→Emergency desysop: User:Cool3: comment |
|||
Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
:[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Emergency desysop: User:Cool3|'''Announcement''']] <!--- [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC) ---> |
:[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Emergency desysop: User:Cool3|'''Announcement''']] <!--- [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC) ---> |
||
Temporarily desysopped? So, we'll be seeing him again soon I hope. Anyway, congratulations again arbcom on deleting yet another useful editor. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:11pt; color:#365F91">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:9pt; color:black">talk</span>]] 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:32, 14 January 2010
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Discussion of agenda
Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)
Discussion of announcements
- Please see [1]. As far as the future conduct of Biophys and the proposed decision, the announcement is still apparently incomplete. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You can expect a response after the holidays. As I expected, these proceedings have been a touchstone by which to judge Wikipedia and its participants. My heartfelt thanks to those who, during these proceedings now completed, have privately wished me well and confirmed my assessment of the state of Wikipedia and the nature and purpose of the contributions of my detractors even while (wisely) taking care not to embroil themselves in the conflict. To those to whom I may have pointed out that private communication offers only moral support, I appreciate that support and regret that their remaining off the proverbial radar screen was, indeed, the appropriate choice. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by the wording. The announcement says "Digwuren is banned for one year" then it says "He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account". I'm assuming that the latter is supposed to apply after the one year ban, since he shouldn't be editing at all while banned? --Deskana (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously. --62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or, if they are found to have evaded their ban with the use of more than one account at any one time then they are in really serious trouble... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I request clarification on the following: "directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public"
Is this meant to say that I cannot comment publicly off-wiki on any on-wiki edits or disputes (aka "controversies") regarding Eastern Europe? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Consolidation of inquiries
I would like some clarifications over the holidays, per some prior threads here and at the case:
- Per a response to Igny, I may not respond to Igny on any EE topic, certainly with regard to the area of contention (representation of Soviet acts and legacy in Eastern Europe) widely construed, indeed, that might be seen as baiting (on the part of Igny). Does that also include responses to general inquiries outside that subject area (say, biographical information)? Banned or not?
- Dougweller implied I can notify violations of conduct. Banned or not?
- Russia related topics outside Eastern Europe and the area of contention (let's say prior to the 20th century, not related to Eastern Europe if history; could also be literature or art) with regard to my mention of sources. Banned or not?
- Off-wiki public comments regarding the area of contention on English language Wikipedia. Current wording is problematic in that it implies even that is under sanction. Banned or not?
Thanks in advance. If there is a more appropriate location for followups, please let me know. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- As you are familiar with my own topic ban, you should be familiar with the terms of your own topic ban.
- 1. Broadly construed means exactly that. Hence, anything related to Eastern Europe, whether that be geographical, political, biographical, etc is covered by the topic ban. For example, this recent edit by yourself after the conclusion of the case is in violation of the topic ban.
- 2. You are unable to notify of violations of conduct on any Eastern Europe related articles, or in relation to Eastern Europe.
- 3. Russia-related topics are completely out. Regardless of time frame, whether it be 15th century Russia or 21st century Russia. The entire subject is off limits.
- 4. I'll leave that up to arbs to clarify. I believe I know what is meant by it though.
- That is how I interpret it all, and it is also how it has been interpreted by others in the past, and has also been clarified a few times already in relation to the case. The best way to think of it is that Eastern Europe, for the next 12 months for yourself, does not exist. It is a black hole on the map. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping up on my activities regarding pig jello, I was unaware ArbCom has assigned you to be my personal keeper. It's a question to ArbCom—are you presuming to answer for them? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- The way this works, Vecrumba, is that comments in arbitration enforcement threads, arbitration clarification requests, and arbitration amendment requests directly about you (and, obviously, new cases) are fine, but such threads about other editors are not an invitation for you to join in. Arbitration enforcement is intended to allow enforcement, not a continuation of the battles. If you feel you must comment, my advice would be to start comments at such arbitration locations by asking if you are allowed to comment, and then wait for permission before doing so. In terms of general article editing and lower levels of dispute resolution, no, you are not allowed to participate there in this topic area, or leave notifications of edits that you think need correction. The whole point of the topic bans is that those topic-banned stay away from the area and from dispute resolution or discussion in that area, and the theory is that others (who are not topic banned) will correct any poor edits made in the absence of you and others. If you wish to make notes of edits that you see that are not getting corrected, and wish to then present this as evidence that the topic bans have imbalanced editing in this area (i.e. removing those with expert or specialist knowledge of the topic area), then I would suggest doing that separately, and e-mailing that evidence to ArbCom. Russavia, I would suggest not getting involved in this. Off-wiki comments we have no jurisdiction over, but if our attention is drawn to off-wiki comments that are followed by on-wiki edits, that would be something we would look at. Ultimately, though, the question of how the topic bans will work will become clearer at arbitration enforcement. If it turns out that things are not clear enough, only then would parties or admins come to ArbCom asking for clarification (and there is a clarifications page for that purpose). Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I resumed editing and installed my old email address. If anyone wants to tell something privately, please do. I made a couple of edits under a different account, but soon realized that hiding is not an option. Regardless to the events, I want to remain anonymous in this project. As about editing restrictions, one should actually read them. The restriction for Russavia prohibits him from editing anything related to Russia or Soviet union. This is a draconian restriction because everything can be related to everything. Others are prohibited from editing anything about Eastern Europe. Can they edit a biography of an artist, even if he visited one of EE countries? I think they can because that would be an article about a person and not an article about Eastern Europe... Biophys (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Carcharoth, thank you for the clarifications. Quite frankly for a while I felt I was being left to be baited as ArbCom was not responding but those who presented evidence against myself were all eager to chime in. I would appreciate confirmation to what degree the topic ban includes Russia outside the EE, outside Soviet era conflicts, going back to my mention of sources and other Russian-related interests (music, for example). Thanks, no rush, I stumbled upon a spot to putter a bit although I regret it's already cost me good money to buy articles off of JSTOR. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Regardless of the source of the query, does pig jello fall under my topic ban? That contention seems a bit far-fetched. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I resumed editing and installed my old email address. If anyone wants to tell something privately, please do. I made a couple of edits under a different account, but soon realized that hiding is not an option. Regardless to the events, I want to remain anonymous in this project. As about editing restrictions, one should actually read them. The restriction for Russavia prohibits him from editing anything related to Russia or Soviet union. This is a draconian restriction because everything can be related to everything. Others are prohibited from editing anything about Eastern Europe. Can they edit a biography of an artist, even if he visited one of EE countries? I think they can because that would be an article about a person and not an article about Eastern Europe... Biophys (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The way this works, Vecrumba, is that comments in arbitration enforcement threads, arbitration clarification requests, and arbitration amendment requests directly about you (and, obviously, new cases) are fine, but such threads about other editors are not an invitation for you to join in. Arbitration enforcement is intended to allow enforcement, not a continuation of the battles. If you feel you must comment, my advice would be to start comments at such arbitration locations by asking if you are allowed to comment, and then wait for permission before doing so. In terms of general article editing and lower levels of dispute resolution, no, you are not allowed to participate there in this topic area, or leave notifications of edits that you think need correction. The whole point of the topic bans is that those topic-banned stay away from the area and from dispute resolution or discussion in that area, and the theory is that others (who are not topic banned) will correct any poor edits made in the absence of you and others. If you wish to make notes of edits that you see that are not getting corrected, and wish to then present this as evidence that the topic bans have imbalanced editing in this area (i.e. removing those with expert or specialist knowledge of the topic area), then I would suggest doing that separately, and e-mailing that evidence to ArbCom. Russavia, I would suggest not getting involved in this. Off-wiki comments we have no jurisdiction over, but if our attention is drawn to off-wiki comments that are followed by on-wiki edits, that would be something we would look at. Ultimately, though, the question of how the topic bans will work will become clearer at arbitration enforcement. If it turns out that things are not clear enough, only then would parties or admins come to ArbCom asking for clarification (and there is a clarifications page for that purpose). Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping up on my activities regarding pig jello, I was unaware ArbCom has assigned you to be my personal keeper. It's a question to ArbCom—are you presuming to answer for them? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
AGF in 2010
I respectfully request that if we are to move forward in good faith that combatants in the EE arena refrain from using the proceedings in what can be perceived as thinly veiled threats as here. I request that any and all such "warnings" be issued only by members of ArbCom. Thank you. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I am considering appealing my topic ban. I have asked Coren for background per reason cited here. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 17:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
As I cannot comment in my defense owing to my topic ban, edits such as this constitute a form of harassment. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Vecrumba, you state here that it is all too common a practice on Wikipedia to label expressions of concerns from editors one holds in contempt as harassment. How can we be sure that this is not what you are doing by accusing him of harassment? Triplestop x3 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I consider it crying "witch" as that editor's evidence "against" me at EEML pointed only to their own disruptive activities. I'll be glad for editors to bring up EEML on article talk and related pages when I can respond. Until then it's just an attack on editors who are banned from defending themselves or from contributing sourced material. It also propagates the meme (in this particular case, and in confidence that opposing viewpoints are banned for now) that prior opposition to deletion was based simply on intentionally stacking consensus and not based on additional sources being available—some of which I easily found, in Polish—which I rather don't expect anyone will explore further. That exploration would be the act of good faith here. Of course at the point of the last AFD, EEML was in full progress and I had no bandwidth to add sources—unfortunately all the time I spent on the case was a monumental waste of effort. Regretfully, all I see here in Offliner's EEML comment is "Let's go ahead and delete now that disruptive EEML is silenced." PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I should mention that my comment quoted specifically relates to the case where editor A expresses concerns regarding the edits of editor B on editor B's talk page and instead of that initiating a dialog, editor B deletes editor A's comments on their talk page as "harassment." I have never done that but I can point to a number, generally my editorial opposition, who have. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can point to many instances where you and your editorial allies have done the same. My point is, do you think you are right and your opponents are wrong? Triplestop x3 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fine. Show me one diff where I characterized someone's criticizing an edit of mine at my talk page as harassment or vandalism and simply deleted their feedback as such in my edit summary. It's not about being right or wrong but being willing to discuss. I only know about reputable sources and verified facts, not about truth. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. As for "allies," that is your choice of words. That there are other editors that utilize reputable sources and stick to verified facts does not mean we are meat puppets, a cabal, allies, or whatever it is you wish to use as a label. Only on WP have I been denounced for being utterly and boringly predictable in my treatment of historical topics. I would think consistency based on reputable sources fairly and accurately represented would be a positive thing, but no, I've been told otherwise. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh look, forgot about this one. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, my subsequent exchange with Triplestop was a bit more constructive—and could have been addressed immediately with a modicum of good faith instead of further escalation based on I'm a piece of crap and don't merit a response (how I took it). PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration clerks seeking interested users
