Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 7 May 2009

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Roles of drafting arbitrators

Hi, I have a question about what drafting arbitrators do for opened cases. For the Tang Dynasty case, Coren (talk · contribs) is assigned as the drafting arbitrator. As I'm correcting diffs, I found Tenmei (talk · contribs) who initiated the ArbCom case contacted Coren just two days before doing it. User_talk:Coren/Archives/2009/March#Inviting constructive suggestions. While Coren's comment is about general roles of ArbCom and his thought on the alleged deliberate misusage of Chinese source, Tenmei seemed to determine to start the case by Coren's answer. Besides, Tenmei has contacted Coren like User_talk:Coren/Archives/2009/January#ArbCom agenda and User_talk:Coren/Archives/2009/January#Comment, User_talk:Coren/Archives/2008/December#Caveat arbiter? and his frequent quoting Coren's comment such a this Talk:Inner Asia during_the Tang_Dynasty#Why?, he seems to consider Coren as his friend or mentor. I wonder whether Coren should recuse himself from the case since a clerk recused because of previous contact with an involved party and commentator.--Caspian blue 04:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems more of a general question on recusal than anything related specifically to drafting arbitrators, if I understand correctly? The role has no difference from that of the other arbitrators as far as standards for recusal are concerned. Kirill  04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're understanding my writing correctly although I'm questioning the two matters altogether.--Caspian blue 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You should ask Coren directly before taking this up with the entire Committee, then; inquiries about recusal are considered by the individual arbitrator first. Kirill  05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm still not familiar with many of ArbCom procedures, so raised the question on this page being used for the committee. I thought it is not allowed for editors to previously contact to Arbitrators to get an idea before initiating a case. By the way, I notified Teeninvestor, one of involved parties accused by Tenmei because I'm not an uninvolved party. After Teeninvestor comes here and comments about it, I think he or I or others can question about it to Coren just for the next step.--Caspian blue 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a just cause for recusal??? Involvement with one of the editors, and then giving him advice on what to do. Doesn't sound very impartial to me.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that Tenmei's questions (and my answers to them) were on general dispute resolution and philosophy thereof; qualifying my relationship to him as "friendly" is both a stretch and difficult to understand given the, perhaps, half dozen interactions total (something which can be seen through the very diffs Caspian mentions).

Arbitrators are, by necessity, both responsive and rather social; and the likelihood of any one of us having never interacted with someone who comes to Arbitration is minuscule. The only question, when considering recusal, is whether that interaction is sufficient to prevent impartial handling of the case. In this particular case, I can think of no serious argument in that direction. That he has chosen, on occasion, to quote generalities I have stated on policy and dispute resolution means that he might agree with my general philosophy as arbitrator— not that he holds any sort of privileged position towards me. — Coren  14:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it is obvious that he tries to get your favor. We can wait for other arbitrators' opinion on this. However, you would better recognize that Tenemi's frequent quotation of you has been used to make attacks on others or lecture (so he misquotes you for his purpose). His such comment gave me the impression as if he were your friend. In evidence section, you may be mentioned several times for the quote and the prior contact.--Caspian blue 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, none of my philosophical stances towards Misplaced Pages conflicts and dispute resolution are a secret; and quoting them (in support or not) curries neither my favor nor my wrath. I'm in the process of writing up the proposed decision for this particular case, and I can assure you that neither friendship nor animosity directs any of it.

Tenmei may feel some affinity towards me because his interpretation of my stance matches his own, but I've not noticed any attempts to curry my favor (nor would I have responded positively to such if they occurred).

At any rate, I really don't think there is a problem here, but perception is reality in cases such as this. If you feel strongly about it, I'll leave the drafting of the case to one of my colleagues— though I can't think of a compelling reason to recuse from the case entirely. — Coren  20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an involved party, so I don't think I have a right to demand you to recuse from the case but other involved parties can. Still, I'm foggy about what roles drafting arbitrators do. Of course, your view and interpretation on ArbCom would serves good for the community, but as I said, you may be mentioned several times because of Tenmei's misquoting you to attack editors in dicussion. I'm afraid that you're offended by knowing it. If I can ask for the recusal from the drafting arbitrator, I think I want you to defer the job to your peer. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would likely set a bad precedent. If I may say something here about the role of drafting arbitrators, as an arbitrator who has not drafted a decision yet, the role is more to distill the case down to something presentable and manageable, and ready for voting. When I look over a proposed decision before voting, I do my best to check over the evidence and workshop and talk pages to make sure nothing of major import has been missed. If I object to anything in the proposed decision, I make that clear and will suggest changes and different principles, findings of facts and remedies where needed. The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the final product and published decision is still the work of the entire committee. Some arbitrators who have seen a proposed decision change drastically during the voting process will be able to confirm this. In my view, Coren has no compelling reason to avoid doing the drafting here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb and the Dates Case: the question of recusal

Today, information was leaked to me that John Vandenburg, the writer of the draft proposed Dates Case judgement, is a friend of User:Werdna. If this is true, it would be a significant conflict of interest, since it was Werdna who, at the behest of one side of the Dates Case parties, wrote and inserted into MediaWiki's software the patch that was heralded as the centrepiece "solution" to the DA dispute at the RFC held in parallel with the Dates Case. In addition, arb. Vandenburg's apparent conflict of interest in being a professional software engineer is the source of increasing disquiet on the talk page of the judgement draft.

