Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 26 October 2010 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

What does topic banned mean?

Does it extend to user talk pages? Can a user present information he or she would like to see added to an article and then talk to proxies about how best to carry out the edits, for example?... to give a concrete example, is this an example of proxying to get round a ban or is it perfectly normal and acceptable? It could be argued either way, which is why I ask. Some clarity from the Arbs now would be helpful as it would help avoid issues later, after things get more set in. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the topic bans is described in the decision. The ban explicitly applies to articles, article talk pages, and Misplaced Pages processes; it does not include user talk pages. While I cannot read the minds of the Arbitrators, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they deliberately left an opportunity for subject matter experts to contribute positively without getting back onto the battlefield. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that's why I always use "articles, discussions, and other content" when imposing topic bans. Broader and less opportunity for gaming. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a policy description of topic bans, WP:TBAN.  Sandstein  13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the fact that Arbitrators chose to specifically enumerate the areas of applicability of the topic ban in their decision, rather than include WP:TBAN by reference or simply state 'topic ban, broadly interpreted' implies a deliberate decision on their part to clearly craft the scope of the ban (and indeed, to supersede any other interpration of the scope). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the question would be the meaning of this: (3) from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles. Does this mean only proccesses like AFD and the like, or does it include the broader editing process such as the discussion of sources on user talk pages.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

'Processes' generally means (loosely speaking) 'stuff that happens on process pages', distinct from pages primarily concerned with editing. That's AfD/MfD/XfD, RfC, WP:AE, WP:AN and associated subpages (except, presumably, to respond to complaints filed against them), and no doubt a whole bunch of lesser-used alphabet soup. Reading in the extremely broad definition of all 'editing processes' would be a blanket inclusion of virtually every page on Misplaced Pages; it would render the first two parts of the statement of scope (which define specific classes of article and article talk pages included in the ban) superfluous. It wouldn't make sense for the remedy to be phrased as it is if the ArbCom intended such an unsually broad interpretation of (3). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, relevant templates and categories and their talk pages do not seem to fall under the ban, but they would fall under WP:TBAN. I'm sure an edit war and discussion in regard whether one climate change category is a subset of another is still possible, without a technical violation of the ban under 10's interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a fine plan for those who want to find themselves banished in perpetuity to the dark side of the Moon under discretionary sanctions :)  Roger Davies 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Per SPOV - there is, actually, no "dark side of the moon." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

with respect to the :), should we expect clarification on the serious questions?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer the decision could have been. I expect editors exporting the conflict to other areas, trying to game topic-bans (by ignoring the spirit), and generally continuing battlefield conduct, will find themselves facing discretionary sanctions very quickly. This dispute isn't moved into exciting green pastures areas; it's winding down.  Roger Davies 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Which would sound to me that the talk page discussions themselves aren't forbiden, but once one of these discussions generates conflict then the hammer is going to fall. Close to the mark?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages. It is for other editors to make actual edits to articles, r participate in AFDs, or other processes. They can, of course, be influenced by what e.g. William has said on his talk page. But then, you can also read a scientific paper written by William, talk to him via email, or meet with him in real life. The point is that any editor who is allowed to edit the CC pages, is responsible for his/her own edits. Acting as a meatpuppet, as Lar suggests could happen, is never allowed, regardless of any topic bans. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is acceptable, It looks like there will be a need to clarify where the line is. If the previous section is fine, would participating here also be fine? Arbcom should clarify now, or be prepared to see the official requests for clarifications start rolling in before a week passes.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections. Other editors were free to make the edits or to not make the edits as they saw fit. I'm not offering to meatpuppet, but I appreciate Cube lurker for bringing up my talkpage offer. Since a number of content experts were topic-banned, I feel like we should provide a space for them to offer their suggestions on wiki as long as it doesn't spill over into article space. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "CC noticeboard" can be created for this. This would make the involvement of topic banned editors transparant. At the same time, one should ask all editors to communicate with the topic banned editors only via that noticeboard on issues related to editing CC articles. The noticeboard has to be moderated by an Admin to make sure that the only discussions that take place there discuss some climate science issue, that it is relevant to editing some Wiki article, and that having input from one of the topic banned editors is reasonable. There should be zero tolerance for fighting any disputes there.

