Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 1 April 2014

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.

Will Beback ban appeal

Original announcement

I commend and thank the Arbitration Committee for this decision. Can the ban notices please be removed from Will Beback's user and talk pages? Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that someone has done this. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Shakes head. Leopards change their spots? You are only storing up trouble for the future. Well done arbs. :rolleyes: Spartaz 09:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the worst Will could do now? He was basically banned for Machiavellianism. It's a pretty safe bet that he's neither willing nor able to bamboozle anyone at this point. Kurtis 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the conditions are as follows:

1. Suspension of ban
   1. WBB's indefinite site-ban is suspended subject to his unconditional acceptance of and continuing compliance with the terms below, the purpose of which is to enable him to return to active content work. Failure to comply fully with the letter and spirit of these terms may result in the committee revoking the suspension without warning and reinstating the indefinite ban.
   2. For purposes of enforcement, "on-wiki" refers to any edit in any namespace on the English Misplaced Pages or on any Project or mailing list or email system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation or in any IRC channel with "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in the channel name.
2. One-way interaction ban
   1. WBB is directed to immediately cease commenting directly or indirectly on-wiki about User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob. WBB also agrees to not communicate with the above editors, to not contact either their places of work or their colleagues, and to not seek sanctions for them, by any means.
   2. Administrators who receive requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Arbitration Committee by email.
3. Topic ban: new religious movements
   1. WBB is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit on-wiki about, or any edit to any page relating to, new religious movements, broadly construed.
   2. This restriction replaces WBB's existing new religious movements topic ban.
4. Topic ban: conflicts of interest/paid advocacy; real-world identities
   1. WBB is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit on-wiki relating to conflicts of interest, paid advocacy or the real-world identity of any editor, broadly construed.
   2. WBB agrees to not become involved in any investigation broadly construed, either on- or off-wiki, into the real-world identity of any editor or into their real-world interests and affiliations.
5. Reconsideration of restrictions
   1. The original 2012 case has been carefully and extensively reviewed by the 2013 and 2014 Arbitration Committees, who have seen no reason to disturb it. No further review of the case will take place.
   2. No request for reconsideration of these restrictions may be made until at least twelve months have elapsed since the date on which the suspension of the ban comes into effect.

• I do wish that the Committee would post this within its original announcement; the conditions are of interest to the community as a whole, and the appropriate place to discuss these conditions is right here on this noticeboard, not on Will Beback's page. The Committee deciding to post the conditions of return only on the user's talk page gives the appearance that community members should discuss the restrictions there, and that the Committee has washed its hands of the matter. Arbcom decisions should be posted in their entirety on Arbcom-related pages if for no other reason than creating a centralized reference point; I'm fairly certain the affected users don't really want to have debates about those restrictions on their talk pages either, since there's nothing the users can do to alter the restrictions. Risker (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong view on the form of the announcement, but I'd just observe that the format with the cross-reference has been in use for some time; it wasn't devised just for this case (or the one below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Finally. This was long overdue. Kurtis 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I hope calling IRC channels "on-wiki" doesn't become a precedent. Legoktm (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin ban appeal

Original announcement

The restrictions are as follows, as posted on Ferahgo the Assassin's user talk page:

1. Suspension of ban

   Ferahgo the Assassin's site-ban in the Race and Intelligence case review is suspended subject to her unconditional acceptance of and continuing compliance with the following restrictions, the purpose of which is to enable her to return to active content work. Failure to comply fully with the letter and spirit of the restrictions may result in the committee revoking the suspension without warning and reinstating the indefinite ban.

2. Editing restriction

   Ferahgo the Assassin is restricted to editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles. While some tolerance may be given about interpretation of this editing restriction, no tolerance will be shown for edits about, or to any page relating to, race and intelligence, broadly construed.

3. Dispute resolution

   Ferahgo the Assassin may not

   1. initiate any dispute resolution process on the English Misplaced Pages without first obtaining by email the prior affirmative consent of the Arbitration committee to do so;
   2. participate in any dispute resolution process on the English Misplaced Pages without first notifying the Arbitration committee by email about the nature and venue of the dispute.
4. Interaction ban

   Ferahgo the Assassin is prohibited from commenting directly or indirectly on-wiki about User:Mathsci. If and when Mathsci is unbanned, they will be similarly prohibited from commenting about Ferahgo the Assassin.

5. Reconsideration of restrictions

   Any future appeal will be limited to reconsideration of these restrictions. No request for reconsideration of these restrictions may be made until at least twelve months have elapsed since the date on which the suspension of the ban comes into effect.