- I'd put my name down as "interested", if it were not for the fact some people hate me because I try to protect the project. Maybe next time? Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm bollocksed if I am going to answer an advert depicting Uncle Sam recruiting - in a straight forward copy of the original Lord Kitchener poster - for clerks for the Arbitration Committee on the English Language Encyclopedia. I should have thought that the ArbCom would be a bastion against - or at least recognise (yes, with an S!) - Wikipedia:Systemic bias. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- What, would you prefer File:John Bull - World War I recruiting poster.jpeg instead? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, nor the original Kitchener one... the point (or WP:POINT if you must) is that the recruitment is open to English speaking/writing editors of every nationality (and gender). That poster speaks to and thus reinforces the stereotypical example of the WP editor; white, male, and from North America. Ah, nevermind... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- What, would you prefer File:John Bull - World War I recruiting poster.jpeg instead? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! I resemble that edit summary! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- No special invitation going out to us extinct fishapods either, even though I have already started to edit the noticeboard helpfully! Interested user! Disappointing speciesism! :-( bishapod splash! 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
- bishapod slaps forehead dramatically [Really? Whereabouts is forehead?], runs to improve spelling some more.] Noticeboard very handsome before interested users done with it! bishapod splash! 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
- Sigh...for the record, I created the notice. I added the picture, and it in no way reflected some form of "consensus version" amongst the clerks. I was trying to create something with a little humor in it, and had no intention of making it look as if we only wanted Americans. But honestly, do we not have better things to do with out time than nitpick over an image? Tiptoety talk 05:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you hate
Wikipedianon-Americans? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) - Nitpick? <redacted> Since unrecognised bias in others is one of the things that ArbCom needs to recognise and combat in its attempt to resolve disputes to create a neutral encyclopedia, it beholds them and their functionaries not to be careless in the appearance of a assumption of cultural bias. That is the <redacted>unrecognised problem, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really disappointed in you, LessHeard, your edit is much more offensive than the picture, which I've now removed. Would you please do something about it? Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am perpetually amazed at the triviality of the things we choose to argue over. AGK 12:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Countering cultural bias is not trivial, especially in a project that seeks a world view of the body of knowledge, as far as I am concerned. YMMV - I cannot deny you your own worldview, now, can I? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the correct solution is for some aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent (i.e. not me) to create a similar poster with the image of (a)Wikitan, or (b)Bishzilla instead of Lord K, John Bull, Uncle Sam, Chairman Mao, etc. Both for this recruiting drive and all similar drives, I'd opt for (b), mostly because Wikitan kind of creeps me out a little, but we'd probably have to talk to Bishzilla (or her designated agent) about Personality rights first. Of course, we'd first need a poster to help recruit the artist, but we could use the Uncle Sam poster for that. Or, instead, we could try to search for an aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent.......(etc). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does the artist selected get a toy surprise? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the correct solution is for some aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent (i.e. not me) to create a similar poster with the image of (a)Wikitan, or (b)Bishzilla instead of Lord K, John Bull, Uncle Sam, Chairman Mao, etc. Both for this recruiting drive and all similar drives, I'd opt for (b), mostly because Wikitan kind of creeps me out a little, but we'd probably have to talk to Bishzilla (or her designated agent) about Personality rights first. Of course, we'd first need a poster to help recruit the artist, but we could use the Uncle Sam poster for that. Or, instead, we could try to search for an aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent.......(etc). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Countering cultural bias is not trivial, especially in a project that seeks a world view of the body of knowledge, as far as I am concerned. YMMV - I cannot deny you your own worldview, now, can I? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am perpetually amazed at the triviality of the things we choose to argue over. AGK 12:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really disappointed in you, LessHeard, your edit is much more offensive than the picture, which I've now removed. Would you please do something about it? Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you hate
- Or, you could always use the official Wikipedia mascot. No, really - look for yourself. Some of the alternatives were even worse. – iridescent 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(PS) Arbcom artist application collage: Requisite adversarialicity -- Proofreader77 (interact) 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy to give my gracious permission for my own image to be used as the "Face of Wikipedia" what could be more fitting than a high born British person such as myself? American faces are all very well, in their place, but one only has to survey those characterful visages beneath those darling little baseball hats queuing for Europe's tourist attractions to see that advertising Wikipedia calls for an altogether more august countenance, such as my own. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I should think that Bishzilla is a far more appropriate representation of a dinosaur, for the purposes of recruitment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Lady C. may be the more appealing dinosaur, LessIsMore. Since my loyal monster eats little users sometimes (which I don't think Lady C does), a "Bishzilla wants you" (or, properly, "Bishzilla want you") poster could be experienced as threatening and hungry. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
- In the future I will attempt to put up an image that represents all nations, as well as someone of every ethnicity... Tiptoety talk 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hermaphrodite as well? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Actual serious question: What does "the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee" mean? Does this entail the personal political struggles and/or clumsy attempts at flirtation between ArbCom members? Is this technical for something? Reading 100 emails a day? Keeping track of something I can't envision? --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's mostly involvement with how cases are accepted, declined, and handled; the email level for the clerks list is maybe 10 or so per day (right now, most of the traffic is about these applications and doesn't have much to do with actual work). The main purpose of the clerks is to keep the arbitration pages on Wikipedia in relatively neat order so that the arbitrators can get what they need to do done while maintaining some semblance of sanity. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Another Question: Would it still be possible to submit an application? Or has the deadline already passed? -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- While the "deadline" has evidently passed, the clerk community evidently maintain a list of potential future clerks, which you may wish to make certain you are on (assuming that is your inclination). — James Kalmar 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is true. You can email us and ask to have your name added to a list of people to contact come the next "hiring period." Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily: There would be no harm in submitting a deadline. We haven't set a deadline by which all applications must be received, so please do e-mail your submission in if you are interested. The worst that could happen would be that you'd be put on the list of folks to bear in mind next time. Hope this helps. AGK 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just noticed Tiptoety's update, so I would now say that yes, I guess you're probably too late. AGK 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily: There would be no harm in submitting a deadline. We haven't set a deadline by which all applications must be received, so please do e-mail your submission in if you are interested. The worst that could happen would be that you'd be put on the list of folks to bear in mind next time. Hope this helps. AGK 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is true. You can email us and ask to have your name added to a list of people to contact come the next "hiring period." Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee 2010
