Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 19 July 2010

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.

Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light

Original announcement

Could you find a less intelligible way to convey that piece of information. I'm sure if I went away and read all the documents I could eventually make sense of it. You must try harder if you want that job in the legislature drafting office :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was complicated because the motion (and possibly the original remedy) expired before the announcement was made. Look at the timings of the case, the request for amendment, the motion, and the announcement, and you will see what I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not kidding. I still haven't worked out if Brews Ohare can actually edit this article or not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He can; his topic ban expired towards the end of June. The effect of the recent amendment was to have the restrictions on Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket against advocating for Brews lifted at the same time. Brews and David are both still under a restriction authorizing uninvolved admins to block them after warnings if they "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum", and David is still topic banned. Steve Smith (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hopefully it will work out for Brews.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. No limitations upon the nature or duration of these sanctions is provided, no appeals process is identified, and just what constitutes "normal editorial process", "serious failure to adhere to the purpose of WP", and "standards of decorum" is up to the acting editor's solitary judgment. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010. Brews ohare (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Likebox

User:Likebox is still blocked. He vented his anger after the advocacy restriction, which was a violation of that restriction and it was pointy behavior as well. Now, Likebox has left the project so he won't ask for himself to be unblocked. Instead, he has used his ban as an argument why Misplaced Pages sucks. I think he now contributes to Citizendium.

However, we do believe in Misplaced Pages, so if we are right and Likebox is wrong, he will eventually be back here. Likebox will see that the wiki articles on theoretical physics to which he made major contributions, such as on the Ising model, are far more visible than the Citizendium articles he is wasting his time on now.

So, if he comes back here (perhaps in a few years form now), it will likely be to improve some articles here, not to continue venting his anger. However, if he were to see that he is still blocked for something that is by then ancient history, he would have to raise that old issue before he can proceed. But knowing Likebox a bit (he's a bit hot headed), that won't be a good thing at all. It would likely trigger precisely that kind of behavior that we don't like to see here.

So, I'm of the opinion that it is better to unblock Likebox now, without having discussions with him about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not an opinion I share. At this point it isn't just what happened on their way out, it's how they went out. If they are willing to improve their behavior, and back off certain comments they made, sure, we can look to unblocking him. But the first move has to be his. SirFozzie (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The matter is simply one of psychology. I'd say Likebox left infuriated, and if he is required to come hat in hand and plead for acceptance, he won't. SirFozzie thinks that's just fine, so be it. However, Likebox is a gifted individual and WP would be better off with his contributions. If he were encouraged to return by the simple act of dropping the block, WP would benefit. It isn't necessary that all involved feel that this ending suits them to a Tee. Everybody can take a deep breath and let the future evolve as it may, bygones are bygones. Brews ohare (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that his outburst was not as seemly as it could've been but now that the sanctions are done it would not really prevent damage to not let him come back? This was a pretty upsetting decision for all involved, the block had provisions on effect as to the length of the block. . Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let him back. Simply venting one's frustration in a verbal outburst is not a good reason for indefinitely blocking a useful editor. --Michael C. Price 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering it was more than just an outburst (the comments were made over several weeks), and that he indicated that he did not wish to "color inside the lines", so to speak, no. SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His outburst was saying Brews Ohare name. It was a pointy disruption bbut it was on e in anger. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A week later: "I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror". Again, he needs to tell us that situation has changed. Otherwise it is status quo. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie: Clearly Likebox ranted. CLearly he annoyed you and some others. So what? If he is pardoned, and if he returns, it soon will be easy to tell whether anythong has changed. There is no need to make matters difficult; it really is only pique. Brews ohare (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Matters arent difficult, they're just status quo. We're not big into symbolic gestures. If Likebox wants to return to editing, he can ask. Until then, it's all hypothetical. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not logical, and contrary to natural justice and common sense, for someone to still be blocked over violation of a restriction that has now lapsed. --Michael C. Price 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there may or may not be sufficient grounds for lifting the block on Likebox at this point, the Committee is not going to consider the matter without some indication that Likebox himself wants it to be considered. We do not, as a general rule, conduct proceedings—appeals or otherwise—in absentia. Kirill  21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks have been imposed in absentia, haven't they? If so wouldn't the same would apply to unblocking? We gagged and then blocked Likebox; I hardly think justice should be denied just because he (understandibly) refuses to stand before us. --Michael C. Price 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are a matter for administrator discretion; the Committee follows specific rules and procedures. Likebox is perfectly free to contact BASC or the entire Committee at any time if he would like to be unblocked; but we are not going to consider an appeal if one isn't actually made, both because granting such a request would be pointless and because rejecting it—which remains, of course, a potential outcome—would be unnecessarily callous. Kirill  22:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it would be pointless to grant such a request; just because someone isn't prepared to ask doesn't mean they don't want, as has been indicated by others above.--Michael C. Price 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another way of viewing things: Arbcom was v.frustrated listening to Likebox, Iblis et al advocating for Brews and Tombe. I can understand that; Brews et al were pretty much self-appointed martyrs and (IMO) deserved a spell in the cooler. So Arbcom placed a gagging order on Likebox et al. But Arbcom should appreciate that gagging orders also cause frustration. Since Arbcom were frustrated they should have some empathy with - and sympathy for - Likebox's frustration and outburst. The indefinite block was not appropriate - it should have had an expiry date, timed to coincide with the expiry of the restrictions on Brews and Tombe.--Michael C. Price 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, ArbCom was concerned that the constant disruption and other such nonsense was detrimental to the project - we have to listen to much, much more advocating and venting on a daily basis. However, we do have quite a bit of empathy for folks who make mistakes so a simple note from Likebox indicating that the comments were just blowing off steam or frustration and he'd like to return would probably solve the issue. Absent that, you're all trying to guess what Likebox meant and what he wants now - I'm know not yet psychic and I'm doubting anyone else here is, so it's probably best to let people speak for themselves. Shell 05:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Likebox has indicated, as others have surmised, that he does not wish to speak for himself. --Michael C. Price 03:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for that? Regardless, I guess he'll just have to wait until he does want to discuss it. Shell 05:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Private email.