See my comments above about the value of having a centralized, Arbcom-related location for the community to review and discuss these sorts of decisions. Risker (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"...restricted to editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs..." That seems odd. What circumstances could lead to such an unorthodox restriction? Everyking (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is unusual. Normally topic bans tell a user which specific topics they are not to edit. This often results in the user being banned from the only area that they may be interested in editing. In this case we elected to go with restricting the user to only editing a topic area that they clearly do have an interest in, and where their edits have not previously been problematic. It wasn't my idea but I thought it was worth a try. If it works it should be a win/win situation, where the project gets content improvements without accompanying drama and FTA is able to edit in a subject area they have previously shown an interest in, as opposed to not being able to edit at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't work, it's better to make a new mistake than repeat an old one. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not let the user edit the palaeontology articles along with every other subject area where they have not gotten into controversies? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That was already tried, and it didn't work, which is why a site ban was put in place. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason why the results of these two appeals weren't posted on AN, as is usually the case with the Committee's decisions? I would have missed them entirely if I had not rather randomly looked here. BMK (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think that was just an oversight at our end. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we have an explicit statement from the ArbCom about whether FTA responding to a DR processes involving them but initiated by another editor with an acknowledgement of awareness and a note that they will be unable to participate until they get the arbcom's permission will be counted as a breach of restriction 3ii? Personally I hope it wont be, because we cannot expect every editor to be aware of the restrictions FTA is under and (for whatever reasons) responses emails sent to arbcom can take some time (see present discussion at WT:AC). It would be unfair for other editors to get the impression that FTA is deliberately ignoring a DR process rather than waiting on the Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I certainly would say that acknowledgement and note that they're going to contact Arbcom would not count as "participation" and therefore would not be a breach, assuming she then contacted us. Worm(talk) 12:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• That would not be a violation, Thryduulf. When the DR process is not initiated by Ferahgo, she does not have to obtain the prior affirmative consent of the Arbitration committee. She just has to notify us. Salvio 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on the implications of this motion for Captain Occam (talk · contribs), another site-banned editor. Ferahgo is established as a proxy for Captain Occam and, beyond that, a likely sockpuppet/meatpuppet for Captain Occam. Given that these accounts have been technically and behaviorally indistinguishable, I would assume this motion amounts to a conditional unblock of Captain Occam as well? MastCell  20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Captain Occam's status is unchanged. Please do not pursue this aspect further on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. MastCell  21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I know this may be taken as a "suspicious IP criticizing ArbCom" comment. However, I am speaking sincerely when I say that I am unsure what policy basis Brad has for commanding other editors not to discuss certain elements of a public ArbCom case. Given the findings MastCell linked to, the question of the editorial status of these two editors is both pertinent and appropriate. In fact, would it not be odd for a person not to wonder about this linkage, in view of the public findings? It leaves a very negative taste in my mouth for Brad to issue imperial-style directives. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the question and the public details of the case it is pretty obvious that he is invoking privacy concerns. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm just guessing here, but to me Brad's comment implies that the Committee have received some information about the alleged link between the editors which cannot be made public, most likely for privacy reasons but legal reasons are also possible. The initial enquiry by MastCell was legitimate, and Brad answered this promptly. Iff my guess is correct, then Brad could have worded his reply along the lines of "The committee has looked at these allegations and concluded that Captain Occam's status should remain unchanged. Please do not pursue this further on-wiki as we cannot give any further detail for privacy/legal/other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. This place. Brad didn't "command" me to drop the subject. I asked a question; Brad politely requested that I not discuss it further on-wiki; and I agreed. This happens sometimes, in the real world—one adult agrees to a polite request from another adult. I understand that these sorts of interactions evoke an almost anthropological curiosity and fascination here, though. MastCell  17:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Current ArbCom cases

I doubt I'm the only one who's been more than a little dismayed at the duration of the ongoing Austrian economics and gun control cases. I'll note that the drafting Arbitrator Seraphimblade has attempted to get things moving again for the latter by adding a new set of proposals to the workshop page, which had hitherto been all but abandoned since early February. Floquenbeam has done likewise for Austrian economics, but this did not preclude Steeletrap from expressing his complete dissatisfaction with the arbitration process. Don't get me wrong, I am very aware of how time-consuming and thankless being an arbitrator is — but remember, the most important aspect of the job is communication and transparency. I'm not saying respond to every email you receive, which would be a task so arduous that Hercules himself wouldn't touch it. It's just that I've been regularly monitoring the status of these two very important cases, and instead of getting a clear and unambiguous reassurance that the current situation is far more intricate than what public evidence would have us believe, I feel as if I'm being stonewalled. Kurtis 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I'm concerned they're just being lazy. How can one blame me for assuming that when they have all of these massive, unjustified delays? If they are just being lazy, that's a problem, because it means we can't rely on them to read through the evidence carefully. Steeletrap (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)