- Congratulations to the returning and incoming arbs, and my personal thanks to the arbs that are retiring at the end of their terms (FloNight and Stephen Bain - though bainer hasn't escaped just yet). Many thanks also to all the other arbitrators, clerks and functionaries that helped keep things running in and around the arbitration committee this year (including FT2, Sam Blacketer, Kirill Lokshin, Casliber and John Vandenberg). Hopefully the new committee can carry on where the old one left off, and look to build on the productive aspects of last year. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
User:GlassCobra
- Would it be possible to have a link to the original decision to remove admin privileges? DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good call—well done to GlassCobra for convincing ArbCom of good intentions! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 14:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This was purely punitive. (Though, in ArbCom's defense, I suppose "Desysops are not punitive" isn't a meme around here.) I would applaud the decision, but it's undeserved—you're cleaning up the mess you made. Better late than never, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with MZMcBride. Stupid, stupid idea to desysop, utterly pointless punishment. So hardly "congrats Arbcom", but I'm glad a good admin got his tools back that were undeservedly stolen from him. Majorly talk 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I feel that a re-sysop without reference to the community so soon after the dishonest behaviour is rather poor form. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is essentially Arbcom reversing its own decision. If they were reversing a long-standing desysopping or overturning a community ban, sure, but it seems to me like they recognize that they may have made a mistake and are fixing it. RFA is a nightmare, especially for previously desysopped users, and its perfectly understandable that if Arbcom feels the desysopping was not justified then it shouldn't force GlassCobra to further be humiliated. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or, more simply, we feel that the desysop was justified, but that the user understands why it happened and made credible assurances that it will not happen again. — Coren (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Roger Davies talk 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or, more simply, we feel that the desysop was justified, but that the user understands why it happened and made credible assurances that it will not happen again. — Coren (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is essentially Arbcom reversing its own decision. If they were reversing a long-standing desysopping or overturning a community ban, sure, but it seems to me like they recognize that they may have made a mistake and are fixing it. RFA is a nightmare, especially for previously desysopped users, and its perfectly understandable that if Arbcom feels the desysopping was not justified then it shouldn't force GlassCobra to further be humiliated. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with both actions. I think both the deadmin, and reinstatement by the committe were the appropriate actions in this case. I would generally encourage the committee to re-admin folks, when they feel like the time/issues are past. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I want to note that my opposition to this motion is due to my belief that the re-sysoping of correctly desysopped admins is a matter best left to the community (except where there is material information known only to ArbCom, which isn't the case here), and should not be taken as a reflection of my view of GlassCobra. Steve Smith (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- No comment on the merits of the decision itself, but this is a sad start to the year for those of us who hope for a more open ArbCom. Given Steve's comment above, do I take it that no non-public information is relevant to this decision? In which case could discussion relating to it not have taken place on the wiki? As it is, we are left guessing as to reasons why Arbs supported (or indeed opposed) this motion. WJBscribe (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- My reasons for supporting were because this re-sysop was adjusted to take effect exactly three months after the initial desysop. My initial vote had been abstain, as I felt it was too early to be resysopping just yet. My view is that desysopping and resysopping by ArbCom should be done more readily, with less associated drama, reinforcing the point that adminship is not a big deal. Every time people (and I'm not referring to you here, WJBScribe, but rather some of the earlier responses to this thread) make a big deal out of things, the drama levels increase proportionally (using words like "stupid", "undeservedly stolen from him", "cleaning up the mess" and "utterly pointless" - those sort of comments border on being disruptive, when the point of this page is for constructive discussion). The one thing I would do for ArbCom resysoppings in general in future is include a "retain jurisdiction" clause, which makes it simpler for us to desysop within a probationary one year period if there are problems (i.e. without a full case). But that doesn't really apply here. Another thing I want to make clear is that this not "reversing [the] decision". Rather, as Coren and Roger say, the the original decision was not discussed or contested (presumed justified) and "credible assurances [have been made] that it will not happen again". In general, to address your point about openness (WJBScribe), one option would have been to have this proposed as a motion on the motions page, but then we would have been voting with a background of the above aggressive comments that I highlighted - can you see the conundrum there? We (ArbCom) want to take decisions without aggressive commentary stridently telling us what we must do, so one way to encourage openness would be for you (WJBScribe) and others to take to task the people that sour the atmosphere at such discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- We didn't want to have a public motion because people may have commented, see? Right.... It's not disruptive to express an opinion contrary to that of a majority of Arbitrators, Carc. There's no conundrum here, just a lot of stupidity. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have you ever tried to hold a committee discussion on-wiki with other (non-arbitrator) editors commenting and trying to influence the decision? It's a case of having the internal discussion, soliciting feedback, and then taking a final decision. That is not exactly what happened here, but that is the best model to follow, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Though, the rhetoric often gets turned up after feedback is solicited because it becomes too easy to ignore otherwise. At least from what I've seen.