Werdna's involvement and attitude to queries: The MediaWiki bug 4586 Code Review shows that Werdna was deeply involved in the attempt to rescue DA from community opposition, together with UC_Bill (now banned for abusive socking and double-voting in the RFC) and Locke Cole. This exchange occurred from 10 March (my italics):

• Werdna: This is a very simple fix. Specs are "It applies the same magic applied to linked dates without linking them" (i.e. what I wrote in the commit message and release notes). There was no need to set up a live demonstration, although you're welcome to do it yourself. Like anything committed to subversion (we hope), it was tested before committing.
• Locke Cole: Would you like fries with that?
• UC Bill: I'll checkout a fresh copy of the code and try to come up with some test cases, but you might want to look into it as well. Good work, by the way! I think this might make a template solution feasible, or at least be a step in that direction.... Ah, thanks Werdna for the explanation on enwiki.... I'll still checkout a fresh copy and run some test cases, if only to shut up the critics on enwiki who are complaining about the lack of transparency in the test/commit process....
• Brion VIBBER: This really needs parser test cases.
• Remember the dot: How would this function be used? Please give specific examples.
• Tony1: Pity IP users and the vanishingly small proportion of registered users who choose a preference will see different displays: that is asking for trouble. Pity about the total failure to deal with all of the other major problems with the blue-wash autoformatting, like date ranges (getting the en dash, spaced or unspaced, right, and not requiring huge amounts of redundancy, such as "January 4 – January 6, 1980". And has it been tested, we all want to know.
• Werdna: With respect, what on Earth are you on about? If there is a specific problem with this revision, please let me know and I'll endeavour to fix it. If you have a specific question, please ask it and I'll endeavour to answer it. Random rants with no particular actionable statements will probably be ignored.

Arb. Vandenburg has arranged for Arbs to vote on the following decision, much of it selectively drawn from Bug 4582 exchanges that may reflect his own particular view (my italics).

bug 4582 was raised in January 2006 to allow dates to be autoformatted without a causing "WP:OVERLINKing" (a "sea of blue"). This bug is more relevant to wiki projects other than Misplaced Pages, especially where the project has little need for "month day" pages, or even "year" pages. Due to the English Misplaced Pages Date debate, and the complexity of the problem, the bug was conflated with many issues, suggestions and feature requests. A number of these suggestions were built by developer Bill Clark between September 2008 and November 2008. During the course of this arbitration case, user:Werdna resolved this bug by creating parser function "formatdate", and at the same time resolved bug 17785 (a feature request initially proposed in comment 98 of bug 4582) to add Cascading Stylesheet and Javascript control to all autoformatted dates, such as presenting them as normal text (example), or as another colour to make them stand out.

It is hard to believe that the arbs all have the technical expertise to distinguish fact from opinion here.

Apparent locking in of WP to an unusual relationship with his own profession: Given his profession and the possibility that he himself might take a larger role with the organisation as a systems engineer, it is extremely awkward that Arb. Vandenburg has paved the way for ArbCom to endorse the primacy of software and systems engineers as official policy. Locking Misplaced Pages into such a relationship with systems engineers does not accord with current best practice in the corporate and government sectors. There appears to be an assumption that WPs are or were rude to WikiMedia systems engineers; was this at issue on the Case pages, or is it pre-emptive?

• "Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality: ... decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff. Likewise, decisions which will involve large scale changes (e.g. hundreds of thousands of pages), should be thoroughly discussed with the technical team ... system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality".
• "Engagement of technical staff: ... the decision to decommission this functionality, and the mass delinking of dates from all articles in mainspace should have involved the technical staff, due to the size and resources used to perform such a large change".
• "Systems administrators: ... The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions, but must at all times respect them."
• "Open source: Developers are volunteers, and at no time is it acceptable to expect them to fix non-critical problems."
• "Lightmouse automation: Lightmouse is prohibited from running bots, scripts, or automation tools in article space ."

Arb. Vandenburg was asked yesterday whether he has "an undisclosed interest in the outcome of this arbitration". He did not disclose a friendship with Werdna. He did say that "the only possible reason I could recuse is due to being a professional software engineer, since this case does relate to one of my professions", and "I would be happy to recuse from all cases and laze on a beach instead ;-) More seriously, if anyone does have serious concerns, please do raise them."

