Revision as of 17:54, 5 August 2009

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 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

Discussion of announcements

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre

Announcement

Thank you to the Committee for resolving this issue in a timely and conclusive manner. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"n a timely and conclusive manner" — shameless hypocrisy. El_C 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This case was not handled well. We've done a disservice to a long-standing contributor. SlimVirgin 13:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And to make it worse, the sock puppet policy "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped" was only changed the other day from "may be summarily de-syssopped" as a result of this case. The motion summary makes it look like this was already policy, and no note to that effect is made. That's just plain rude to Geogre. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Will" is inaccurate because administrators who use socks in a forbidden manner might never get discovered. And, they might get a pass (unlike this case). "May" is entirely appropriate... Amending... –xeno 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but when Arbs voted on "3.2) Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy." That's an inaccurate statement of policy then isn't it? Shouldn't the motion be changed? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not worth bothering, for a few reasons. First, in general, if an admin is found socking, they're probably going to be subject to desysopping. Second, that was clearly the case here. Thirdly, in the rare event there are extenuating circumstances, or the socking wasn't enough to merit desysopping somehow, IAR allows us to ignore that bit as needed. As with most policy, "may" and "will" are almost synonymous here, for that last reason. Hersfold 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and fourth, Geogre is desysopped anyway, so the exact wording of the motion doesn't matter terribly much. Hersfold 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does - if Arbcom have 'clarified' a policy here, it has an effect on future cases, conduct and the policy itself. The rules need to be clear. The use of IAR to explain away 'exceptions' or 'mitigations' isn't very helpful in providing a good ruleset for the community. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine then, come up with a counter-scenario, where the use of abusive sockpupptry would likely NOT result in summary desysopping? I can certainly come up with valid use of alternate accounts by an admin, and even can imagine cases where an admin may use an undisclosed account, but this is clearly a different situation. The blatant use of an alternate account to votestack and give the illusion of two people in editting where they are clearly the same person is a major problem, and I cannot imagine that such a violation of community trust should go unchecked. --Jayron32 19:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of such abuses? I still haven't seen anything more than assertions. Where's the evidence? Please include diffs in your reply. Jehochman 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see anything here that concerned you? Thatcher 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that we have a vague WP:SOCK policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure. (My second account is User:Jehochman2.) Geogre disclosed at least several times that he operated both accounts. This was not widely known, but one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking. What great harm was caused by Geogre? Was he malicious or merely careless? Was he using his second account to harass people? It seems that the worst he did was have a lame edit war over an image of the Peach Tower, but that happened two years ago. The reaction here seems over the top, as if it is some sort of score settling. This makes me feel uneasy. Jehochman 01:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"I see that we have a vague WP:SOCK policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure." Some of us are trying to tighten up that language but there is one editor who is vociferously opposing any change, and is even accusing editors of bad faith for suggesting it.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking" - my response to that is here. There may have been inadvertent disclosure (usually reverted or corrected immediately: , ), and rebuffs to questions asked (, ), and a consistent style used by both accounts that more people should have picked up on earlier, but there was in no way, shape or form the full disclosure that was required. What was required was this. After all, it's not like Geogre didn't know how to mark an alternate account. I'm aware of Geogre's concerns about what happened with that earlier alternate account's password, but he needs to follow that up and find out whether it is even possible (years later) to find out what happened there, rather than speculating. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, can you tell me whether Geogre was acting in bad faith, or if he may have just been careless or misunderstood policy? How many times was he warned about this (if any)? It seems like bannishing him from being an admin ever again is overly harsh. (The chance of passing RFA again is virtually zero--we all know it.) Perhaps a warning and a temporary desysop for emphasis might be considered. What's been done here seems excessively harsh. Maybe I am jaded because I encounter sock masters who do really bad stuff, rather than those who write featured articles while socking. Jehochman 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Joopercoopers - the edit you refer to, made after this case closed, is accurate. The arbitration committee decide on desysop requests brought to them. They have over many years, almost always desysopped for serious socking by administrators, which was the prior wording. The ruling confirms this stating that admins who sock "will" be desysopped. That's worth noting in the policy, so that the few admins who try and sock know what Arbcom have stated their own stance, as the "final voice" on such cases and desysoppings, will be. The wording change was precise and accurate, from "risk being summarily de-sysopped" to "risk being summarily de-sysopped". That seems accurate, and significant enough to add to the wording lest admins be misled. FT2  05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "risks being" is accurate. There are lots of editors, admins included, who have undisclosed alternate accounts. Many of them cross lines, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is often only by chance that these are identified. Therefore it is a risk, but not an absolute, that inappropriate use of alternate accounts will be identified. Risker (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough! This has become a bore . When can we agree to stop savaging a dead bone? Giano (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Only once all the pith has been extracted, it would seem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Being the biologist chap I am, I'm pretty sure that pith doesn't apply to bones, only to vascular plants. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Archaically (No.6) or even 2. as a trans verb - or, Beauty is Truth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well met. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2

