to occur, and so a finding of fact was made to this effect, even though it was not relevant to any remedy)</small>. Every remedy should be supported by at least one finding of fact, but I still disagree that the only purpose of findings of fact is to support remedies. ] (]) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I do kind of agree that the parts of a PD should lead into one another, but maybe it doesn't have to be part of the proposed decision. . A simple statement on the evidence talk page, for example, something along the lines of "we examined evidence related to <user> and did not find it compelling." Striking out evidence that doesn't show what is claimed could be considered as well. This is probably a bad test case as we don't actually know what the evidence was. ] ] 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], not before a lot of us read the accusations. Should there be consequences for parties making public accusations on the basis of private evidence when those accusations are not upheld? '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Speaking generally, as obviously I have not seen the private evidence, there are multiple reasons why evidence presented may not lead to action being taken, including:
*:::::*The evidence shows the opposite to what is claimed
*:::::*The evidence clearly doesn't show anything (of consequence)
*:::::**This could be due to fabricated or misinterpreted evidence, or genuine evidence of things that are not problematic (e.g. claims of vandalism that turn out to be just removal of unsourced promotional material)
*:::::*The evidence is completely unclear
*:::::*The evidence shows evidence of something, but not conclusively enough to take action
*:::::**e.g. there is clear evidence of bad actions by someone but it is not clear (enough) who that someone is
*:::::*There are no actions that it is possible for Arbcom to take
*:::::**e.g. the evidence points to the bad actions exclusively being done by someone not on en.wp
*:::::*All the actions that Arbcom could take are moot
*:::::**e.g. a person who would be sanctioned already has been (whether for these actions or some other).
*:::::In several of the above, it's possible for evidence to have been presented in good or bad faith. What (if any) consequences there should be for the person submitting the evidence will depend on the circumstance. Fabricated evidence presented in bad faith is very different to genuine evidence presented in good faith that is simply insufficiently conclusive to take action. ] (]) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::: I think that presenting public accusations on private evidence should be prohibited and offenders should be sanctioned, whether or not the private evidence checks out. There is no excuse for it, and there wasn't an excuse this time, so I don't know why the offender was (afaik) allowed to get away with it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::: Technically it ''is'' prohibited, as it is casting aspersions without on-wiki evidence. My concern was that the whole laundry list of evidence-free accusations sat there for ''over three days'', with at least two arbs commenting on it, before Primefac finally removed it. It's still there in the page history, as well. ] 11:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*As I said in my response to the inquiry, I accept the judgement of the committee regarding me. I am however not pleased the committee seems to acquiesce to such clearly politically motivated acts of intimidation. Nothing new here I'm afraid. ] (]) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I will note in my opinion, the evidence for Tashmetu was weaker and their response made me unwilling to support the revocation, unlike with the other revocation. ] (]) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*While I am limited in what I can say, this coming out now, in December, has been for me a prime example of the limitations (which I mainly attribute to capacity) of this year's committee. Despite how long it took this seems to be a thoughtful and considered response. I have high hopes for next year's committee and hope they live up to (or exceed them). Best, ] (]) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*I think we can all thank the committee for taking a reasoned and considered action, announcing it, and remember that people can and do learn and change and get 2nd chances and even 3rd chances. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


I have some questions about the 2 "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction"
I don't think this would really be the right place for me to give an evaluation of the quality of a popular blog. Suffice to say that page impression rates on Misplaced Pages are very healthy indeed and its science coverage enjoys a reputation unmatched by any blog. If more domain experts are being directed here from science blogs, all the better. ] (=] ) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
* Do they tell us something useful about the statute of limitations for gaming? In those cases, the gaming occurred many months ago. There seems to be a lack of clarity and diversity of views on this issue. The staleness question is relevant to a current AE case for example. Gaming is often spotted long after the EC grant is issued (or not at all probably). If there is something like a statute of limitations, it may make actively searching for accounts that look like they may have employed gaming worthwhile, at least for accounts that went on to edit in a contentious topic area.
:Was that a reply to me? Because it doesn't make a lot of sense in reply to my comment. Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output. ++]: ]/] 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
* Is gaming enough by itself or does there need to be another element of the "crime" to trigger removal of the privilege e.g. leapt into a contentious topic area post-EC grant, or was involved in edit warring, or off-wiki coordination etc.? Misplaced Pages provides several tools that people can use to pretty rapidly make 500 perfectly legitimate edits, so there seems to be a fuzzy boundary between ok and not-ok for the first 500 edits.