Formal questions posed: I have nothing personally against Arb. Vandenburg; he gives every appearance of being a nice and decent man. However, I must formally ask him to respond to these questions, WRT to the issue of recusal and the recasting of the draft by one or more other arbs:

1. Are you a friend of Werdna? Please summarise your relationship with him.
2. As a WP developer, do you not believe that there is an apparent conflict of interest in your asking ArbCom to endorse the proposals you have written into the draft on the project's relationship to the developers?
3. Are you currently, or is there a chance that you will be, personally involved in bidding for a slice of the US$1,000,000 grant for "improving the user interface"? Tony (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, while he may be a technically gifted user, has not done any MediaWiki development as far as I am aware. Having dealt professionally with the team for the Stanton Grant (Trevor, Naoko, Arash and Parul), I can confirm that John has no involvement whatsoever. I was not asked to leave this statement by John, but another administrator pointed out that I was mentioned, and I felt as if it was prudent to set the record straight. — Werdna • talk 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Having re-read the insinuations made here, it is also prudent to clarify that assertions that I was 'deeply involved' in 'rescuing DA from community opposition' (whatever "DA" is) are unfounded. The limit of my involvement is that I spent half an hour fulfilling a long-standing MediaWiki feature request at the request of another user (John). I did this under the assumption that it could be useful for Misplaced Pages, and probably numerous other wikis. As part of the regular code review process, I responded to commentary on the code review page for my change, made appropriate tweaks, and requested further information where it was necessary. Nobody is obligated to use this feature, as with many MediaWiki features unused at Misplaced Pages, but which are widely used on other Wikimedia and third-party wikis. — Werdna • talk 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• The operative words here are the writer of the draft proposed Dates Case judgement, is a friend of you, Werdna. Your involvement in DynamicDates/autoformatting is far more than tangential. The only important metric here is “how close” of a friendship John Vandenburg has with you. If it is anything more than a trivial, passing acquaintance, the committee can’t assume that his opinion should have the confidence of the community. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• • If you are suggesting that for social reasons John wrote the case in a manner that supports Werdna work effort, I seriously doubt that is true or matters much in this situation. But I will take into consideration your comments, and make sure that I vote for proposals that are based on policy and in the best interest of the Community. I think using this approach should alleviate your concerns. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• • There is no conflict of interest here. Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia users are *expected* to work together in a collaborative way, regardless of any personal relationship or lack thereof. Werdna is an employee of the WMF and his responsibilities include reviewing, analysing, prioritising and responding to bug reports. The fact that Jayvdb does programming in a non-MediaWiki environment using completely different software is not a conflict of interest any more than it is for Tony1, a professional editor, to be working on the Manual of Style. That is, their real world experience may inform their Misplaced Pages work, but does not define it. Like FloNight above, my voting on proposals will be based on policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia and community. Risker (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I find your arguments hard to reconcile, Tony. On the one hand you argue for the supremacy of community decision making, using John's technical background and his potential friendship with a developer as an indicator that he should be recused from the case. On the other hand, you ask repeatedly if arbitrators have the technical expertise to vote on the matters at hand. Which is it? Is technical expertise of value and necessary for some types of decisions, or is it a drawback when considering actions which impact the encyclopedia and its presentation? Nathan 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, I have already emphatically stated that I am not aware of any reason to recuse, and I know pretty much everything there is to know about me. If some new information was "leaked" to you, it would have been more appropriate to send it to the Arbitration Committee, directly to a Committee member that you respect if you are worried about my presence on the committee mailing list, or to the new Functionaries list if you wanted a wider distribution list of trusted community members. There is always a small chance that you have learnt of some reason to recuse that I am not aware of, and I will be happy to try and assist in verification of this new and pertinent information that you have come across.
  The answer to all three questions is "No."
  You ask for a summary of my relationship with Werdna, but there is none to speak of, excepting that we are both administrators on English Misplaced Pages, and are occasionally both in the same discussion on #wikipedia-en-admins , #wikimedia-tech and other WMF forums. I am not a "WP developer", for any definition of "WP developer". As Werdna has said, I am not a MediaWiki developer. I do have checkin rights to the WMF code repository, however that is strictly for m:pywikipedia, and I think Brion or Tim would revoke my checkin rights if I touched the MediaWiki code. Not that I would want to. I am more of an Oracle and C sort of guy, and that means I avoid both MySQL and php like the plague. As an avid user of the MediaWiki software, much like yourself, I have talked with the technical team about the software at times on those forums. I did ask Werdna to have a look at bugzilla:17785, as that feature appeared to be very easy to fix, and it would allow bugzilla:8226 to be resolved quite readily. He did fix it, and went further to find a novel resolution for bug:4582. In regards to your suggestion that I have inserted my own POV into the finding regarding the bug, you have misunderstood "resolved", and consequently the other aspects as well. In bugzilla, bugs are resolved when they have a status of "resolved". Go take a look at the bug; up the top, the status is resolved. There is no nefarious plot on my part - the devs believe they have resolved the problem that bug was for. They build the software, and they say when a bug is resolved. You can dispute that status with them. If you believe that my finding regarding that bug is incorrect, feel free to ask a developer to review it. My only "relationship" to any MediaWiki developers or system administrator is that Tim Starling is a member of the Wikimedia Australia chapter, but I have neither met him nor talked with him at length about anything other technical matters on behalf of the Arbitration Committee with the full knowledge of the entire Arbitration Committee.
  If you have any further concerns or inquiries, it might be simpler if we do it via email, where I will be happy to tell you a lot more detail about myself, and I can give you my employers email address; a quick chat to him will probably allay any remaining fears you have about what my future employment aspirations are. John Vandenberg 22:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think I’m satisfied here. I’ll defer to Tony to see if he has deeper concerns that evade me. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• ObDisclose: a) John asked me to take a look at this. b) I work in the software industry and have some experience with large, complex software systems and with software development in general. That said, I have a hard time seeing what the actual issue is here. The points given above (principles of the decision), Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality, Engagement of technical staff and Systems administrators seem blindingly obvious to me, that's how software development works if it is halfway competent, and I don't quite see how anyone could reasonably derive a charge of conflict of interest from the need to assert them as a foundation for later conclusions. Consider their converses (that change to the software that impacts hundreds of thousands of pages should be carried out with no consideration of its impact, for example)... As for the last one, Open source... that just is about common courtesy. We are all volunteers here and no one gets to demand anything. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• And I thought the scope of this hearing was about behaviour. I don't believe there to have necessarily been a conspiracy or a conscious conflict of interest, and I am pleased to see the responses above. However, I found it mighty strange to see a rather large bunch of evidence posted by Arb Jayvdb about the bug fix as far back as 6 March. At the time, I was puzzled by its relevance. Still, today, it appears to me there is not much than a rather tenuous link with technology and how it was or should be respected. It's surprising to me how the technology/developers now become a centrepiece of the draft decision. It is a people issue and technology is but the facilitator. Indeed, I would observe, as Werdna said 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Nobody is obligated to use this feature, as with many MediaWiki features unused at Misplaced Pages, but which are widely used on other Wikimedia and third-party wikis." There is very considerable antipathy to the technology as it is currently applied, so isn't the answer very obvious? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The three questions were:

1. Are you a friend of Werdna? Please summarise your relationship with him.
2. As a WP developer, do you not believe that there is an apparent conflict of interest in your asking ArbCom to endorse the proposals you have written into the draft on the project's relationship to the developers?
3. Are you currently, or is there a chance that you will be, personally involved in bidding for a slice of the US$1,000,000 grant for "improving the user interface"? Tony (talk) 12:46 am, Today (UTC+10)

Thank you for your response to No. 3. I am satisfied.

However, WRT No. 1, by "friend", I did not mean a social or off-wiki friend, of course, but a collaborator. You do seem to have a significant collaborative relationship with Werdna, by this and other evidence. A question hangs over whether this has affected your judgement.

WRT No. 2, your profession as developer appears to be the reason that the drafting of the Dates Case judgement is so far out of line with the issues: it has dragged in a lot of developer issues for arbs to vote on that appear to have only a vaguely left-field relationship with the case—that is, the case as it was brought by the filer and accept by arbs, and the solution to dispute, which involves a small, loud group of editors who will not accept the community's repeated consensus against the use of DA. John Vandenberg has used the bizzare and totally unjust practice (apparently now to be ended) of choosing whatever scope he likes in the judgement. The scope is one of a professional developer. It is skewed towards highly technical matters and the meting out of punishments to those who have acted to reform, on highly questionable selections of statements from the case, in what appears to be a highly one-sided way. John Vandenberg has declared his biases in personalised statements on the talk page of the draft (apparently I got myself into this mess, he declared ... I disagree strongly). This is scope manipulation at its most unjust and shows not only why scope needs to be stated at the start, but why John Vandenburg's has shaped the case entirely around his personal views.

He should recuse. Tony (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard there was an encyclopedia somewhere that needed work. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• …an encyclopedia that needs work. Yes. It’s about article content. I really was struck when I read the proposed decision because certain wording, which is tantamount to “every decision of the benevolent developers must be respected by regular ol’ editors”, really stood out awkwardly like a sore thumb.

  The ArbCom process shouldn’t be allowed to be exploited by well-positioned, developer-type insiders to establish that the entire developer community is like lotus-eating Eloi that is entitled to do whatever it wants despite the wishes of the Morlocks. No, it is not. As I’ve stated elsewhere, even Brion Vibber, Misplaced Pages’s paid Chief Technology Officer subordinated his *personal* opinion on DynamicDates to the community consensus of the regular Wikipedian community.

