Revision as of 01:27, 1 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

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Melonite & Geologician

Announcement

Can you clarify please, the committee has presumably found that User:HobbieP was a meat puppet using a work computer, and thus, whether or not the checkusers will be looking for anymore registrations from Melonite's work IP address? In addition, has Melonite disclosed their home IP to checkusers, to ensure no sockpuppetry is possible from different locations at different times? It is of course feasible for a 'likely' result to have come from this situation, surely. And what happens if Melonite edits from work as an IP logged out from the Melonite account? MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And also, given the disruption, can you please topic ban Melonite from Quayside, as on past experience, he/she will return to the page at some point, which given the previous sockpuppetry, is just not going to foster a good faith reaction from me at least. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that a request of a topic ban by user MickMacNee is unjustifiable. Merely because MickMacNee and myself have both had disagreements over the article Quayside in the past, and that MickMacNee has in the past himself been blocked on a number of occasions for uncivil behaviour concerning his editing. As the saying goes it takes two to tango and therefore placing a topic ban on myself and not MickMacNee I would find wholly unfair, the very fact that MickMacNee has taken it upon himself to request this does it not show that the witch hunt continues? Melonite 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Block log for MickMacNee clearly shows how his uncivil behaviour and the amount of personal attacks directed towards other users' has lead to himself been blocked for his behaviour. Is it not MickMacNee who has the problem with those who disagree with him, instead of merely moving on? Melonite 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• My block log (which incidentally has no blocks for sockpuppetry) is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether your past practice of returning to the Quayside article to reignite long dead disputes, and the suspicion of sock-puppetry which arose from your actions on that specific article, merits a topic ban of you from that specific article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the thing to note here is that the block suspension is not an exoneration but a second chance. He was blocked for a month and the suspected socks remain blocked. The clearest case, HobbieIP, had only one overlapping edit and could conceivably be another user on the same IP address (which loophole, if it is one, has been closed with a specific warning about shared addresses). In essence, we have assumed good faith and given Melonite the benefit of the doubt on this one occasion, with the observation that extraordinary coincidences in the future will not have a similar outcome. The editor has also been asked to reflect on aspects of his editing style and explore ways of finding consensus on talk pages. Any future problems in this later area can be dealt with through the normal community channels and don't really need ArbCom to be involved.  Roger Davies 06:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom motion re: Geogre

Announcement / Motion

Given that Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator, it seems a bit strange to me that there is not also a motion to desysop him over what appear to be clear and persistent violations of the sockpuppet policy. I assume that a checkuser has also been run to look for additional socks? Finally, a clerk might want to take action with respect to the ongoing edit warring over the {{sockpuppet}} tag that was placed on the sock's user page by an arbitrator.  Sandstein  15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that a desysop doesn't come by motion unless there is an emergency, and is related to the use of admin tools. Anyway, the placement of a sockpuppet tag is not mandated by policy (WP:SOCK says explicitly that the templates are not covered by the policy): these tags only seem to serve to humiliate. But why should an ArbCom clerk look at that? Kusma (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get much point of the motions. Utgard is already blocked, and while there's attempts to whitewash the fact that he's abusively used it as a sock, shouldn't we be holding him to SOCK anyhow? The motion just restates what should already be clear. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of emergency, ArbCom would not normally consider a desysop by summary motion. There was discussion within the committee for the alternative of opening a full case in order to examine the situation with a wider view and consider alternate or supplemental remedies. However, how ArbCom could open a case on its own impetus (or, for that matter, whether it is appropriate that it does so in the first place) is an open matter and we didn't deem it wise to conflate the issues. — Coren  16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@Fuchs, the motion goes further than the SOCK policy to state that he cannot operate undisclosed legitimate socks which is permitted by WP:SOCK. –xeno 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as the public evidence suggests that Geogre used his sock in discussions related to his administrator actions, this is arguably a matter involving the use of admin tools. Whether the ArbCom may open a case sua sponte is an interesting technicality, but given that the current motion presumes they can impose conduct restrictions on an editor in the absence of a case, I suppose they could (procedurally) also consider a desysopping by the same means, always provided that the administrator at issue has an opportunity to be heard in public.  Sandstein  18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I am surprised that there is no motion to desysop him also. Geogre made mischief and then used his Utgard Loki account to fan the flames when I tried to edit and comment on Buckingham Palace, Augustan literature and Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Restoration comedy, on his talk page and elsewhere. For example, Geogre used Utgard Loki to defend User:Giano II calling me a troll and to ridicule me., as well as disparage me in edit summaries. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