This is a systemic problem; indefinitely blocked editors often don't appeal and are lost forever. There should be a mechanism by which heavy-handed indefinite blocks can be time expired, without the blocker having to appeal. --Michael C. Price 06:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Blocks are preventative not punitive. And not every editor is a net benefit to the project. Absent a commitment from the blocked editor about future good behaviour, there's no telling what they'll get up to. As for heavy-handed. have you actually looked at the block log? The repeated lost opportunities to desist and move on?  Roger Davies 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement on checkuser blocks

Original announcement

Just wanted to confirm one common exception that may have been omitted. There may be other circumstances where administrators may have issued a block marked "for Arbcom review":

• Information whose disclosure would require breach of privacy of a user (statement only covers privacy issues "whose disclosure would identify anonymous users"),
• Information whose disclosure would greatly affect counter-vandalism or other future efforts against serious disruption (doesn't say either way).

Rather than administrators guessing if IAR would apply, can someone advise if these kinds of occasional traditional cases are still covered? Thanks. FT2  03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this falls squarely in the "if in doubt, ask ArbCom first" category. — Coren  03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Any answer is okay - as long as admins have some idea before any issue not after, they will be less likely to find themselves in an unexpected problem. FT2  04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the announcement notes one reason for referring an issue to ArbCom is on the basis of "concern ... a user's physical or mental well-being". I would strongly suggest to administrators with concern about an editor's mental health to be very careful before getting ArbCom involved. Any ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress, even in the best of worlds, so if an administrator can reach a reasonable solution without ArbCom involvement that may well be a better outcome for the editor. Further, we do not live in the best of worlds, and ArbCom's history in this area is (to put it mildly) not stellar. EdChem (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "any ArbCom process is going to subject an editor to a significant amount of stress and distress". Arbitrators resolve dozens of such incidents a year, informally and without stress or drama.  Roger Davies 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

While I am glad to see the clarification regarding checkuser blocks vs checkusers making "ordinary" blocks, I think the committee needs to take it one step further - falsely claiming a "checkuser block" or a "should only be lifted by arbcom" block should be grounds for immediate desysopping. With the latter, if the issue is "a user's physical or mental well-being", that isn't particularly the reason to proclaim an arbcom-only unblock. I think the standard should be the same as for a checkuser block - there is private information involved that cannot, for whatever reason, be disclosed here. These two sets (blocking users who are a threat to someone's well-being and blocks dependent on private information) will contain a lot of overlap, but I think private information is the key reason for a privileged block. --B (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you here though desysopping should probably be reserved for a second or third offence. My own view is that if there is any privacy issue involved it ought really not be alluded to in an edit summary. The key here is probably "if in dobt, contact ArbCom by email first".  Roger Davies 13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone might mis-post a template (it happens and is usually not malicious) and we certainly do not want to penalize admins who try to do right and consult on a sensitive concern and who state in the meantime do not unblock as they have believe it's correct but have asked Arbcom to also look at it for reasons not made public. FT2  13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration is stressful, but most Arbcom reviews are not. A user has a concern, Arbcom looks into itand often can reply quite easily. The stressful cases are those where after review something does need explaining - there is a real concern that the subject has to be approached about such as evidence of admin socking or similar. That's stressful but not easy to avoid. It's not usually as long as RFAR though and because it's by email it doesn't cause community "pile-on" or stress for them on-wiki. FT2  13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other checkusers, but the large majority of my "checkuser blocks" are on the underlying IP of a disruptive user, where revealing exactly what account led to the block would be a possible violation of the privacy policy. Checkusers have previously been advised by the AUSC to err on the side of caution when linking IPs to accounts, even when it would be reasonable to conclude that the IP in question is not personally identifying and therefore not covered by the privacy policy. I believe that my blocks that are based on private checkuser evidence are quite clearly distinct from those that are not. For example:

• 21:07, 16 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked 122.57.83.247 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
• 14:23, 13 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Karlioos (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of User:Karlpoos, User:HighHorseKarljoos)
• 21:26, 18 July 2010 Deskana (talk | contribs | block) blocked Imafuckingninja (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

I'd hope it's quite clear which of these is:

1. A standard administrative block.
2. A block based on checkuser evidence that I've obtained through checkuser, but where the evidence is not confidential and as such is also a standard administrative block.
3. A block made on confidential checkuser evidence that should not be undone without checkuser permission.

Hopefully other checkusers use similar standards. Either way, I'd like to thank the ArbCom publicly for making this statement. --Deskana (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser/Oversight election statement

Original announcement

What a load of crap. "We don't like what the community has told us (ie that they don't want those candidates in the roles) so we're going to ignore them". Total bollocks. I supported all but one of the candidates, FWIW. I also took the time to make several comments on the resulting RfC and I agree the posts need to be filled, but you can't just ignore consensus like that. Oh, wait, you're ArbCom, you can do what you like and bugger what the community thinks. Total bollocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, Arbcom is saying that they won't consider giving Checkuser/Oversight privileges to the candidates who failed to gain enough votes in the election; instead they are soliciting candidates for appointment by Arbcom fiat. I certainly hope that this change of process isn't used to appoint anyone who participated in the election and failed to be elected that way, but as long as that doesn't happen I don't see that your comments apply. You can dislike the return to appointments, of course, but that's a separate matter from disliking the appointees when no such appointees have been announced yet. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the general idea. Only one candidate met the criteria we set, so only one candidate was appointed. No one is eager to appoint people who lost in the election, which is why we are sending out a call for more applications. Cool Hand Luke 13:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did see the bit about not doing anything else based on the election and rerunning things in a bit here to fill those spots? Are you saying we should create a policy out of whole cloth prohibiting folks from running for a position more than once? Since the community will have the same opportunity to disapprove candidates though in discussion form rather than votes, can't the community simply say the same thing if someone choses to run again? It looks as if you've made quite a few assumptions here. Shell 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom are attempting to follow exactly what the community has decided. As a reminder the whole appointments process was an Arbcom mandate (like it or not) being the body designated to manage privacy permissions by WMF. The elections were an Arbcom proposal and extension. They included provisions if sufficient places were not filled, to seek communal input. In the most recent election that is what happened. The community was consulted but the results were unhelpful. The view that AC should take back the reins for now at least, seems a not-unreasonable interpretation of how the community's wishes stated at RFC might be best met insofar as any direction can be discerned.

At any rate it seems the most sure way for now to ensure the Community's obligations to manage the privacy tools. The outcome of not having sufficient users able to deal with checkuser inquiries and privacy breach removals can be rather more serious and Arbcom's job includes managing and filling those appointments which is what they are doing. The statement says until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system... which is fair. The users rejected at election have not been appointed, though they may apply on a par with any others in future (which is the case for most roles such as RFA, AC itself, stewardship, etc). It's not at all clear that any "ignoring" or "not-liking" is involved nor is bad faith called for. If you feel any clear consensus was ignored or disrespected, it might be more productive to point to the link for it. FT2  04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what Shell said. Can I add a plea here for those posting here in response to this statement to please take the time to review the list of candidates (once it is posted in mid-August) and let us know if there are any concerns you have (it would be depressing if there was more comment here than on the list of candidates next month). This is not about running an election or who 'wins' an election, but about getting people to volunteer to do a role that is needed, and ensuring that candidates for that role get the necessary scrutiny. Both ArbCom and the community play a role in carrying out that scrutiny, and that is the key here, not how the scrutiny is done. FWIW, my view on the selection process is that the key is to get a mixture of people volunteering for these roles, both 'quiet' people and 'popular' people, 'technical' people and the 'less technical' who may have other skills to bring to the role. I think a mixture of selection processes (both discussion+election-led and discussion-led appointments) would produce a good mixture of successful candidates (some people who would never volunteer under an election system might be excellent in the role). Also, if you have questions about what criteria should qualify and disqualify people for this role, or are thinking of volunteering, please ask. It is people prepared to volunteer, and feedback on both the selection criteria used, and on individual candidates, that is needed for this process to work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are naturally going to be complaints, but I for one, as a member of the community, strongly support this change. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And I, as a community elected and active oversighter, also support this. We can talk circles about governance, but that doesn't solve the issues we have with oversight requests. We have time sensitive issues that we deal with, and we need a couple more hands from particular time zones. Keegan (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The accusation that ArbCom is ignoring consensus is what is total bollocks here. There was no consensus. That was the problem all along. There was no discussion, just a vote. Candidates did not receive any useful feedback, just some numbers, and the RFC after the election turned into a circus with a thousand competing proposals, none of which had strong support. The idea that anyone who failed to achieve the 70% support required in this oddball election is now barred from ever running again is just nonsense. There was no good way out of this, and the positions still need to be filled. I certainly don't see it as some great honor to be attained, it frankly sounds like a pain in the ass, but it needs doing and there were only a few of us that put out names forward as being willing to do it. It is my opinion that it was the process itself that was flawed, not the candidates. Since I have still not received an explanation for any one of the 111 opposes I got, or the 138 supporters for that matter, how am I supposed to know what supposed flaw caused the result? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Beeblebrox, I think the crux is in the en.wp model.