  Perhaps certain elements of the developer community feels as if it has its tail between its legs over this DynamicDates fiasco and desires a formal statement read into the record that amounts to “parade viewers shall salute and throw rose petals as their float passes by.” This isn’t the proper place for that. This fiasco will soon pass and be forgotten. Greg L (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This seems rather polemic in tone to me. What is being said is not that "the developer community is entitled to do whatever it wants". Rather it is more along the lines of the developer community are volunteers and can't be forced to do things. If en:wp came to a massive consensus that all the servers should henceforth be operated underwater and powered by vast arrays of starfish pedaling madly, rather than above water and powered by mains electricity, the volunteer developers are entitled to say "that's an interesting outcome, but I personally choose not to implement that decision, find someone else to do it, I think I'll play DOOM instead" and the paid developers are entitled to say "let me ask the board about that one first, it seems a remarkably imprudent idea". ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the developer community really doesn't care much about this at all. Mr.Z-man 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, you keep talking about my relationship with Werdna as if there is one. This flies in the face of what I have said, repeatedly, which means you are calling myself and Werdna liars. Dont be shy; provide the evidence to substantiate this. With regards to my proposed decision being "so far out of line with the issues", my proposals describe what I view to be core aspects of this case; there are many. It is quite plain that you have a different worldview about this case, and that the outcome that you would prefer is not in this proposed decision. I expect that other arbitrators will also have differing views and insights, and it is not unusual for other arbitrators to add their own proposals, during the voting phase, if they feel that a key component of the problem is missing. We have a very diverse group of arbitrators who have strong views on various aspects of this wonderful project. I am sure that they will want to add balance if they feel it is missing, and I would welcome that. On other cases, I have added proposals where I thought that the drafter did not understood one aspect as clearly as they might if they were in my shoes; I expect my colleagues will do the same for aspects of this cases where they feel that I havent represented an aspect of this case as clearly as I might have if I had their background/experience/knowledge/whatever. If there is an arbitrator who you believe is more sensitive to your worldview, please have a chat to them about this to ensure that they are aware of the problems you see. I will also be taking on board all of the PD talk page comments this evening, and adjusting the proposals wherever I think someone has made a valid point. I must admit that I am not prone to try to find meaning in shrill, so if I think that points need to be articulated better, I will make a note of that on the PD and will follow up tomorrow. Finally, I recommend that you take a look at the PD page of some previous cases in order to gain an appreciation of the process, as it happens; irrespective of the reforms you think are necessary to bring about justice, the voting stage in this case will almost certainly be undertaken in the established method. John Vandenberg 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Too close to one side. John, please calm down: I didn't call you "liars", yet you shouted it at me in here in accusation. The key problem is that you are a professional developer, and appear to have skewed the whole case towards a developer's view. I note that the opposing parties are largely professional or amateur developers/programmers. This is a problem in itself, since the reformist side has seen things and acted not in terms of patches and coding, but of reader and user experience. Sure, we have Lighmouse and Colonies Chris, but they somehow have fumbled their way through the use and tweaking of AWB and scripts without training. They are not trained developers/programmers. Locke Cole and supporters are trained and in most cases professional or keen amateur programmers or developers. I note that Locke Cole has been somehow exempted from your findings of incivility, despite what could only be considered abusive incivility on many occasions, some instances reported in the case pages, but conveniently excluded. This is causing disbelief that the process could be so blatantly one-sided. Have you noticed?

Scope manipulation. While you may assert that the current case will be conducted along the old rules (I never doubted that), the fact is that never explicitly stating (and where necessary updating) the scope for a case allows someone to manipulate the scope in the framing of the voting questions, with the perception that a personal agenda might be being pursued. That, it appears to me and a whole lot of other people, to be what has occurred here. Scope manipulation so that the judgement bears very very little resemblance to the application for the hearing and the naming of parties, is the very opposite of fairness.

Hard to unravel post-draft. Your claim that other arbs might add new questions for their colleagues brings the shambolic to mind: so the ninth voter adds an option that censures Locke Cole for incivility, or that takes a more balanced, just view of evidence from years ago of Lightmouse's efforts to improve the project. Or disentangles the declaration that my RFC was "disruptive" from the declaration that there was a dispute over date-linking. Messages all around to the previous eight to go back and reconsider their voting in those sections?