My original point is that this is largely punitive. I don't see much disagreement with that point. Perhaps that's the way it ought to be—that is, perhaps all de-adminnings are inherently punitive. I'm not sure I agree, but I imagine a lot of people do. If you follow that line of thought, this is the prisoner being released. You put him in the box and now you're taking him out. I (still) don't see anything that's praiseworthy here, but maybe I'm just the odd man out. Ah well. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Basically, what ArbCom are saying is that they do not want the community to comment on whether or not an admin who undermines community processes can be trusted by the community as an admin again. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and anyone who dares to comment opposite are disruptive and "mak[ing] a big deal out of things". Ah well. It's to be expected from arbcom. Majorly talk 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you've clearly made your mind up, Majorly. No point trying to convince you otherwise. I'll concentrate my replies to other people instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then Carcharoth, why do you think the community should not be consulted about whether or not they can now trust an admin who undermined comunity processes? DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are suitable community venues where you can raise any concerns you have about the admin in question (and I suggested this be done at the time the desysopping occurred). I would suggest your first approach would be to talk to the admin in question and see if they are willing to talk to you about your concerns. As far as ArbCom are concerned (as voted on by motion), the issues are resolved by the assurances given. If the community want to deliver a different verdict, that can be done. If there are concerns in the future, those can be brought back to ArbCom, but RFA is an exceedingly poor venue to have a community referendum on someone's conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that this was the place to discuss Arbcom announcements. As you are well aware, there are no community venues for de-syssopping. RfA is the place to discuss whether someone should be given admin tools. Not an off-wiki mailing list. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's try and get to the core of this. Are there any cases where you think ArbCom can resysop, or do you think all resysops should be by the community only? Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer that admin tools were only ever granted by a community process. That said, to make the best of the poor system we currently have, Arbcom should at the very least invite community comment when they are considering doing this, and should certainly not tell editors commenting here to go away if they disagree. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. It does help to know that. I don't think I ever told anyone to actually go away (I wanted a productive discussion starting from a base of respect, not where people arrive to take pot shots at decisions they disagree with), but may I leave now and get some sleep? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you may now go to sleep :) DuncanHill (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. It does help to know that. I don't think I ever told anyone to actually go away (I wanted a productive discussion starting from a base of respect, not where people arrive to take pot shots at decisions they disagree with), but may I leave now and get some sleep? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer that admin tools were only ever granted by a community process. That said, to make the best of the poor system we currently have, Arbcom should at the very least invite community comment when they are considering doing this, and should certainly not tell editors commenting here to go away if they disagree. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's try and get to the core of this. Are there any cases where you think ArbCom can resysop, or do you think all resysops should be by the community only? Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that this was the place to discuss Arbcom announcements. As you are well aware, there are no community venues for de-syssopping. RfA is the place to discuss whether someone should be given admin tools. Not an off-wiki mailing list. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are suitable community venues where you can raise any concerns you have about the admin in question (and I suggested this be done at the time the desysopping occurred). I would suggest your first approach would be to talk to the admin in question and see if they are willing to talk to you about your concerns. As far as ArbCom are concerned (as voted on by motion), the issues are resolved by the assurances given. If the community want to deliver a different verdict, that can be done. If there are concerns in the future, those can be brought back to ArbCom, but RFA is an exceedingly poor venue to have a community referendum on someone's conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then Carcharoth, why do you think the community should not be consulted about whether or not they can now trust an admin who undermined comunity processes? DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you've clearly made your mind up, Majorly. No point trying to convince you otherwise. I'll concentrate my replies to other people instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and anyone who dares to comment opposite are disruptive and "mak[ing] a big deal out of things". Ah well. It's to be expected from arbcom. Majorly talk 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Basically, what ArbCom are saying is that they do not want the community to comment on whether or not an admin who undermines community processes can be trusted by the community as an admin again. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Though, the rhetoric often gets turned up after feedback is solicited because it becomes too easy to ignore otherwise. At least from what I've seen.
- Have you ever tried to hold a committee discussion on-wiki with other (non-arbitrator) editors commenting and trying to influence the decision? It's a case of having the internal discussion, soliciting feedback, and then taking a final decision. That is not exactly what happened here, but that is the best model to follow, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry Carcharoth, but I think that's a feeble excuse to take things off-wiki. That logic could be applied to most discussions that could get heated. Should bureaucrats abolish their practice of having open discussions on the wiki where the outcome of a RfA/RfB is unclear - no doubt we could concentrate more if we took the discussion to some private list where most users are prevented from contributing. But we would lose (a) transparency and (b) the opportunity for outside comments to actually inform the discussion. The fact that some comments will be overheated does not mean that outside comment is of no value.
So, no I don't really see a "conundrum" here, other than ArbCom prefering a quiet life to having discussions in the open. People in positions of power (for which lest any of you have forgotten, you volunteered) should expect scrutiny and criticism - sometime in trenchant terms. I do not accept that the examples of comments you give are at all on the border line of disruption. That you believe ther are worries me a bit to be honest. "We (ArbCom) want to take decisions without aggressive commentary stridently telling us what we must do", understandable, but I'm not sure it's something you are justified in requiring. ArbCom's continuing propensity to make decisions fro within a bunker is why I suspect it would be better if ArbCom were obliged to have discussions in the open unless a justification to do otherwise can be given. WJBscribe (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)- Actually, I agree with you there about the need to be more open - you might have noticed I try, when time permits, to be as open as I can about why I vote or comment the way I do. A fruitful discussion would be on where to draw the line on when to discuss things in the open and when not to. Presumably the bureaucrats have some internal standards they follow in those respects, and have less of such issues to discuss? Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- The bureaucrats, to the best of my knowledge, have never had a 'crat chat offwiki. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion seems to confirm this. In fact, the only reason why the bureaucrat mailing list was even created was for privacy-related renames. Nothing more. NW (Talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you there about the need to be more open - you might have noticed I try, when time permits, to be as open as I can about why I vote or comment the way I do. A fruitful discussion would be on where to draw the line on when to discuss things in the open and when not to. Presumably the bureaucrats have some internal standards they follow in those respects, and have less of such issues to discuss? Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- We didn't want to have a public motion because people may have commented, see? Right.... It's not disruptive to express an opinion contrary to that of a majority of Arbitrators, Carc. There's no conundrum here, just a lot of stupidity. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- My reasons for supporting were because this re-sysop was adjusted to take effect exactly three months after the initial desysop. My initial vote had been abstain, as I felt it was too early to be resysopping just yet. My view is that desysopping and resysopping by ArbCom should be done more readily, with less associated drama, reinforcing the point that adminship is not a big deal. Every time people (and I'm not referring to you here, WJBScribe, but rather some of the earlier responses to this thread) make a big deal out of things, the drama levels increase proportionally (using words like "stupid", "undeservedly stolen from him", "cleaning up the mess" and "utterly pointless" - those sort of comments border on being disruptive, when the point of this page is for constructive discussion). The one thing I would do for ArbCom resysoppings in general in future is include a "retain jurisdiction" clause, which makes it simpler for us to desysop within a probationary one year period if there are problems (i.e. without a full case). But that doesn't really apply here. Another thing I want to make clear is that this not "reversing [the] decision". Rather, as Coren and Roger say, the the original decision was not discussed or contested (presumed justified) and "credible assurances [have been made] that it will not happen again". In general, to address your point about openness (WJBScribe), one option would have been to have this proposed as a motion on the motions page, but then we would have been voting with a background of the above aggressive comments that I highlighted - can you see the conundrum there? We (ArbCom) want to take decisions without aggressive commentary stridently telling us what we must do, so one way to encourage openness would be for you (WJBScribe) and others to take to task the people that sour the atmosphere at such discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the result is fair, but the process has created needless drama. Is there any reason ArbCom couldn't have mooted (the proper definition of moot: to discuss) a proposal to resysop, and then seen what the community response was? Take this as advice for the future. Jehochman Brrr 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you could list the times when something was mooted with the community first, and times when it wasn't, and compare the results. Personally, I think drama levels are independent of how ArbCom handle it, and more dependent on: (a) the issue involved (which may cause a lot of people to comment); and (b) the people that chose to comment and the attitude they have. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are too new an editor to remember Arbcom's spectacular fuck up in the OM affair, where an entirely off-wiki discussion by arbs resulted in the committee not having a clue what they had decided (or whether in fact they had decided anything at all). Much entirely avoidable drama ensued. Ask anyone who was around at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? I was around at the time, as you well know, and began editing before you did. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was trying to be kind. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? I was around at the time, as you well know, and began editing before you did. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Selection bias; I won't go down that path. Let's look at the current situation. "Hi, we ArbCommers are thinking about revising a desysop remedy we placed on GlassCobra.[link] Owing to GC's history of solid contributions, and good judgment, and their response to the situation,[diff1][diff2] we feel that our remedy was overly harsh. If anybody would like to comment, please do so here, and then we will take a vote." You're always free to modify an action you have previously taken. Nevertheless, I think it is best practice to be open whenever possible to outside comments. Who knows, somebody in the community might have something clueful to add to the discussion. Jehochman Brrr 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think such an invitation would have been an improvement, and urge Arbcom to consider inviting comment in such a way in similar cases in future. (I'd prefer it was worded "... we believe that it may be time to end the sanction..." instead of "... we feel our remedy was overly harsh...", but there you go.) whoops! Signing late DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are too new an editor to remember Arbcom's spectacular fuck up in the OM affair, where an entirely off-wiki discussion by arbs resulted in the committee not having a clue what they had decided (or whether in fact they had decided anything at all). Much entirely avoidable drama ensued. Ask anyone who was around at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you could list the times when something was mooted with the community first, and times when it wasn't, and compare the results. Personally, I think drama levels are independent of how ArbCom handle it, and more dependent on: (a) the issue involved (which may cause a lot of people to comment); and (b) the people that chose to comment and the attitude they have. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's a good sign that the new arbcom's first action is forgiveness of past wrongs. The latter part of 2009 saw the Committee lose quite a bit of the respect people had for it, so I hope we can start 2010 off on a positive note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs)
- Note: that perception may not necessarily be universally held. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it may not be universally held. If you'll notice, I started my statement off with "Personally, I think..." which implies that it is only my opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the entire community. The WordsmithCommunicate 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: that perception may not necessarily be universally held. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible that I missed the rationale, in which case I simply plead ignorance - but what was the intent in lifting the desysop of Glasscobra on 11 January, as opposed to immediately? If the reasoning for this decision is that Glasscobra has provided the committee with meaningful assurances that the actions causing the desysop will not be repeated, and understands what they did wrong and why they were desysopped, then what does a week's time do to alter those facts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of arbcom, and not GlassCobra specificaly, saying "Due to non-public info user-x can not be re-sysoped" could be considered justifiable use of arbcom power. To re-sysop without any community input shows disregard for community opinion on things that are of concern to that community. And to announce that "we did this without community input because we were afraid the community would object" falls into that category of things you just have to laugh at to keep from crying.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that "We didn't put this before the community because we were sure that a tiny majority of the community would stonewall any reasonable discussion by the community, and monopolize it in such a way as to make consensus building impossible" is the same as "the community would object". Its far more likely that arbcom made this decision with the wisdom that, when decisions like this are placed before the community, they rarely result in a useful discussion which produces any net benefit for the encyclopedia or its community cohesion in general. I think that if we AGF here, it isn't that arbcom is seeking to overrule community consensus, just that it recognizes that community consensus would be difficult to judge given the tendency of some people to find situations like this, blow them WAY out of proportion, and totally prevent any dispassionate discussion of the issue. --Jayron32 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- This same dispute has been raised in other appeals. The basic problem is that the ArbCom is hearing a case privately and only getting input from one party. It would not cause any drama to post a notice here saying that, "User X has appealed his sanctions. If anyone has new evidence that's relevant to this appeal please send it to the ArbCom mailing list." I don't know of any problem with the user in this case, and I'm glad that his or her tools have been restored. But as a procedural matter, hearing cases without getting all of the evidence first is