E.g. in a recent discussion on the global warming talk page, Stephan told that Boris would probably know a few sources on CO2 lifetime. If Boris isn't around here, and if William is known to also know about this, then one could ask William to post the sources on the CC noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems a shame that Lar can't let this go. No better proof of "involved" is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this discussion, if Lar is not otherwise involved, would be exactly what an uninvolved administrator should do — seek clarification of the ArbCom decision. However, as he cannot act on it, because Arbcom found (by a combination of points) that he cannot apply sanctions under the new system, the question does seem questionable, but still needs to be asked, as he's not the only one who thinks it unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Lar's question was reasonable. Somewhere between WMC not being allowed to answer an IP's question on his talk page whether he can recommend a good university for studying climate science, and a programming language for describing edits on WMC's talk page that are then automatically performed by a BAG-approved bot, there is a reasonable interpretation of Arbcom's words. Based on the discussion so far (especially Arbcom's choice of non-standard rules and the ScienceApologist precedent) I think I can guess the course of the intended lines. Plural because I am under the impression that there may well be two lines – crossing one will get you in trouble, and reporting someone who didn't cross the other will also get you in trouble. Hans Adler 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the point that some of you have missed despite it being the central purpose of this whole decision is that we (and by we I mean everybody not directly involved in this toxic dispute) want this to end. Don't go looking for ways to do and end-run around the decision, the community is absolutely fed up with this nonsense. If an edit could be interpreted as even approaching a violation of the topic ban, don't make that edit. Try to act in the spirit of the decision as opposed to looking for loopholes in the language of it and just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Move on to another topic area or expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  It looks to me as if you've misread the discussion. We all know what the Remedy 3 topic ban says, and the discussion above has established that there are well understood existing norms.

  In the case of William M. Connolley we've got an on-site expert whose very moderate and mainstream opinion of a subject in which he has published primary research is very welcome. We'd be mad to interpret the topic ban in such a way as to forbid all communication from Dr. Connolley, if only because it is impossible to police. The consensus seems to be strongly against an application of the topic ban too far beyond what is written. --TS 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the problem with WMC is behaviour toward others, having a situation where he can give technical comments to those brave or interested enough to approach the beast but where no one else need to seems an elegant solution. He can give references and explain things all he likes. Perhaps it was intended. I hope that is where we have got to. As for the proxying bit if we starting seeing "tell him he is stupid" type comments resulting in people being called stupid we will need to think again. Trying to ban this would drive it off wiki and into email which would be a strange thing to do. --BozMo talk 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, user talk pages (where invited, or on the sanctioned person's own talk page) should be fine; where not invited, it probably shouldn't result in any more sanctions than an unnamed person. I would hope that editing in Template, Category or Portal or their respective talk spaces about climate change articles, should result in a block. That clarification by ArbCom would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments. One characteristic of the more abysmal aspects of this case has been strident crowds turning up uninvited on people's talk pages with torches and pitchforks. This is stressful, intimidating, and wholly unnecessary. I anticipate admins will issue topic bans to deal with this under discretionary sanctions if the problem rears its ugly head again and I, for one, will happily endorse them.  Roger Davies