Beyond policy area. Currently, the draft appears to take ArbCom into completely new territory, far beyond its brief to deal with the behavioural—into retrospective definitions of what Should and May might mean in the style guides, and the relationship between WP and developers. It is a very dangerous turn of events. You have directly addressed none of the many objections on the draft talk page and your own talk page. The draft is huge, complicated and in many places ambiguous. Would it not be safer and more practical to slash it down to the basics? The scope is out of control.Tony (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you seem to be making somewhat unwarranted accusations of bad faith here. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you have repeated the allegation that I have an improper relationship with Werdna, after both Werdna and I have said it isnt so. While you havent explicitly said that we were lying, you have mentioned leaked information and "this and other evidence". It is your responsibility to have substance in your allegation, or to retract it. Please share what was leaked to you with someone else who can at least confirm that they also believe that there is some merit to your allegations. John Vandenberg 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the allegations, but I will support Tony's assertion that ArbCom seems to be overstepping their duties, and that there are some unsupported principles and FoFs, in particular:

• Proposed principle 13.2 (the last bit, "and where there is not broad consensus the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive");
• FoFs 3.1 and 3.2 (I didn't know that ArbCom could rule on what the consensus of the issue is);
• FoF 5 (I agree with it, but it doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence);
• FoF 14 (at least 3 of the provided diffs do not constitute incivility). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar and John Vandenberg: I am making allegations not of bad faith, but of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict of interest. I asked for and received the assurance that, in his opinion, Jayvdb's interactions with Werdna have not directly influenced his draft; fine. However, this was only one rather specific question; the most important issue is that his professional background is having undue influence: it matches that of one side of the case. Tony (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the jury selection process has evolved to where if there is any chance you know anything at all remotely related to the matters at hand in the case, you are excused. Thus, the net effect is that cases are decided in ways that often are remarkably out of touch with reality. That's not a good thing. Fortunately US jury selection precedent has little or nothing to do with how we select arbitrators. Jayvdb (not "Arb. Vandenberg" as you were calling him before... why is that? It's offputting) was selected for his clue. I suggest he be allowed to use it. Your suggestion of undue influence just doesn't hold up to logical analysis, and is starting to get a bit tendentiously argued, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling for recusal based on the mere fact of someone's profession is drawing a pretty long bow. How would you conceptualise the competing interest here? Ensuring that developers, as a generic class, don't look bad? I think what you actually mean to suggest is not conflict of interest but bias – that is, the proposition that developers are more likely to favour the opinions of other developers – though I don't think that would be an accurate characterisation here either. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Recusal opinion

I have posted my response to a request that I recuse myself in the Ryulong case, on the workshop talkpage for that case. In my comments, I discuss standards for recusal more generally, so those interested in this issue may wish to read them. (Warning: I address the issue at some length.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Links are nice. :P --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom

Since recent Tenmei's behaviors are pertinent to the ongoing ArbCom case, I seek a proper action on his ongoing harassment against me. Ever since I gave a statement before it was accepted, he has been spreading his view about me to Arbitrator Jayvdb (deleted by himself), and former clerk, Tznkai, and others. After his harassment is intolerable, I gave him a hard warning on April 8 not to harass and wikistalk me. However, even though I'm totally uninvolved in his ArbCom case, he has tried to get me in the case to "punish me" with his conspiracy theory just like his odd selection of "involved editors" who all criticize his disruption.

And then, after I began to comment about Teeninvestor's proposals, he was attacking me just like old days. Then he visited to an admin who has a history with me in order to harass me. I was totally appalled by his harassment attempt, I began writing my evidence about his past behaviors and criticizing his accusations against Teeninvestor because the community should know how he has done to editors. At the same time, I was also alerted by admin Nick-D and Teeninvestor for being careful about his further retaliatory behaviors. As I am providing more evidence, he attacked me again. And even made this attack page. I was also notified it by Teeninvestor again. So I thought it is worthy to document, so I add it to the evidence age. However, since Teeninvestor said the page should be deleted, he takes it to ANI to further harass me.Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attack_page More I write about my evidence, more Tenmei's harassment I have to bear. I think he has breached many policy, and this should be noted to the Committee. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please present this as evidence in the pending case, so the arbitrators working on the case (and ultimately all the arbitrators) can read it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's been done in both of our evidence sections.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Tenmei's ongoging behaviors deserve like this admonishment and sanction for Macedonia case in which I'm a party unlike the Tang Dyansty case.--Caspian blue 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He still continues his such behaviors regardless of an admin's advice.--Caspian blue 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is the one mentioned, appearing on my talk prior to the case opening. The message was removed by Tenmei shortly after. I have responded over at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attack_page. John Vandenberg 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please adduce diffs of his behavior to the case's evidence page. The Arbs will consider an injunction if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei keeps continuing the harassment campaign to ANI by throwing irrelevant matters to his own attack page. The guy really needs a break. --Caspian blue 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs and new accounts and semi-protecting ALL of Arbitration

Why are IPs allowed to post freely on Arbitration if other users are required to use their main accounts?

