Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 20 August 2010 (→Checkuser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Guidelines: This page is for discussion of the questions and answers posted on the general discussion page. Please link the discussions to and from the front page sections using the appropriate links, as is done at the arbitration noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Example question

Original question

Discussion takes place here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the example question is somewhat lacking in explicatory power... should the question be the heading? Or the number? Perhaps an actual question should be used as an example. Perhaps try putting one of the ones submitted into the desired format. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to speak for Carcharoth, but I feel confident that you can use a general topic as a header, as you would elsewhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Nevertheless the example is flawed. Making it more concrete would help. Or, if the two questions now submitted are not done correctly, correcting them would help. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it is correct now. Anyway, since there are real questions there now, I suppose there is less need for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of page

Original question: What?

Discussion: Please clarify the purpose of this page and the types of questions that are appropriate. Also, the language about retrieving archived questions, etc. was not entirely clear. Thank you. Minor4th 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring there to the last three sections of this page. Those discussions were still active when I archived them, so I am saying continue those discussions here if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to elaborate on the mechanism for archiving questions once "answered", including how to tell that something is actually answered or not. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Let's keep it simple. If an arbitrator or clerk has posted an answer, the question has been answered and you are free to ask another question. If, on the other hand, discussion is still going on here on this page, then getting an answer to subsequent questions may take longer. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Remedies

Original question

The answer given sort of implies that someone ought to ask 'what findings are being contemplated' :) ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Principles, first, actually. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the principles up there early on to be discussed as the principles shape a case while the findings focus it and the remedies are the business end of a case, but different drafting arbitrators do things different ways. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume this means that we're still not very close to a decision. The Wordsmith 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the drafting arbitrators don't post an update, I will try and post an idea this weekend of what progress has been made. Activity is lower during the week. But it really is best to make sure something usuable is posted in a complex case like this, rather than hurrying it. Robust discussion will result in any case, but the drafting arbitrators will want to post something they are happy with, so please do be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC) And that should have been a separate question!

Interim actions

Original question

I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. There have been requests pending in some cases since May. Obviously the people making the requests thought they were urgent. With no specific answer to them (not even a rejection) who is to say a particular motion was or wasn't urgent. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could point to the ones you are thinking of, that would help. Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For starters there's the original request of a resolution of who is involved and who isn't. That was a separate case. Arbs commented, and in some cases gave pretty clear direction in my view, but that clear direction hasn't been accepted. Getting an early resolution of that question would help. It's been on the table at least since May. Then there's the interim motion request put forward by Polargeo and myself more recently. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could give actual links and diffs, that would really help. At the moment, progress is being made on the proposed decision, so I don't think it would help to bring that to a halt to consider such motions, but if you consolidate what you think is most urgent, I'll have a look, but as I said, links are needed. If the collapsed nature of the workshop page is hindering linking to stuff, please ask a clerk to fix that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Several interim motions, clarifying questions and requests for temporary injunctions have been made - I've lost track. Where are these things? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most would be on the Workshop. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I only see three motions and one temporary injunction there. The injunction was withdrawn, and all of the motions received what appears to be appropriate consideration. As for 'clarifying questions' - they're all over the place. Some answered, some ignored, some superseded by subsequent events. I'm guessing that anyone who still wants an answer should bring it here? Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I am going to post a question on the front page here asking what people want to be done with the workshop as it stands, as I'm proposing to archive it (and its talk page) in preparation for workshopping of the proposed decision. It would also help to lay out a few ground rules for discussion of the proposed decision to help those participating in the case, and the arbs and clerks, to keep on top of things when discussion does start. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Preparing PD discussion

Original question

My thoughts are that the existing workshop and its talk page should be archived and the existing workshop page set up in readiness for discussion of the proposed decision. While waiting for the proposed decision, the workshop talk page should be used to discuss how to discuss the proposed decision (i.e. how to keep things under reasonable control while still encouraging strong and constructive discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Not to beat a dead horse, but checkuser, checkuser and checkuser. Just indefing any long-term sockers (e.g. Ratel) in the area could greatly reduce drama and maybe even the need for significant ArbCom action. I'd be willing to construct a list (privately of course) of people on both sides that may be socking and should definitely be checkusered, but ideally everyone active should probably be checkusered. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the checkuser policy? If you have, and you still think that a CU would be OK, then why have you not forwarded this list to ArbCom? NW (Talk) 04:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't read it, but I've noticed that sockmasters tend to have a certain personality - a personality-type that is common in the area and yet they haven't been checked for the obvious. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at Misplaced Pages:CheckUser#.22Fishing.22... NW (Talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing."

It looks to me like you could use it for any of those activities even if you didn't want to check for socks. Besides, can't ArbCom just go ahead and decide to do it under these special circumstances? Honestly, we have editors who've been extremely "dedicated" for nearly a decade, we have admitted and caught sockmasters who are still editing and editors who've said that "billions" will die - they are obviously quite the motivated bunch. It would be silly not to check them because I can pretty much guarantee that if they aren't socking already (unlikely) that they'll start doing it if any major sanctions are applied to them - probably with accounts made leading up to or during the ArbCom case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you file an SPI case, then a checkuser will review it, and perform checks if necessary and justified. Alternatively you may contact ArbCom directly, but they will probably be slower than filing an SPI. --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is rather impractical to file 10-15 checkusers. All I'm saying is that some people are asking to be indeffed so badly that it is obvious that don't really care if that particular account is banned - they seem to want to take a few people with them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've got this completely wrong, but isn't it standard practice to conduct checkuser matches on all significant parties to arbitration? Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If not, it's a good idea. If they haven't done it already, I hope the Committee will checkuser everybody mentioned in connection with this case, including me. Cla68 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea, but I'm not sure if the privacy policy allows such a thing. "Investigate legitimate concerns" and "Limit disruption of potential disruption" are intentionally vague statements, yes, but to me, that violates the spirit if not the letter of the privacy policy. I think users should be able to operate under the assumption that their access logs won't be checked unless there is a bit more than a vague suspicion that they are violating the rules; there should be some evidence. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with being checkusered should any functionary wish to do so. NW (Talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Across-the-board checkusering without regard to the case at hand should indeed be a violation of the privacy policy. In places where it is a relevant issue, I'm sure checking is done as deemed necessary by the Committee, but checkuser isn't pixie dust to throw at everything hoping something good bounces back. Like everywhere else, presenting evidence and making a compelling case are the norm. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not standard practice to check all parties to ArbCom cases. No checkusers do this. --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck

Original question

The Six-step Program

1. Violate sanction in the most drama-producingly ridiculous way possible
2. Cry foul and declare victimhood w/ help from friends
3. Get entire sanction thrown out
4. Return to original and truly disruptive behavior
5. Get sanctioned for such behavior
6. Goto Step 1

Any questions? Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)