I can't imagine what clarification you expect beyond this, which as far as I am concerned wasn't even necessary. I would actually prefer it if Arbcom did not "clarify" every, or indeed any, little detail of the form "What will happen if I break the spirit of my topic ban by doing X, which is not covered explicitly the way it's formulated?" The purpose of the topic bans is to take the steam out of the topic. If a topic banned editor is allowed to do X, then a topic banned editor from the "opposite" camp will also do X. If that can easily be predicted to lead to stressful interactions between the two it's clear that X is covered by the ban, regardless of any wikilawyering one could do on the subject. (Of course this requires a pragmatic choice of X that takes context into account, see below.) By not micro-managing the extent of the restrictions Arbcom can force the topic banned editors to think about the consequences of their actions. (Something like this also applies to other editors, and I personally feel on thin ice when editing in the area. Since one person's robust response to disruption is another person's disruption, this is not a nice feeling. But I believe it's necessary.) We will see what happens when the first "uninvolved" admin blocks an editor for doing something that did not break the spirit of the rules but is superficially similar to something that does. (E.g.: Topic banned editor A taunts topic banned editor B on B's talk page and gets blocked. A week later B leaves an apology regarding some earlier disagreement on topic banned editor C's talk page and gets blocked for the same length of time.) IMO everything hinges on Arbcom's firm response in such a situation. They seem to have thought about it, so let's see how well it works in practice. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger raises a valid point, as talk page interactions were a constant irritant throughout the case. That is, someone issuing "warnings" and scolding messages to other editors, thereby sparking conflict. There's nothing wrong with people using their talk pages to list useful or new sources, and any effort to curtail that just simply offends the sensibilities as far as I'm concerned. It's just wrong, and trying to keep people from doing that is going to cause far more trouble than it will avert. However, editors who are topic banned simply can't or shouldn't go to other people's pages to carry out warfare there. I doubt that any of them will do so, but it's always a possibility down the line. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps every editor involved in CC should put the notice: {{sanctions|See ].}} on his/her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned editors already have notice of the decision, and then some. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the best thing for anyone mentioned in the topic ban to do is to stay away from all CC related articles and topics. Period. Then you don't have to worry if you are violating the ban or if someone on "the other side" is watching to see what you can get away with so they can try it as well. Why would you be discussing something on your talk page if you can't even edit in that area to begin with? There has to be at least one other thing each of you has interest in, go edit in that subject area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the harm in editors who understand the intricacies of CC science exchanging views on scholarly articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

William may also have information on some CC topic that no other Wikipedian has, but which is needed in an article. An obvious example where that is likely to happen is in case of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to make an exception for that article, yes, but not any other articles. And do note that even the subjects of BLP articles are not automatically entitled to post to the talk page of said articles. There are many cases of BLP subjects (some dealt with in private to avoid embarassing said BLP subjects) who disrupt the articles and talk pages of the articles about themselves, and their socks and IPs are blocked and they end up de facto banned (usually no-one realises it is the subject of the article causing the disruption). What often happens then (and this is the crucial bit), is that they often reach out by e-mail to someone, and are directed to OTRS (or other off-wiki venues) to make their point in a way where their concerns can be dealt with without them disrupting things for everyone else. In other words, the conduct of a BLP subject on the talk page of their article, is still subject to the normal restrictions and the need to avoid disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place. There is a sense above of editors thinking that certain pages or issues are so difficult or complex that it requires certain editors to deal with them. This is anti-thetical to the entire concept of how Misplaced Pages works. No single editor is indispensible, and no single editor should be necessary for Misplaced Pages to work, or for a page to attain a reasonable standard. Trust in other editors (who have similar levels of expertise) and the system to cope with any problems that arise. And no editor should be so tied to a topic that they are unable to walk away from it when asked to do so. In other words, those who have been topic-banned are being asked to leave the topic area alone in its entirety. Do other stuff for six months to demonstrate both that you are capable of acting collegially elsewhere and that you are capable of staying away from this topic area (or indeed any topic area) when asked to do so. Make notes off-wiki if you must, and then make your case at the right time for the topic ban to be lifted, but don't spend the next six months poking on-wiki at the edges of the area that has just been arbitrated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-arbitrator, I am with Carcharoth on this. Banned means banned, which means if one is topic banned, that person should not be involved in the topic. In any form. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. As Carcharoth alludes to, if a person is topic banned it is because they have become a net negative in terms of work in a topic area. That is, the topic is better without them, and worse with them. The ban is in place to make Misplaced Pages better, and as such, it should not be tested around the edges. To put it bluntly: Why would we allow someone to make a topic worse, but only a little bit. If its reached the stage of topic banning, then the person just needs to stay away. --Jayron32 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm the opposite of Jayron, but agreed. A Topic Ban means you stay away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When you said "I'm the opposite of Jayron", I pictured you as a really hot, skinny, black woman with a pleasant voice and an active social life. But, I guess that's not what you meant. --Jayron32 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it says something about this case that this point seems clear to those of us who are not on either "side" of this dispute and just want it to end. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels the ban should broadly interpreted and that even looking for loopholes in the language is a sign that the message has not quite been received. I know it's not easy, but I recommend to every named party that you clean out your watchlist of anything related to climate change and really, truly just ignore the topic for the time being. (and I doubt there are many hot, skinny women with pleasant voices who spend their Saturday night editing Misplaced Pages) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but us pudgy white men with high-pitched, loud voices would like there to be --Jayron32 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth (and other arbcom members): Hypothetically, if WMC and/or other topic banned editors congregate off-wiki and post citations and articles, does it become meatpuppery or proxying for banned users to make use of those sources in Wiki articles? I'm asking because I imagine that would be the next step if talk page posts on scientific articles are banned. This is not a remote possibility, and I can see it happening with more than one editor and more than one POV. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