I'm looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/67.170.104.86 who has been freely posting (and there have been others on other cases). Arbs have ruled in the past that socking is very out of line for RFAR business. Logging out IS socking, no matter how it's argued. Why don't we simply carte blanch semi-protect and lock down the pages to users on their legitimate 'known' names? I would make the following suggestions, which while "hard", are eminently "fair":

1. Semi-protect every inch of the RFAR process. This includes talk pages.
2. Post a prominent edit notice/header on all pages re-affirming the requirement that we use our "known" names.
3. Explicit warning that any socking/fake or obfuscated activities will result in assured Checkusering in addition to public linking of who you really are to your new-for-Arbitration name. We have a right to know who is gaming the highest levels of our systems. Any user can call for this check to be done. Since IPs in this idea cannot even edit under RFAR pages, no "outing" exists, since the privacy policy does not apply nor offer any protection for linking of fictional pseudonyms.

That's basically it. Let's cut the excrement from the system with a hot knife once and for all. rootology (C)(T) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet...you report them to suspected sockpuppets. The first suggestion above to disenfranchise unregistered editors at arbitration is a shockingly poor idea. Skomorokh 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen from anons has had some positives but much of it would be considered disruptive if posted by a registered user. An uninvolved CU ought to check the lot of them. I think semiprotecting all arb related pages is a very good idea. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: 67.170.104.86 is self identified as indefinitely blocked user Proabivouac, (who certainly has a dog in this hunt) and I see no reason to disbelieve that identification, so it's not like a CU is needed to make the connection. The CU in that case is needed to address future disruptive behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument that IP editing is needed to allow "occasional" users doesn't apply to arbitration. Very few occasional users will even be able to find the arbitration pages, far less comment constructively. The "privacy" argument is also quite suspect - an IP address reveals more publicly about you than an username. I agree that we should semiprotect arbitration. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How telling, Lar, that you liken this arbitration case to a "hunt."24.18.142.245 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So now Provabivouac has told us his hometown and his cable TV provider. Why is that useful? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal: I think Skomorokh nailed it. After all, someone who wants to sock can easily create a second account that gets autoconfirmed. But semi-protecting all pages without any need for this will not stop this but will hinder legitimate IP users from participating. After all, the basic assumption here seems that all IPs posting on those pages are either vandals or socks or both. It fails to take into account those IPs who are neither. Remember the IP which was nominated for adminship and has 20k+ edits? This proposal would lock those editors out as well, which cannot be desired. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the basic assumption is that all (or so close to all that the collateral damage is acceptable tradeoff) IPs posting here are not legitimate. Do you have any recent counterexamples, where an IP known not to be a user logged out participated in a non disruptive way? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's absolutely no reason to semi-protect all Arbitration-related pages and to suggest that it would have any impact on those posting to Arbitration-related pages is silliness in the extreme. Any user capable of finding and commenting on Arbitration-related pages could surely make ten edits and wait four days. By using their IP addresses, they're usually giving more information to everyone than a user account would.

I have no idea what issue this is an attempt to solve, but I can guarantee it won't. If you don't like the fact that people can create multiple accounts or obfuscate their identities, you may need to find another project. It's always been that way and there are no signs that it will ever change. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an example, right here in this thread, of a disruptive user that this proposal would stop. Waiting 4 days for auto confirmation gives time for new socks to be found and blocked. Perfect proposal? No. But better than the status quo. Proabivoouac can make his case to arbcom, he doesn't need this venue to continue his smear campaign, including repeatedly trying to blackmail and out people. Remember, he was blocked for trying to out an editor (and that editor's innocent parents) and has never forgiven anyone who supported that block. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Lar, this this edit (above) really is less than helpful, especialy right at this moment. I ask you, respectdully, to with draw it. Thank you. Giano (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a seriously strange diff. Typo in there somewhere I think. Thatcher 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected - how very bizarre. Giano (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Per MZMcBride. If there is no change to the issue, or it becomes more frequent, then we can definitely reconsider, but I see no pressing need at this time to disrupt the process (which is already having issues with timeliness) all for the sake of a small number of (if not 1) disruptive user(s) who appears on this page on occasions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since checkusers are supposed to be broadly empowered to use the tool to "prevent disruption", I have always assumed that IP editors, as well as new accounts, are routinely checkusered if they begin to act strangely on arbitration pages. Semiprotection is good when a mob of different random people are causing trouble, but useless against a single editor who is patient enough to wait 4 days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't really rangeblock an entire cable company. So a banned user intent on disruption has plenty of ways to post as an IP. The lag between getting an IP and posting from it is seconds. Disruption can only be stopped after the first post from that IP happens. However, having to wait 4 days slows things down enough that disruption sometimes (not always, but sometimes) can be stopped in advance. (this is the point the original poster is making... which hasn't been addressed by those in opposition... why is it OK for IPs to sock on arbcom pages but not for logged in users?) ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One can simply remove comments by IP users. Arbcom could make this a rule for arbitration pages if they wanted to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not. But they should not be dealt with any differently than normal socks except when the protection policy allows it. So far noone adressed the point that banning all IPs from editing these pages is neither needed nor helpful. The basic idea behind the proposal is to say that all IP editors at RFAR are socks. This is an assumption that qualifies good-faith IP editors as disruptive users and is entirely unproven. So it falls to the ones to suggest these methods to prove that this is in fact the case. Regards SoWhy 13:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And when was the last time a good-faith IP user that wasn't later proven to be someone just logged out was a party to an RFAR? It's nonsensical--nearly all the IP comments at all the RFARs are just people logging out to avoid scrutiny. If they won't stand behind their name and reputation, too bad for them, and they can remain silent, in my opinion. RFAR is treated like a game by too many already; anything that minimizes that is a good thing. Standards of "required" open editing on articles are not intended to extend to every inch of this project. Editing Misplaced Pages is a priviledge, never a right nor an entitlement. We can certainly within our authority decide that certain "high level" aspects of the site can be restricted as we see fit. rootology (C)(T) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a logged out user. Sure I've been warned for my sarcasm already, but I have made some constructive contributions to the RFAR talk pages. I've even managed to engage a couple of Arbs in a good-faith discussion about the morality of some of their proposed decisions. Is it really so wrong that I don't want to create a log in name? 198.161.174.194 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the IP editor who came to mind as I was reading this thread - and indeed the reason that I don't support permanent semi-protection of all Arbcom case pages. Useful commentary (even some humorous commentary is useful) can come from IP editors, just as inappropriate posts can come from registered accounts. I don't like to see rules made that are essentially intended to control a tiny handful of people who will find a way to misbehave regardless. Risker (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is motives. There are some people in the community who want to ban anonymous editing—it's no secret. That's not likely to happen anytime in the near future for articles (it was a giant step to get article creation banned for anonymous users and that came from a fiat); so, instead, people are focusing on areas where it really irks them that people can post anonymously and an area where it's possible, though I still think pretty unlikely, that they could get IP editing banned.

