Revision as of 16:59, 4 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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2

Announcement

Amendment regarding Obama articles

Announcement

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

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Aitias administrator permissions

Announcement

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

Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon

• Announcement

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

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

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