:: That was *my* point, but you didn't like it then ] (]) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
] (]) 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: The ends do not justify the means. Especially when it's actually possible to produce quality output without being a prat, and therefore the means used are unnecessary. Which is the point of the sanctions on you. Which I gather you don't like much. ++]: ]/] 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Why don't you boys take it outside? Or better yet, self-topic ban yourselves from each other. ] (]) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Not helpful. I was responding to Tony, who I think missed the point. WMC inserted himself to snark. ++]: ]/] 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Then ignore him. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Have you cautioned WMC about his behavior, or asked him to stop it, since the case started? Your advice is easy to give, but entirely inadequate. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone has been collecting his diffs for an enforcement request on WMC, because he's pretty clearly disregarding the intent of the arbs. Yet, you remonstrate me. Your bias is showing. Shoot some other messenger. ++]: ]/] 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Lar is calling me a prat, above. Is that now considered acceptable language here? ] (]) 10:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling ''you'' anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++]: ]/] 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


:There is no one sized fits all solution to ECP gaming I'm afraid. In this case of course, there was an off-wiki element which makes it perhaps a poor comparison to other cases. ] <sup>]</sup>] 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in reading your opinion on this subject, Lar, but I find it impenetrable. First you say that I may be suffering from a failure of imagination, then you say that "Editing environment congeniality isn't the same as quality of output." This in reply to my statement that we should welcome domain experts who are encouraged to come from science blogs to Misplaced Pages to work under the climate change discretionary sanctions which set a high minimum standard for collaborative work. Needless to say I expect knowledgeable editors to produce relatively high quality material, some of which may even be usable under our content policies. Is that where you think my imagination fails me? ] (=] ) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
*
::Let me try again then. Above, ("Anybody who edits those articles will have to do so under the terms of Remedy 1.2,") you were speaking of the editing environment, and I responded to that. But I now think that perhaps in the comment I was directly responding to you were speaking of the readership, and saying that they would prefer the quality articles here to the partisan screeds they would find at partisan blogs (of either side). I agree. Most readers who have not already formed an opinion and who honestly want information would be better served to turn here than to partisan blogs. I think we can both agree on that. However, that's not my point. My point is that the ends do not justify the means. And the editing environment in this topic area has been marred by partisanship and outright factional behavior, including multiple parties (on both sides of the partisan divide) acting badly to the point that they got mentioned in the findings. So an EDITOR would not necessarily prefer editing here. Certainly not in the status quo ante. Whether things improve remains to be seen but I'm hopeful that with some factionalists removed on both sides (more on the weaker side to be sure, but still) things WILL improve. Aside: For the record, I don't think you were poking at me much in this particular instance. ++]: ]/] 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons
::* The likelihood that a revision to an article was done by a ban evading actor is far higher in PIA than across Misplaced Pages in general. This is clear when you compare the PIA topic area to 500,000 randomly selected articles. For a PIA article revision, the chance that it's a sock edit is 5.9%, whereas for the random sample it's 2.9%, at least for the 2020 until now period. For the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, it's 6.82% vs 1.96%.
::* EC requirements appear to concentrate ban evading actors in the subpopulation with EC rights. This subpopulation is relatively small compared to the general population, which could be a useful feature. Annual grants for EC are generally only in the 3500 to 4500 accounts range as far as I can tell, very substantially less than the total number of new accounts each year. And the chance that an EC account is blocked for ban evasion is high, in the 5 to 10% range, depending on the year. Furthermore, the speed of EC acquisition, the number of days from registration to extendedconfirmed, tells you something about the likelihood that an account will be blocked for ban evasion i.e. the quicker someone acquires EC, the more likely they will be blocked for ban evasion. You can see that relationship for all newly acquired EC grants across Misplaced Pages from 2018 onwards.
::So, maybe gaming followed by contentious topic area editing could be an indicator of an increased likelihood of ban evasion. ] (]) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], where are you getting these numbers from? Ironic, I know, but could you cite your source? And. not to a gif but some source that explains how this data was gathered and evaluated. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Liz}}, voices in my head mostly. Also, from SQL executed on the analytics server from my laptop using my toolforge account, sometimes directly, sometimes with some extra processing using Python. hmmm...I'll think about how provide some background. I have been looking at the topic area for a while now. ] (]) 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


::::* The first background thing is the answer to the question "what is the topic area?". We don't know precisely so we (BilledMammal, Zero0000 and I) have used approximations and gathered stats based on those. The approximations use article titles and are normally limited to namespaces (0,1), but not always. The article titles are selected by looking for ARBPIA templated talk pages and pages that are members of both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects. This approximation has been slightly expanded recently to include pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration project and pages that are in both the Israel and Lebanon wikiprojects and both the Israel and Syria wikiprojects. This could be expanded further of course to improve sampling, but the existing approximation seems to catch a large number of titles.