Would it be nice to know the owner of IP addresses that post to Arb-related pages? Sure, as someone who just went through this (and even had evidence posted from IPs), it definitely would be nice. But that's the nature of the game, here. People are free to post anonymously, and not simply behind an IP address (which, as I mentioned earlier, gives more information away than most usernames). I see users with accounts all the time who are obviously on their second or third. It's patently obvious and annoying as hell, but there's little to be done about it. This becomes much truer when you're dealing with determined users. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're overstating it a bit that this about pushing IP editors out of the project entirely, but I do see your point, as well as Rootology's above. I think the solution however, is the use of SPI, probably requested through the case clerk if an IP edits as a sock. I'm sure by now IP editors understand they run the risk of being checked and fingered.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with SPI being used. If someone tries to game RFAR, they should be called out then and there to discourage the 'bad' activities with a stick. People are using this when they do it to avoid scrutiny and SPI (like other business) can be gamed. A flat "you edit RFAR under a new name, and YOU will get connected from that new name to your 'known' one in public on the RFAR" will all but shutdown games. If a participant or partisan in any case wants to speak up, they can either mail the AC direct or they can log in under their known reputation. There is no valid justification for anything else. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with IPs is that users have no business logging out on RFAR pages to comment without the scrutiny that such comments would bring on their reputations. An IP cannot even bring an Arbitration case--the RFAR page is always semi-protected. If an IP was ever a named party in a case, that case can run without semi-protection. The AC absolutely has it in their power to decree that if you post to or edit RFAR pages, you open the door to "immediate" checkusering, and public warnings to "knock it off". If the no-socks rule on RFARs/AC business is to have any weight and to apply to everyone evenly, it has to be mercilessly and publically enforced. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does my point even make sense? I apologize if it doesn't. "Known" users using RFAR to wage reputation-based guerrila war is one of my major pet peeves. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not your point, as people seem to get it. Its your solution thats the problem. Yes your solution does, in fact, solve the problem as you see it. It also has other consequences that some people define as undesirable, one of those is the giant spoonful of badfaith assumtion it takes to say 'all IP's are socks on WP:RFAR'. You may be comfortable with it, but others aren't. That, combined with the fact that there are current tools to combat your problem (admittedly they are more work for you) makes things more complicated. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the proper way to implement this (should consensus ever form) would be to use the Titleblacklist (which has a <noedit|autoconfirmed> option for editing). Protecting individual pages is messy, prone to mistakes, and doesn't account for future cases. However, as I've stated, semi-protection isn't the proper solution to the underlying problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are reasonable circumstances where an IP address should be able to comment. One case that comes to mind is the Agapetos Angel case where one of the parties was an anon IP address. If an anon or set of anons is being disruptive we can block or semi-protect as necessary. I see no reason to not let them comment. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming of parties

If the Mattisse case is going to open, could we get a clear listing please of who's under scrutiny by updating the named parties during RFAR? Durova 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Kirill  03:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)