General comment about the Geogre announcement and motion. Further action by the Committee is possible in several ways. The Committee had some exchange of information with Geogre that led us to take this preliminary action. With more input from the Geogre or others in the Community then the block could be reviewed or a desysop motioned added. These are two on a list of possible further actions that could happen. Also, not everyone on the Committee has likely fully reviewed the diffs so there may be some delay in voting or adding motions until the evidence cited at the motion discussion is fully reviewed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case and there is so much evidence, are you certain that a motion is the best way to approach this? Kusma (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What a lovely collection you have here to talk to FLo, had Utgard gone about calling people "cocksuckers" they would probably be giving him barnstars. as the Arbcom knows full well, there were very good and valid reasons for the creation of Utgard. What a fuss about nothing - or is there something else worrying these conscientious editors? Giano (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Using socks to edit war and circumvent 3RR is not "a fuss about nothing" - had a rank-and-file editor been caught doing that, he would, at a minimum, be subject to a short block. We hold admins to a higher, not lower standard. A motion to desysop should be an obvious next step. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein mentioned above ongoing edit warring. You were one of the editors involved in that edit warring. Could you explain your conduct on that page and how you found your way there 5 days after the edit you reverted, and less than a month after your account was created? I'll ask Sandstein if he wants to follow this up. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the warring seems to have stopped now so no immediate action is required, but I've watchlisted the Utgard Loki page and will act if required to. As to LoverOfTheRussianQueen, his contributions make it appear likely that this is not this person's first account, but I see no clear indication of abuse that would justify requesting a checkuser. (He may well have taken notice of the userpage the way I did: by watchlisting this noticeboard and following the link.)  Sandstein  22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By following what link and when? LoverOfTheRussianQueen edited the Utgard Loki page yesterday, not today. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the Misplaced Pages Review thread on this matter that began July 1 . –xeno 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something else? If this is decided by motion instead of a case / normal channels, we'll probably never find out. Kusma (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason all this is so secret? Can there be "valid reasons" for the creation of Utgard, and can the way the account was used be justified? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Geogre has offered an explanation privately to the committee, but he is of course welcome to restate it publicly if he wishes. That the explanation provided could justify the use of an undisclosed alternate account is debatable (though some arbitrators — including myself — found it unconvincing), but no explanation can justify misusing such an account. This motion is minimal handling and disclosure. — Coren  18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah Mattisse, fancy finding you here; what a pleasant surprise, to find you still with us. Giano (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, you are welcome to defend Geogre's conduct with the Utgard Loki account, but I cannot in good conscience get into a discussion with this about you or anyone until Geogre has had a chance to reply in public. Could you extend the same courtesy and wait until Geogre has had a chance to say something on his own behalf? When he has done that, then specific points can be discussed, including the points you have raised. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No! I have already read above from one of your colleagues that "though some arbitrators — including myself — found it unconvincing" so if we are going to have the judges publicly airing their opinions on guilt, and those of their co-judges, before consultation and deliberation has even begun, I don't think I shall be bothered to be involved and comment further. It would be rather like introducing new evidence after the trapdoor has been sprung (or chair plugged in or whatever it is that's done in the USA) - In short, a waste of time. Giano (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, if you read what I have posted at the motion, you will see that I e-mailed Geogre my concerns precisely in order to give him a chance to defend himself. He wrote back and I wrote back to him. He didn't write back after the last e-mail I sent to him - the ball is still in his court. Based on what was said in those e-mails, I have supported the motion currently being voted on. I've said there that I am willing to discuss what was said in those e-mails if all parties agree to disclose that. Geogre still has the opportunity to defend his conduct in public. That is why the motion was voted publicly - precisely to give him the chance to say something in addition to what he has already said by e-mail. I will go further - I am prepared to discuss every single edit mentioned in that motion, and the context of those edits, but that can only happen if Geogre defends himself. As I said, the onus is on him to rebut the edits presented. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he read what is written here by your colleagues, not too mention the peanut gallery approaching orgasm, and thinks like me - who knows? Giano (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't read this, could you be sure to point out what I said? I am serious about discussing this in public with him. If you (and he) want to defend his conduct, you need to actually be prepared to talk about things in detail and not just refuse to say anything, or claim that no chance at a defence was given. He had a chance to explain things in private. The chance is now being offered to put his side of things in public. I, for one, want to hear what he has to say, either at the motion, or at a later appeal if the motion passes (based on the private correspondence) before he has responded in public, or at any later request that may be filed resulting from this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeals, clarifications and any other requests concerning this motion should be directed to the relevant arbitration requests page. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want a sock tag on their user page, they shouldn't sock. Problem solved. The embarrassment was their own doing, not the person who placed the sock tag. Coren is correct, we usually don't desyssop by motion unless it's time critical. As for a full RFAR case, see the link by Flo if someone wants to file it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight elections