:Tony, please don't poke Larry or assume bad faith.
::::* The second thing is the answer to the question "what is a ban evading actor, a sock?" In a perfect world (which is what external ML research projects appear to assume), you should be able to find ban evading actors by looking at the category graph because all actors blocked for sockpuppetry should be categorized as such. In reality, the category graph is incomplete. There are many accounts that have been blocked as socks that are not categorized as socks. This seems to be partly culture-related. Some editors seem to think that adding a sock template (which automatically categorizes the account) somehow gives credit to the actor. This is not helpful in my view, especially for ML project, partly because the category graph is the most efficient way to link accounts to sockmasters, which is very useful information. So, to handle this, actors are labeled as ban evading actors based on a combination of information from the category graph and from the block logs (looking for terms like checkuser, sock, multiple accounts etc. in the comments). Once you can label actors as ban evading actors you can , both inside the topic area and outside, and . You can also .
:WMC - Please don't poke Larry. As an involved party, you're skating along the edge of behavior for which discretionary sanctions were authorized in the case. Please stop before someone issues you a formal warning.
::::* The third thing is how to count extendedconfirmed grants. It is easy to see who has been granted the EC privilege and when. So, it is easy to e.g. , measure the difference between registration and the grant issue, and the difference between grant and a block for ban evasion.
:Lar - Please stop. Calling someone a prat here is certainly not the behavior we expect of admins or senior editors, is inappropriate on an arbcom noticeboard, and is contrary to the directions of the decision.
::::* Another thing is identifying gaming, which is quite an interesting unresolved issue for me. This was discussed a bit .
:Interaction bans were specifically authorized. If you all are going to keep beating on each other here or elsewhere in the wake of the case, there is ''absolutely no reason'' for them not to be applied to the lot of you. Knock it off. ] (]) 06:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::We have quite a lot of information about the topic area. Some examples follow. There are some plots for Top and High important articles for the Israel and Palestine projects. Some information about account ages for various articles , or over the whole topic area . . . ] (]) 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::GWH: You have misinterpreted my words too. I will be more careful in future to be more explicit in my referents. Try not to jump at shadows so, though. ++]: ]/] 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Forgot to mention the random sampling. It is easy to select n pages randomly and examine them. It only takes a few minutes to select, for example, 2 million pages and count the number of revisions by ban evading actors and normal editors, with an optional time range limit. I have code to do this in chunks to avoid getting hate mail from the cloud services people. For 2 million randomly selected articles, for the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, 1.97% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). ] (]) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Has this discussion become so toxic that my good faith statements and queries can be so badly misinterpreted? I withdraw and apologise without reserve while denying any intention whatever of poking or assuming bad faith. --] 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
*Thank you, arb.com, for this announcement. As I expected, the only ones to be sanctions are/were relative "newbies" in the IP area (I am not familiar with any of them.)
*Which make me doubt BilledMammal's "evidence" that ZeiSquirrel is a banned sock: what experienced Wikipedian is such a fool that they break our "wiki-laws" ''in plain sight''? I haven't seen the evidence, but it better be water-tight for arb.com to take that as "the truth". It certainly needs to be better than the "evidence" against me. Cheers, ] (]) 20:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*Meanwhile over at ], ] and ] (HaOfa) have been blocked as Icewhiz socks. '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:::Also, in the meantime, lets enjoy the open ] on X () for "] on Dec. 19 about "Misplaced Pages’s anti-Israel bias and '''how to fight back against it'''." "'''Learn the tricks of the trade''' with Aaron Bandler, ]", () (My bolding), ] (]) 22:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, I think there is an awful lot of ] going on in this thread. There have been several contributions that left me completely puzzled as to their intent, or even to what they were responding, and then there were comments by others that apparently assumed mutually contradictory interpretations without making it clear.
::::"Learn the tools necessary to engage in online activism through much-needed Misplaced Pages editing to fight back against the hijacking of truth in the open learning forums".