We don't have straight up or down votes, based on the collaborative model, and the result is the process of discussion and bureaucracy. This is not necessarily a bad thing for everything else we do; it is in the best interest of a society if the governance moves slowly to prevent hasty and malformed decisions. On the other hand, other projects adopt models that seemed to work the first two times without secure poll: a straight up or down vote. ArbCom should be trusted to vet and then have a yes/no decision, and candidates should receive feedback. Short of this, applications are the only way to go. Just my two cents. Keegan (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has already made it fairly clear who their favorite sons and daughters are by allowing them to stand in the last election at all. It'll be politically awkward and, in some cases, downright hypocritical to appoint some of the people who they'll end up appointing, especially when the May elections were so recent and had such clear results for some of the candidates. However, making bad decisions is what ArbCom does best. Community be damned, election results be damned, everything be damned, the beast needs MORE WORKERS. OR ELSE. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. What makes a "good" checkuser? They surpass the requirements for "good adminship", they are seasoned and committed to the project's wellbeing, they have the skills to use and interpret the CU data, they respect that these are privacy based tools not to be abused, they respect privacy policy, and they are fair in determining cases when these tools are used. Arbcom's role is to select and appoint users likely to be of that character. I'd say looking at the users Arbcom have selected, they've done the job. FT2  11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To ArbCom... the following should be a statement of the breath-takingly obvious... if you are considering any candidate who is presently or has recently been involved in a case, and that involvement has included questions about the objectivity / impartiality as an administrator of that candidate, then there is at least a significant group within the community with doubts about the fitness of that candidate for CU or OS or any other office of trust. This remains true even if ArbCom did / does not find that actions needed / needs to be taken against that administrator in the resolution of the case. The Committee should take into account all expressions of doubt from the community - including the expressions delivered by the votes in the recent elections. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Brief answer - yes and it is, although a specific fault of the recent elections was that no information related to supports and opposes was gathered by the voting structure.

Slightly longer answer - It's been a while since I was on Arbcom and hearsay says if anything it's tightened since then. As of 2 years ago, any concerns were taken seriously and investigated. If they showed a possible problem to the committee then that was taken as a likely disqualifier (a number of concerns might include misinformation, misunderstanding, misreporting, good cause, or emotion rather than fact, when checked out). The scrutiny is to understand the user's likely suitability for the role to the standards required. So conduct might indeed be noticed and taken into account which would be comparatively small as an admin or where no action was taken by anybody, but which could show a tendency or risk of weak area not quite suitable for rather more demanding and stringent standards needed. Also if a larger number are suggested than needed, then not being appointed might just mean someone was suitable but insufficient positions were open.

Per Arbcom's notice, once a candidate list is posted any concerns (or indeed commendations) should be sent directly to the Committee to be looked into. However I would imagine it will be expected that users should be prepared to explain and discuss them thoughtfully, and if applicable show any evidence, not just make bare claims. Example how this used to work (see 1st paragraph of Aug 2008 appointments describing the responses received). FT2  13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

• User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion)
• User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser (MfD discussion)

I mentioned this on the administrators' noticeboard a while back, when it was just Miami33139. Now more of the players from the arbitration case have turned up. I've been contacted off-wiki by Tothwolf, stating that xe has been advised by others not to participate in these deletion discussions. I imagine that it would be exceedingly tempting to do so, especially as this is almost direct fallout from some of the prior AFD discussions mentioned in the case (e.g. List of quote databases (AfD discussion)). So is this Miami33139 and Theserialcomma not being wise enough to let this alone? Given that this is just shy of six months on from User:Tothwolf/Bash.org (MfD discussion) being at MFD, and (per the standard schedule) the closure of the current MFD discussions will come just days before Tothwolf's restrictions expire, timing which even working from the best assumptions clearly isn't simple coincidence, do you think that six month restrictions have worked and are working to address the problem? Are they being gamed? Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)