IS there a bit of "move on to another topic" that's difficult to comprehend. We've asked the topic-banned users to avoid this topic entirely. We don't speculate as to what might or might not constitute a breach of this, on wiki, off-wiki or theoretically. Hypothetically, if they all go and work on Lucy Hay, Countess of Carlisle, or Toast (and that's not a reference to the planet in 50 years time) then they'll have got the message. All users who are committed to wikipedia should be assisting these particular users in doing something constructive and unrelated, they shouldn't be corresponding with them on this topic, not wikilawyering around it on their, or engaging in the hypothetical of "what happens if".... You want to help them and wikipedia? The message is clear MOVE ON.--Scott Mac 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Scott immediately above. Several users were banned. That means they need to leave the topic area while the sanction is in place. That does not mean that they can try to wikilawyer around it and push the boundaries as far as they can. If they do so, they are liable to have harsher sanctions placed upon them. I, for one, would be willing to use any means at my disposal (including discretionary sanctions) to keep order in the topic area, even if it requires me to take further action against already-sanctioned editors. The best thing for these editors to do is to edit a non-controversial area for a while, and then come back in six months with a well-reasoned appeal that shows that they are capable of collaborating productively. The Wordsmith 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the boundary pushing appears to be becoming quite blatant. On 17th October Stevehhll made an edit to Global climate model shown in this diff . I make no comment on the correctness of this edit, but it stood unchallenged until today when William M. Connolley drew attention to it , and then 37 minutes later the edit was undone . This seems to be a clear example of the concerns discussed above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, this clearly follows the precedent described above by SA in that a bare statement linking "breakage" an article has been placed on a users talk page, then shortly afterwards another editor has chosen to revert the change, giving their own reasons and with no indication that their change has been influenced by the user talk page comment. There has been no dispute, and one assumes that the editor reverting has done so to improve article content, which presumably is the aim here. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that Awickert's edit was in any way improper. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