:If I may be completely honest here: Part of the problem seems to be that we are all under an enormous pressure to be constructive. For some editors this may mean ''being'' constructive, occasionally arguing for the enemy just to be nice, and assuming good faith about all other editors, whatever happens. For other editors this may mean that we are all playing a big game now in which the aim is to say the meanest things behind an impenetrable façade of good will – or at least plausible deniability for the less gifted. If two (or worse, more than two) editors go into a discussion with these fundamentally different and incompatible approaches and are not aware of the fact, there is an automatic escalation.
::::No surprise that some editors are wary new editors coming into the topic space. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think that we can ensure that all editors here use the first approach, although Arbcom is clearly trying. But perhaps we can at least avoid the escalation, once everybody is aware of the problem and of the danger of losing one's cover through unnecessary malicious interpretations. ] ] 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I am sure whoever the valiant Misplaced Pages neutrality protector who stalked pro-Palestinian activists and doxed them is going to be on this case too! Afterall they were clearly only motivated by a desire to ensure adherence to Misplaced Pages code of conduct and had no other motives! ] (]) 07:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It says right on The Israel Forever Foundation mission page "...enlightening, experiential, and apolitical learning and activism", so although I'm not quite sure I really know what the word experiential means, it all sounds like harmless fun. Just a bunch of enthusiastic people wanting to improve Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a source of fresh ideas like ronald, "The solution: Misplaced Pages should be blacklisted as a sponsor of terror and its staff should be imprisoned." It'll be fine. ] (]) 10:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pease ]; I'm sure ] will report it if anything even close to ] occur, ] (]) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::], I don't know if you are serious but I don't think you can rely on BilledMammal for regular reports. They have been on a WikiBreak (or retirement?) since November 14th. They haven't been involved in this case since it opened. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], there's a tad bit of sarcasm from Sean, Huldra and myself. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], I apologise for using this page for a bit of a banter (I think it is called: I am not a native English-speaker). In addition to this arb.com case, BilledMammal has made 14 AE reports only in 2024 (according to ]). AFAIK, ''every single one'' of them against editors deemed not pro-Israeli enough. The chance of BM making a case against pro-Israeli canvassing is, IMO, approximately zero. That is something editors not following the IP-area knows nothing about, therefor our (Sean, TarnishedPath, Tashmetu and myself) comments here were at the wrong place: my apologies, ] (]) 21:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:09, 23 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.

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

Original announcement
  • I get the sense Ivana either refused to respond or they were unrepentant and doubled-down. Either tends to be a very good way to get a site-and-topic-ban combo. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Huldra was very publicly accused of misconduct, is there any public statement on whether or not that evidence indicated any malfeasance on her part? And if it did not, is there any reason why such a public accusation is not met with just as public a refutation? nableezy - 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. nableezy - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. Just Step Sideways 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I recall suggesting something similar during my time on the committee (2015). However one of my fellow arbitrators (I don't remember who) was firmly of the opinion that every finding of fact should directly support at least one remedy. The same argument was made (I think by someone else) more recently when I suggested that things which were directly necessary for the situation being adjudicated to occur but which were themselves neutral (I don't remember the context for this, but I do remember using the analogy of a rail accident investigation into why a train ran away - that it was on a gradient was necessary for the runaway to occur, and so a finding of fact was made to this effect, even though it was not relevant to any remedy). Every remedy should be supported by at least one finding of fact, but I still disagree that the only purpose of findings of fact is to support remedies. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do kind of agree that the parts of a PD should lead into one another, but maybe it doesn't have to be part of the proposed decision. . A simple statement on the evidence talk page, for example, something along the lines of "we examined evidence related to <user> and did not find it compelling." Striking out evidence that doesn't show what is claimed could be considered as well. This is probably a bad test case as we don't actually know what the evidence was. Just Step Sideways 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek, not before a lot of us read the accusations. Should there be consequences for parties making public accusations on the basis of private evidence when those accusations are not upheld? TarnishedPath 23:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Speaking generally, as obviously I have not seen the private evidence, there are multiple reasons why evidence presented may not lead to action being taken, including:
    • The evidence shows the opposite to what is claimed
    • The evidence clearly doesn't show anything (of consequence)
      • This could be due to fabricated or misinterpreted evidence, or genuine evidence of things that are not problematic (e.g. claims of vandalism that turn out to be just removal of unsourced promotional material)
    • The evidence is completely unclear
    • The evidence shows evidence of something, but not conclusively enough to take action
      • e.g. there is clear evidence of bad actions by someone but it is not clear (enough) who that someone is
    • There are no actions that it is possible for Arbcom to take
      • e.g. the evidence points to the bad actions exclusively being done by someone not on en.wp
    • All the actions that Arbcom could take are moot
      • e.g. a person who would be sanctioned already has been (whether for these actions or some other).