Earlier discussion: WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#CheckUser and Oversight elections

Could the ArbCom publicize the next round of elections better? As it stands, the August announcement page has had 514 pageviews in total so far , which doesn't exactly bode well for a high turnout. (The February page, on the other hand, had 718 pageviews on its first day alone.)

Next time, please send a note to the mailing lists, or even add one of those super-controversial watchlist notices. - Jredmond (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I never even knew these were going on until someone asked me if I had applied. –xeno 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be appropriate to announce the question/voting phase by watchlist, however; it meets the criteria of being an event of relevance to the entire editing community with a well-defined 'crowd control' mechanism. Happy‑melon 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Xeno, I didn't know about the elections until someone asked me if I'd applied. Lara 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, they asked you prior to the close of the acceptance period =| –xeno 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a similar boat as Xeno; I found out about this election today, and then only because it was brought up on a (private) mailing list. That said, I did put my name in back in March, though I haven't heard anything since. - Jredmond (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

←In regards to the watchlist notices, in the thread linked to at the top of this one, a member of the community had asked that the committee not use them. After reading it over again, it looks more like what they were asking was the ArbCom asked first next time and got consensus to add a notice to the watchlist announcements. I personally feel they were very helpful last time, and would support them being used again. Tiptoety 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a watchlist notice for the election at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#August checkuser and oversight election. --John Vandenberg 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The question period started earlier today now, and there will be a series of watchlist and noticeboards announcements soon.--Tznkai (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion to establish secondary ArbCom mailing list

Announcement

Silly question, is the new mailing list archived? It would pretty much defeat the purpose of a list that doesn't include the involved party if as soon as the case is over they get to see all of the private discussion about themselves. People would feel no more free to submit evidence if they knew the person would see it in a month, as opposed to currently and arbs would feel no more free to comment on a colleague's behavior if they would see it in a week than if they would see it today. MBisanz 07:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The first priority is to set it up (last time we asked it took ages). The main purpose is not investigative but so the arb is on the same footing as the non-arb party. Whether or not it is archived is still under discussion: one route is having the option to delete some discussions from the archive but I don't yet know how technically feasible that is.  Roger Davies 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think relying on the system administrators to routinely delete archived messages is a good idea nor do I think such requests would be fulfilled. See m:Mailing list#Removing emails from archives for a (very) brief explanation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1–Why now? Is this in response to any particular incident? 2–Why did the opposers oppose, if they wouldn't mind. ÷seresin 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT 1, almost certainly because of Misplaced Pages:RFARB#Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen: Jimbo is a subscriber to arbcom-l. Can't help you WRT 2... Happy‑melon 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I opposed because of archival needed to be clarified first. In my opinion, knowing that the party under discussion might read the archive after the fact is a problem, and that had not been clarified by the time the motion passed. — Coren  10:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)