Misplaced Pages

Before we jump the gun, lets see how the newly amended remedies work out. Otherwise few other users would have been added if this was about AA3 VartanM (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, I think you're still under a wrong impression of being any kind of authority on application of remedies. But if it makes you satisfied making 2 reverts on ArbCom page adding my name, by all means :) I hope you have achieved anything useful spending your time doing that. Just to highlight on what Picaroon already emphasized, Ehud Lesar case is not about Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom essence, it's about the case of a user charged and blocked as a sock without checkuser or identity proofs. So involved parties in this case would be those who blocked and those who produced frivolous reports, with a particular emphasis on the intentions of the latter. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added you because you used sufficient part of your statement to accuse Fedayee of harassment against yourself. You are involved as the alleged harassed. Secondly, I think you are involved in that you could not have not known he is Adil, since he meatpuppeted to revert for you and other estabilished Azeri users, as his sole edits in several articles. And thirdly you are involved because you were very much active in answering to the evidence provided and your counter answers with WP:POINT and abuse of process as a result of the evidence posted. On the other hand, another retaliation from your part by adding two other users, I hope will be noticed by arbitrators. VartanM (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek has added me as an involved party to the Ehud Lesar case however I haven't taken a position on Ehud and the Arbitrators have not taken a position on whether this case will be broaden to include a ruling on other WP:DUCK type ban on other Armenia-Azerbaijan former editors and also to include a ruling on Atabek's and Grandmaster's behavior with respect to the WP:RFCU process so I am leaving myself off the involved party list for now. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you would be posting a statement on Atabek and Grandmaster's behavior in case strictly related to whether Ehud Lesar is AdilBaguirov or not. Or were you trying to take community's time on an unrelated concern of yours and thus distract attention from resolving the situation with Ehud Lesar?

You're welcome to bring your baseless claims at WP:ANI, and please, do not get under impression that the RFCU process is over. The report will be further pursued until checkuser, as there are not just myself and Grandmaster but also Kober who provided details and additional suspected users. Checkuser is a formal procedure, and unlike unfounded accusations, as in the case of Ehud Lesar, it does help to establish the evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't see why you were and are opposing the running of checkuser in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_Checkuser#Artaxiad_12 so much, if you are confident of not violating WP:SOCK. If at all, your repeated comments in this regard only serve to reinforce the suspicions. Atabek (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Isn't this a poster child for the imposition of Misplaced Pages:Article probation? MilesAgain (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not consider this as an official statement by the committee. If it is so obvious that the article should be on article probation then there is no need for an arbitration hearing. The Arbitration Committee is here for the difficult decisions, and the decisions that need confidentiality. All uninvolved administrators are empowered to use their tools to prevent disruption, and if there is obvious disruption then they should go ahead and use their discretion to decide what to do. You were chosen for your judgment. If it is obvious that this particular article is the site of disruption, and there's a consensus that it should be on article probation, then put it on article probation, dear Liza. Misplaced Pages is not bound by bureaucratic procedure. If you need a procedure for putting articles on article probation, then agree one. If you don't want anything on article probation except if the Arbitrators say so, then agree that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Would somebody like to propose this remedy at WP:AN? Jehochman 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop

I have noticed that people are still adding comments to the page above, despite the fact that the case is closed. Would it be appropriate to add some sort of comment there to indicate that the case is closed? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Perhaps someone can give some guidance with the ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests#User:W. Frank. The abridged version is:

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank, the User:Alice sockpuppet has been used disruptively by User:W. Frank. The W. Frank account stopped editing in mid September (save for a few votes in ArbCom elections and an RfA in December), and the Alice account started editing in late September. At this time the ArbCom case was still ongoing and W. Frank may well have ended up on probation or another sanction.

Recently, the Alice account has been used to harass and attack editors involved in the case, something W. Frank had done previously. This led to the checkuser request, which confirmed Alice and W. Frank were one and the same. The Alice account has been blocked, and there is a general consensus amongst admins that W. Frank should be placed on the probation remedy from the case.

However due to security concerns W. Frank may not wish to carry on editing using that account (although that's speculation). So, do editors on probation have the right to start editing with a brand new account? If so who, if anyone, do they need to inform of the account they are using? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An important aspect of this situation is that User:W. Frank is the user's real name. His address was posted on wikipedia in what he saw as a threatening way. He was not alone in this interpretation. The account Alice was created after this event, but is now compromised as it is known that it is being used by W. Frank. There was not an abusive use of socks in the standard sense. The posting of personal info about him occurred around 19 August 2007. The edits in question were oversighted. W. Frank started editing as "Alice.S" on 28 September 2007, presumably as direct result of this with the aim of creating an anonymous user ID. The name "Alice.S" was subsequently changed to "Alice" by usurpation, but that's neither here nor there and the contribs history is the same: there have been 2827 edits by Alice/Alice.S. Most have been to other areas and, from what I can make out, he has only re-entered the Troubles arena in the last 2 weeks, presumably feeling that his RL ID was sufficiently disguised. W. Frank was not placed on probation by ArbCom and is not on probation now by admin action, but this is being discussed. To forbid him to create a new account so he can edit anonymously is to force him to use an account which has been compromised. Tyrenius (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is also that if W. Frank wanted a fresh start, there was other ways to go about it then ending up harassing the same editors. The probation which they have likely earned (to date, there is no one on the thread that discusses it that disagrees with it as a a sanction) makes things difficult. The way I see it, the way we have three options. In order of preference:

A) Allow W. Frank to create a new account, but place it under probation. I don't think this will work for the very same reason the reason Tyrenius says above, since the account has been tied to a RL identity, all we're doing is changing the name of the account involved.