    In several of the above, it's possible for evidence to have been presented in good or bad faith. What (if any) consequences there should be for the person submitting the evidence will depend on the circumstance. Fabricated evidence presented in bad faith is very different to genuine evidence presented in good faith that is simply insufficiently conclusive to take action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that presenting public accusations on private evidence should be prohibited and offenders should be sanctioned, whether or not the private evidence checks out. There is no excuse for it, and there wasn't an excuse this time, so I don't know why the offender was (afaik) allowed to get away with it. Zero 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Technically it is prohibited, as it is casting aspersions without on-wiki evidence. My concern was that the whole laundry list of evidence-free accusations sat there for over three days, with at least two arbs commenting on it, before Primefac finally removed it. It's still there in the page history, as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • As I said in my response to the inquiry, I accept the judgement of the committee regarding me. I am however not pleased the committee seems to acquiesce to such clearly politically motivated acts of intimidation. Nothing new here I'm afraid. Tashmetu (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will note in my opinion, the evidence for Tashmetu was weaker and their response made me unwilling to support the revocation, unlike with the other revocation. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • While I am limited in what I can say, this coming out now, in December, has been for me a prime example of the limitations (which I mainly attribute to capacity) of this year's committee. Despite how long it took this seems to be a thoughtful and considered response. I have high hopes for next year's committee and hope they live up to (or exceed them). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we can all thank the committee for taking a reasoned and considered action, announcing it, and remember that people can and do learn and change and get 2nd chances and even 3rd chances. Andre🚐 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some questions about the 2 "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction"

  • Do they tell us something useful about the statute of limitations for gaming? In those cases, the gaming occurred many months ago. There seems to be a lack of clarity and diversity of views on this issue. The staleness question is relevant to a current AE case for example. Gaming is often spotted long after the EC grant is issued (or not at all probably). If there is something like a statute of limitations, it may make actively searching for accounts that look like they may have employed gaming worthwhile, at least for accounts that went on to edit in a contentious topic area.
  • Is gaming enough by itself or does there need to be another element of the "crime" to trigger removal of the privilege e.g. leapt into a contentious topic area post-EC grant, or was involved in edit warring, or off-wiki coordination etc.? Misplaced Pages provides several tools that people can use to pretty rapidly make 500 perfectly legitimate edits, so there seems to be a fuzzy boundary between ok and not-ok for the first 500 edits.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no one sized fits all solution to ECP gaming I'm afraid. In this case of course, there was an off-wiki element which makes it perhaps a poor comparison to other cases. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons
  • The likelihood that a revision to an article was done by a ban evading actor is far higher in PIA than across Misplaced Pages in general. This is clear when you compare the PIA topic area to 500,000 randomly selected articles. For a PIA article revision, the chance that it's a sock edit is 5.9%, whereas for the random sample it's 2.9%, at least for the 2020 until now period. For the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, it's 6.82% vs 1.96%.
  • EC requirements appear to concentrate ban evading actors in the subpopulation with EC rights. This subpopulation is relatively small compared to the general population, which could be a useful feature. Annual grants for EC are generally only in the 3500 to 4500 accounts range as far as I can tell, very substantially less than the total number of new accounts each year. And the chance that an EC account is blocked for ban evasion is high, in the 5 to 10% range, depending on the year. Furthermore, the speed of EC acquisition, the number of days from registration to extendedconfirmed, tells you something about the likelihood that an account will be blocked for ban evasion i.e. the quicker someone acquires EC, the more likely they will be blocked for ban evasion. You can see that relationship here for all newly acquired EC grants across Misplaced Pages from 2018 onwards.
So, maybe gaming followed by contentious topic area editing could be an indicator of an increased likelihood of ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland, where are you getting these numbers from? Ironic, I know, but could you cite your source? And. not to a gif but some source that explains how this data was gathered and evaluated. Thank you. Liz 02:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Liz, voices in my head mostly. Also, from SQL executed on the analytics server from my laptop using my toolforge account, sometimes directly, sometimes with some extra processing using Python. hmmm...I'll think about how provide some background. I have been looking at the topic area for a while now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The first background thing is the answer to the question "what is the topic area?". We don't know precisely so we (BilledMammal, Zero0000 and I) have used approximations and gathered stats based on those. The approximations use article titles and are normally limited to namespaces (0,1), but not always. The article titles are selected by looking for ARBPIA templated talk pages and pages that are members of both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects. This approximation has been slightly expanded recently to include pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration project and pages that are in both the Israel and Lebanon wikiprojects and both the Israel and Syria wikiprojects. This could be expanded further of course to improve sampling, but the existing approximation seems to catch a large number of titles.