Announcement

Amendment regarding Obama articles

Announcement

It's better, but I was rather critical of 9.2 and 13 being included as amendments, and I even said as much in my statement. I think this case shows that AC needs a layman advisory committee to act as a check on AC regarding sanctions so we don't get overly harsh sanctions like what was originally passed. Sceptre 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Aitias administrator permissions

Announcement

• As much as I hate endorsing the desysop of a longstanding and valued contributor, Aitias has a history of questionable judgment and was previously given another chance. I was surprised when ArbCom opted not to desysop last time, and now there isn't much choice. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon

• Announcement

I wish this motion hadn't passed. It destroys quite a bit of what I need to do. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that 'what you need to do' is disruptive. Thus the motion passing. → ROUX ₪ 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• This was apparently an internal motion. Can we have the vote tally (names) posted with the announcement and on the case page please? Thatcher 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, it was public here. Thatcher 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And has been archived at the case talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in ArbCom pages

This is a temporary notice while waiting for a formal one:

This is to inform that any future edit warring in ArbCom pages —especially from established editors— will be dealt with firmly. -- FayssalF - 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess; any future edit warring will result in a block. Is that correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, please read WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK if you want to find out more about how this works. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I already knew about those policies with my comment above. I was just asking if any further ArbCom page edit warring will result in a block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said below, that would depend on the circumstances and the judgment of the admin who dealt with it. Some might warn, some might block, some might also protect the page. It depends. That's why we have admins - to exercise judgment in such situations and to work out the best way to deal with whatever incident they are dealing with. Anyway, I'm done here for the night. It's time for bed where I am. If you have any more questions about how administrators would handle such an incident, please ask at the administrators noticeboard and not here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Fayssal. What happened tonight is finished and should not be dragged up again, but if edit warring like that happens in future, please can admins or clerks act here like they would anywhere else. No need to be stricter or more lenient, just act as you would if you found people edit warring on any other page, judge what is needed for the situation and warn, protect (or archive discussions) and/or block as needed. The exception to this being edits by clerks or arbitrators, who may need to revert or edit through page protection. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Thank you for letting us know. In the past I have been loath to use sysop tools on these pages.Jehochman 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone link to the behavior in question? I just searched around and couldn't find it. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I didn't realize it was on this page. I thought it was on one of the current case pages. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And before anyone accuses me of having dragged it up again... "What happened tonight is finished". This really should be an end to it. If someone could add something to the (non-existent?) edit notice for this page about this, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's edit warring was sad indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Action should be taken should someone dare edit war like that again. Giano didn't even provide an edit summary for the reverts made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jimbo Wales and Bishonen

Announcement

• something odd in point 1.4 - where it says '30 half hour' and '10 announcing it' - thought you'd like to know :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed it. Translation error when converting the Arb's links to fullurl's. MBisanz 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a bit surprised to see this closed, since voting on both the case and motion had been going back and forth quite a bit. The last vote on the motion was only 4 hours before closure. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There was actually an extension of the closing time for the case, but even after the extension there was no change in the outcome after 48 hours; the motion was still passing, and the case was still not accepted. It's important to close these matters out in a timely way so that the parties can proceed, knowing what the decision was. Risker (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True, it was open much longer than I would have expected. But changes in voting seemed unusually active, and while the case itself fluctuated randomly, support for the motion seemed to be steadily declining from a winning margin of 3, down to just 1 when it closed. I got the impression that arb's opinions seemed to be shifting towards rejecting the motion, and usually there's a bit of time after the last active vote is cast before a case is closed. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks template

Announcement

I think it looks great to include the "motions" and "requests for cases" sections. I also think it good to include a "hide" button on the sections of the template. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)