Right, so I figured that edit might cause some trouble. I've left a brief synopsis of my thoughts at my talk. As far as sanctions are concerned, I have (and want) no involvement in the process, and will abide by the final decisions. To the content, which I don't address at my talk: I think that it is a very minor quibble (all calculations derived from never-perfectly-precise data are estimates), but "calculation" is still the better term: they are estimates with some teeth behind them. Now I think "calculation" is better (i.e., an improvement), and it is therefore good that WMC drew my eye to it. However, it can also be seen as me proxying for WMC: being that we have very roughly similar intellectual backgrounds, I almost always agree with him on scientific issues. Insofar as you all trust me, I can say that I saw WMC's notice which caught my attention, but the revert was my independent decision (though it no doubt agreed with what he would have done). Awickert (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I"m afraid Arbcom ought to issue a clarification on this. "Should have known" and "we intended" isn't clear enough. If you're going to tell people not to do something, you have to tell them clearly what it is they shouldn't do. It's like a "no parking" zone. They should have known they can't park here isn't good enough, there has to be a law or a sign. Otherwise you end up with confusion and more debate, when the goal is to get people to stop debating and get back to working on things. It doesn't have to be a big deal. If Arbcom, amongst themselves, says that article talk pages are included or that the enumeration of pages is an elaboration on TBAN rather than instead of TBAN, they can just say so without further ado, notify the parties, and move on. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is primarily an issue of William having to move on to other articles. Not moving on could theoretically become a problem, and in previous cases there have been many examples of topic banned editors trying to find loopholes in the topic ban. But right now, this isn't the issue. Rather, as I just explained on William's talk page, the issue is maintaining the many CC pages that don't seem to be rigorously patrolled by the other CC regulars.

William wouldn't need to give the diffs of subtle POV pushing in the first place, if the articles on his watchlist were checked by others on a daily basis. We could actually help William to move on to other articles by e.g. listing all the CC articles at the relevant WikiProject, which seems to have gone inactive and which doesn't have a complete list of the articles. Count Iblis (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except (at least for me), that's just not going to happen. I have neither the time nor the will to patrol WP climate change for this kind of thing. Hope someone else does. CI's suggestion is good in this respect. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody who is a named party in the topic ban should even have this stuff on their watchlist anymore, and should politely tell anyone wishing to discuss these topics with them that they will have to do so elsewhere. Count Iblis, you seem bent on establishing some sort of new forum or process for dealing with CC articles. ArbCom already came up with one in the form of broad discretionary sanctions. You continued campaign on WMC's behalf is only going to get him exactly the wrong kind of attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  The discretionary sanctions by themselves won't be enough. TS wrote on my talk page where the relevant articles are listed. They must be actively patrolled. Only then can one report issues to AE. Also, not all problems are necessarily issues that should be dealt with at AE. There is also no campaign on WMC's behalf, at least not on this particular issue here right now. It is only that this issue has been framed in a polarized way (by postulating that William is trying to get around the topic ban), that this section has ended up discussing the issue as if getting around the topic ban is the relevant problem right now. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a topic ban means no edits to anything anywhere they are topic banned from, but does not include the banned editors own usertalk...in one case where a 9/11 conspiracy theorist was topic banned, he tried to create a page in his userspace to edit a pasted version from a 9/11 article and that was disallowed. But as far as discussing issues and edits about the topic they are banned from at their own usertalk, this was fine in the past unless they were soliciting for meatpuppetry openly.--MONGO 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid your understanding is incorrect. A number of arbs opining abouve have made it clear that a "topic ban" means depart from the topic altogether and entirely. It does not mean "continue to work on the topic in a different way, on a different page, or just a little bit". It is really that simple.--Scott Mac 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the comments by a couple arbcom members...thanks.--MONGO 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

Original announcement

• I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, after the argument over the retirement notice where it was stated that a ban notice would soon replace it anyway, that we have now an argument over the ban notice. See User:Stevertigo (MfD discussion) for more. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't recall an argument. I raised a question, it was answered. → ROUX ₪ 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate outcome, but one that Steve drove towards relentlessly, despite a lot of people trying to tell him to put the brakes on or turn aside. Correct but unfortunate outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree; he no doubt contributed in good faith but was unfortunately unable to improve his problematic behaviors. Ucucha 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)