  • The second thing is the answer to the question "what is a ban evading actor, a sock?" In a perfect world (which is what external ML research projects appear to assume), you should be able to find ban evading actors by looking at the category graph because all actors blocked for sockpuppetry should be categorized as such. In reality, the category graph is incomplete. There are many accounts that have been blocked as socks that are not categorized as socks. This seems to be partly culture-related. Some editors seem to think that adding a sock template (which automatically categorizes the account) somehow gives credit to the actor. This is not helpful in my view, especially for ML project, partly because the category graph is the most efficient way to link accounts to sockmasters, which is very useful information. So, to handle this, actors are labeled as ban evading actors based on a combination of information from the category graph and from the block logs (looking for terms like checkuser, sock, multiple accounts etc. in the comments). Once you can label actors as ban evading actors you can easily count their revisions, both inside the topic area and outside, and distinguish them from accounts not blocked for sockpuppetry. You can also make timelines of their activities.
  • The third thing is how to count extendedconfirmed grants. It is easy to see who has been granted the EC privilege and when. So, it is easy to e.g. track this over time, measure the difference between registration and the grant issue, and the difference between grant and a block for ban evasion.
  • Another thing is identifying gaming, which is quite an interesting unresolved issue for me. This was discussed a bit here.
We have quite a lot of information about the topic area. Some examples follow. There are some plots in here for interest for Top and High important articles for the Israel and Palestine projects. Some information about account ages for various articles here, or over the whole topic area here. Unique editor counts over time. Ways to look at protection and talk page ARBPIA templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the random sampling. It is easy to select n pages randomly and examine them. It only takes a few minutes to select, for example, 2 million pages and count the number of revisions by ban evading actors and normal editors, with an optional time range limit. I have code to do this in chunks to avoid getting hate mail from the cloud services people. For 2 million randomly selected articles, for the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, 1.97% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, in the meantime, lets enjoy the open canvassing on X (link) for "Israel Forever Foundation on Dec. 19 about "Misplaced Pages’s anti-Israel bias and how to fight back against it." "Learn the tricks of the trade with Aaron Bandler, Jewish Journal", (lets sign up) (My bolding), Huldra (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Learn the tools necessary to engage in online activism through much-needed Misplaced Pages editing to fight back against the hijacking of truth in the open learning forums".
No surprise that some editors are wary new editors coming into the topic space. TarnishedPath 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I am sure whoever the valiant Misplaced Pages neutrality protector who stalked pro-Palestinian activists and doxed them is going to be on this case too! Afterall they were clearly only motivated by a desire to ensure adherence to Misplaced Pages code of conduct and had no other motives! Tashmetu (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It says right on The Israel Forever Foundation mission page "...enlightening, experiential, and apolitical learning and activism", so although I'm not quite sure I really know what the word experiential means, it all sounds like harmless fun. Just a bunch of enthusiastic people wanting to improve Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a source of fresh ideas like ronald, "The solution: Misplaced Pages should be blacklisted as a sponsor of terror and its staff should be imprisoned." It'll be fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure. TarnishedPath 11:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Pease WP:AGF; I'm sure User:BilledMammal will report it if anything even close to canvassing occur, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Huldra, I don't know if you are serious but I don't think you can rely on BilledMammal for regular reports. They have been on a WikiBreak (or retirement?) since November 14th. They haven't been involved in this case since it opened. Liz 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, there's a tad bit of sarcasm from Sean, Huldra and myself. TarnishedPath 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, I apologise for using this page for a bit of a banter (I think it is called: I am not a native English-speaker). In addition to this arb.com case, BilledMammal has made 14 AE reports only in 2024 (according to this). AFAIK, every single one of them against editors deemed not pro-Israeli enough. The chance of BM making a case against pro-Israeli canvassing is, IMO, approximately zero. That is something editors not following the IP-area knows nothing about, therefor our (Sean, TarnishedPath, Tashmetu and myself) comments here were at the wrong place: my apologies, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)