B) unblock the Alice account, and let W.Frank edit on that account, under civility parole and 1RR/week on Troubles articles. This is less then optimal.

C) Block the W. Frank account, let him create a new account that does not have the probation underneath it, however, W. Frank will have to agree not to edit on Troubles related articles (a defacto topic ban). This is to prevent any new editors in the Troubles related areas from instantly being accused of being W. Frank. ArbCom would have to be aware of this new account's name.

All in all, I am sympathetic to the fact that W. Frank's RL identity has been exposed, and I considered it a horrendously bad action by the person involved. However, that does not change the fact that if W. Frank had continued to make trouble on the Troubles ArbCom case, he likely would have been placed on probation at that time, and he had his clean start, but drifted back to his old, bad behaviour and more then the checkuser itself, provided the link to his old identity. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this matter should be handled by direct email to Arbcom-L from Frank/Alice, and I have no problem leaving both accounts blocked until something is worked out. Unfortunately, editors who both (a) use their real names and (b) get in trouble with Arbcom are in a real bind. If the user wanted to disappear and reincarnate, and managed to avoid Troubles articles and editors, no one would ever know. The fact that Alice is harassing other editors proves that he/she needs to be under probation. At this time, blocking the Frank account and placing Alice under probation leaves an identity trail that he/she does not want left out in the open. This person could create yet a third account, but if it too returned to the same bad behavior, we'd be looking at the possibility of a community ban for repeatedly evading the Arbcom sanctions through sockpuppetry. One possibility is a new account approved by Arbcom but kept confidential and known to a small number of admin monitors who would administer "secret probation"; watching the user and applying sanctions as needed without publicly disclosing his identity. But that would have to be approved in advance by Arbcom. Thatcher 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Could we get some more votes so this case is either accepted, or properly shot down? Jehochman 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, we've already talked about this off-wiki, but I guess I need to repeat it on-wiki. I am extremely uncomfortable that you're involved with this case at all, and wish that you would withdraw from participation. I do not feel that you are an uninvolved administrator here. You repeatedly threatened to start a case, and I repeatedly told you that I did not want you getting involved (for or against) in any way. And though I specifically told you on multiple occasions that I did not want you to start the case, you went ahead anyway. I then told you (again) to stay out of it, but I see that you are still poking around. In some circumstances I might see this just as a "difference of opinion," or good-faith efforts that I disagree with, but I am seeing now in other cases that other editors too are raising concerns that you seem to be having a tendency to jump into everyone else's disputes. I can't speak for the details of the other disputes, but it is my opinion that in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, that your behavior over the last few months has escalated this dispute, not de-escalated it, and I would again ask you to please stay out. --Elonka 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Jehochman's comment warranted that kind of response. Anyone -- involved or uninvolved -- could have made the rather decent request to expedite the acceptance or rejection of this case. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Workshop pages

Several people have commented here or here (depending on whichever page the thread ends up on when they stop reverting each other) that the new workshop template is rather unweildy and difficult to work with. Per Daniel's comment here, I have come here to request that, because of this, the Arbitrators take the comments under advisement and consider changing it back. Perhaps ask what people on the other two cases with this format what they think? A thought. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New Private ArbCom mailing list?

I've started a discussion on the ArbCom mailing list about adding a new arbitration committee mailing list only for current arbitrators. On the new list, we would discuss issues that only the arbitrators want to discuss among ourselves. And on the new list we would have our discussions and receive evidence in cases where one member of the current list is involved. Thoughts? FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support. This should have been done long ago. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems all upside from the peanut gallery, only you folks can decide if it has a downside. Thatcher 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. Would this become the official mailing list to which people would send evidence, the privacy concerns Arbcom has said it will accept, and general queries; or will the current extended mailing list (including former arbs) continue to exist and to and receive that information? As well, I am curious as to how the new list will manage to separate out what information an arbitrator involved in a current case needs to be excluded from, without excluding them entirely from the list and the rest of the cases being discussed. Thanks for bringing this up, FloNight. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Risker, those are the issues that we are discussing. I'm suggesting that we use it for cases that a member of the main mailing list is truly an involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Flo, I really think this is an issue that arbs need to decide for themselves. The rest of the community simply don't have the information to weigh up the pros and cons. FWIW I'm always suspicious that compartmentalising communications is detrimental to proper communication, but if this is being done to address real (and not theoretical or perceptual) problems with the status quo, then go to it. But there really is no point in inviting community input here, all it will do is foster drama and uninformed opinion. And at that, since I have admitted I don't know what I'm talking about, I will leave it.--Doc 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I spent ages looking for the thread I started on this. I finally remembered I had started it in the more logical place: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom mailing list - access issues. Two former arbitrators and a current arbitrator (Raul, Mackensen and jpgordon) all said (in effect) "no". Interesting to see the different response here. I think my proposal is more logical, in that it moves the emeritus arbcom people to a new mailing list (which would also include the current arbitrators), and restores the main arbitration committee mailing list to current arbitrators (as it was when first created - when there were no ex-arbitrators). FloNight's proposal is, though, just as good, and I hope one or the other change eventually gets implemented. FWIW, there is absolutely nothing to stop the current arbitration committee setting up a private mailing list and either reducing, or stopping, the amount that they use arbcom-l. The downside would be a lack of archives, but I think Doc has in the past argued against the existence of such archives. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Doc that this is largely an internal matter, but I see no reason why the default list, whatever it is called, shouldn't include the former arbitrators and others. Except when considering conduct within that group, I can easily see that input from other high level trusted users is a good thing--avoid narrow groupthink and all that. Thatcher 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)