not a good practice. Will Beback talk 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which only goes to show the danger of generalizing cases, and attempting to sandbag ArbCom's ability to react appropriately to individual situations rather than being tied up in bureaucratic procedures. In this case, GC was not desysopped as part of a bilateral conflict between himself and other individual users. He was not desysopped following a community request to do so. He was desysopped as part of an ArbCom investigation into his actions, and it was solely an arbcom action. Why open this up to people who were not involved in the initial case, except to find those people who like to stonewall arbcom decisions merely for their own sick entertainment, or who are contrary or dramamongering for its own sake. Yes, there will arise cases where community input is important, because of the community's initial involvement. There will be cases where there are two sides to a dispute, and the "opponents" in said dispute will need to give their input in a situation like this. In this case, there was no dispute, no overt abuse of admin tools, and no pre-ArbCom community requets to desysop this user. He was desysopped by unilateral ArbCom action, and so it is entirely up to ArbCom to set those terms. GC apparently met their terms... --Jayron32 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I find those comments disingenuous at best. There were concerns and requests for de-adminiing from parts of the community. You seem to be suggesting that Arbcom has the ability to remove entirely from community discussion both the behaviour of admins, and Arbcom's actions. Neither is acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which only goes to show the danger of generalizing cases, and attempting to sandbag ArbCom's ability to react appropriately to individual situations rather than being tied up in bureaucratic procedures. In this case, GC was not desysopped as part of a bilateral conflict between himself and other individual users. He was not desysopped following a community request to do so. He was desysopped as part of an ArbCom investigation into his actions, and it was solely an arbcom action. Why open this up to people who were not involved in the initial case, except to find those people who like to stonewall arbcom decisions merely for their own sick entertainment, or who are contrary or dramamongering for its own sake. Yes, there will arise cases where community input is important, because of the community's initial involvement. There will be cases where there are two sides to a dispute, and the "opponents" in said dispute will need to give their input in a situation like this. In this case, there was no dispute, no overt abuse of admin tools, and no pre-ArbCom community requets to desysop this user. He was desysopped by unilateral ArbCom action, and so it is entirely up to ArbCom to set those terms. GC apparently met their terms... --Jayron32 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- This same dispute has been raised in other appeals. The basic problem is that the ArbCom is hearing a case privately and only getting input from one party. It would not cause any drama to post a notice here saying that, "User X has appealed his sanctions. If anyone has new evidence that's relevant to this appeal please send it to the ArbCom mailing list." I don't know of any problem with the user in this case, and I'm glad that his or her tools have been restored. But as a procedural matter, hearing cases without getting all of the evidence first is not a good practice. Will Beback talk 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that "We didn't put this before the community because we were sure that a tiny majority of the community would stonewall any reasonable discussion by the community, and monopolize it in such a way as to make consensus building impossible" is the same as "the community would object". Its far more likely that arbcom made this decision with the wisdom that, when decisions like this are placed before the community, they rarely result in a useful discussion which produces any net benefit for the encyclopedia or its community cohesion in general. I think that if we AGF here, it isn't that arbcom is seeking to overrule community consensus, just that it recognizes that community consensus would be difficult to judge given the tendency of some people to find situations like this, blow them WAY out of proportion, and totally prevent any dispassionate discussion of the issue. --Jayron32 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- To Jayron: General procedures can be changed when needed. As for the specifics of this case, it was not initiated by the ArbCom. It came as a result of an RFAR.[2] Rather than accept a full case the ArbCom settled it through motions based on the evidence presented there (and whatever investigation they conducted privately). The issue involved a lack of disclosure of relevant information by someone in a position of trust. Speaking hypothetically, there may have been other breaches which were not reported at the time or which have been discovered after the case was closed. Continuing to speak hypothetically, the sanctioned user may have told the ArbCom somethng like "I regret my action and have made no similar mistakes since I was de-sysopped." But what if a member of the community knew of another recent failure of the same type? The ArbCom would have no way of knowing that the appellant was not telling the whole truth. Alternatively, the ArbCom could be leaning towards rejecting an appeal and someone writing to say how the user showed tact and diplomacy in settling a dispute might sway them favorably. For the ArbCom to communicate with only one party in an appeal seems like a failure to get all the relevant information before making a decision. Again, I have no complaint about the outcome of this case, and no reason to think that GC will not act appropriately in the future. I'm just saying that the ArbCom should make it a routine practice to announce appeals that it's seriously considering so that anyone who has relevant information can communicate it to them. Will Beback talk 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably fixing the resysop date at 11 January, and notifying the community *before* that resysop takes place, doesn't count as asking the community to raise objections. (I'm being sarcastic there). Clearly, if there were problems with this resysop, we would want to be told, but from what I can see here, and in my inbox (empty on this matter), no-one has raised valid concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a roundabout way of getting community input, but I guess it accomplishes the same end. Thanks for pointing that out. Will Beback talk 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably fixing the resysop date at 11 January, and notifying the community *before* that resysop takes place, doesn't count as asking the community to raise objections. (I'm being sarcastic there). Clearly, if there were problems with this resysop, we would want to be told, but from what I can see here, and in my inbox (empty on this matter), no-one has raised valid concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth raises a very good point here. So far, all of the objections are "meta-objections" No one has actually given any concrete reason why GC should not be resysoped, merely that they object to not being given the opportunity to present those reasons. This forum seems like a perfectly good place to raise those objections. Presumably, if there was hard evidence that GC did not deserve the tools back, someone would be posting it now or contacting arbcom with it. The utter lack of said evidence is telling, we're debating over the manner of his resysop, not on the end result. No one has anything to say about whether or not GC has done anything since his desysop which would indicate he does not deserve his tools back... --Jayron32 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- To be blunt, I would like to see a lengthy topic-ban from RfAd. I was trying to keep to procedural comments in the spirit of NPA and giving a chap a fair shake, but if GlassCobra is to have the status that being an Admin brings (and I do not for one moment accept that admin comments at RfAd carry less weight than non-admin comments, nor do I believe that anyone else does), his previous dishonesty is worrying in the extreme. I don't think that GlassCobra would be so monumentally stupid as to try it again (or that Arbcom would be so generous in a repeat match), but that's a long way from saying that he's earnt the level of trust admins should. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- That, I think, speaks to Carcharoth's earlier point. That posting stuff here frequently leads to generic criticism of ArbCom and that the issue in hand is sometimes hijacked to steer the thread back into generic criticism of ArbCom. There is, after all, not much incentive in ArbCom asking for input if half the discussion is going to be dominated by generic sniping. Roger Davies talk 07:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Generic sniping comes with the job. ;) Will Beback talk 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you do something less than ideal and people point it out - generic sniping to some, a genuine wish for better process to others. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, especially when ideal is more of a solipsism than a universality. Roger Davies talk 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you do something less than ideal and people point it out - generic sniping to some, a genuine wish for better process to others. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Generic sniping comes with the job. ;) Will Beback talk 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth raises a very good point here. So far, all of the objections are "meta-objections" No one has actually given any concrete reason why GC should not be resysoped, merely that they object to not being given the opportunity to present those reasons. This forum seems like a perfectly good place to raise those objections. Presumably, if there was hard evidence that GC did not deserve the tools back, someone would be posting it now or contacting arbcom with it. The utter lack of said evidence is telling, we're debating over the manner of his resysop, not on the end result. No one has anything to say about whether or not GC has done anything since his desysop which would indicate he does not deserve his tools back... --Jayron32 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- When reversing a sanction resulting from an arbitration request that drew a huge number of comments, a lengthy discussion such as this one is inevitable. Why not have the discussion first and then act. I realize ArbCom left a 7 day window to allow for any revelations, but it would have been better, much better, to present this as a proposal, and then to vote, rather than doing things backwards. My perception is that GlassCobra would have received a lot of support and the process would have reached the same conclusion. Instead of that support and goodwill, the fear-motivated process (we fear criticism, so let's act in secret) has generated suspicions. That's too bad because it wasn't necessary. Arbs, have you learned something here? Jehochman Brrr 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- This thread is pretty good evidence that not everything needs to be discussed with the community beforehand; there are no substantive comments about the specific decision in this thread. There's lots of "but you didn't ask me!" comments. The take-away lesson, Jehochman, is that even when the community has no concern about the decision that is actually made, there are some people who feel their opinions should be sought on every matter. We already knew that. Risker (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- For me the take-away lesson is that ArbCom will slap admins on the wrist and then quietly give back the bit once things have blown over. Frankly, I do have concerns both about the decision and about the way it was made, but throwing a hissy fit isn't going to do a damn thing, so why bother? Just one more piece of ammo for the "all admins are corrupt" crowd to lob at those of us trying hard to do a good job.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- At least ArbCom as a body have decided to be honest and openly admit the contempt and scorn they have for us little folk.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't think I am being contemptuous here, I am being realistic and carrying out the responsibilities for which the community selected me. There is no discussion about the substance of this decision in this thread; the decision itself is not controversial. The community elected arbitrators to make this kind of straightforward decision. I don't believe anyone objected to the lack of community consultation when the User:Law account was blocked, or when the User:Pastor Theo account was desysopped and blocked. Of course, I speak from my own perspective, and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Risker (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those are decisions in the opposite direction and both turned upon checkuser results or other private data whereas resysopping GlassCobra was more of a judgment call. I don't see why the community could not have been pinged for opinions prior to making this decision. The discussion may have been even shorter than the foregoing... –xenotalk 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Risker, we did not elect you all to decide for us. We elected you al to decide when we cannot come to a consensus ourselves, either because of persistent disagreements or because the evidence needs to be kept confidential. Neither situation appears to be the case here. I and others are generally suspicious that ArbCom should not gather more power to itself via secret cases or secret appeals. I see no reason why this appeal was not handled in public. Look, if you folks can't see this, then maybe we'll start another RFC on ArbCom to give you feedback. It's unfair to GlassCobra to make an example of their appeal. Jehochman Brrr 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is an appeal of the Arbitration Committee's decision, a decision that was well discussed at the time it was taken, and the community's feedback from that discussion was certainly a factor in considering the appeal. This isn't a de novo matter; the community has already been involved. Risker (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't think I am being contemptuous here, I am being realistic and carrying out the responsibilities for which the community selected me. There is no discussion about the substance of this decision in this thread; the decision itself is not controversial. The community elected arbitrators to make this kind of straightforward decision. I don't believe anyone objected to the lack of community consultation when the User:Law account was blocked, or when the User:Pastor Theo account was desysopped and blocked. Of course, I speak from my own perspective, and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Risker (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman |
.
Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This makes it seem like the original de-sysop was only to please the angry community, then wait until people go on with other things before granting the rights back. If ArbCom wanted give GlassCobra a small punishment then it should have been a temporary desysop in the first place. A permanent desysop should mean that the user has to request renewed confidence from the community. The exception would be if ArbCom decides that the original motion was in error, but that does not seem to be the case here. The habit of ArbCom to restore sysop right to those who have had it removed strengthens the problematic idea that adminship is for life. If not being an administrator is a punishment that can one can be forgiven from, then should I feel that I have been under punishment ever since I joined Wikipedia? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Reading the committee members disagreeing and arguing with each other lessen the worries that some have, and eventually will cause less drama. While announcing a decision that was discussed privately give the false impression that the ArbCom members are one block which trigger the "we against them" feeling that some in the community have (as we see here some members in the ArbCom also have the "we against them" mentality). Sole Soul (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- One will find Wikipedia - and one's personal experience with it - runs smoother if one avoids taking offense at things. Whether someone is trampling over your or "the communities'" toes gets the blood pumping, but its rarely worth the effort separated, as it is from substantive, practical consequences or desires. What may seem to be important, may in fact be rather trivial, and the amount of angry offense may actually be an indicator of triviality. What I'm trying to say is - this isn't worth the bad blood.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- This sort of apathy is the problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not apathetic (though on occasion demoralized like many), I'm just trying to put things in the proper perspective. Correct action stems from two sources: sufficient motivation to act, and proper perspective to know how to act. Emotion - in this case offense - fuels motivation but destroys perspective. The offended is inspired to act, but knows not how. Unfortunately, being offended provides an emotional high that serves as its own reward, and Wikipedia lowers the costs of offering up communications to a trivial amount. What appears to you as apathy is merely me deliberately not amping myself up in an effort to think clearly.
- Furthermore, its important to think at the margins. I'm sure everyone by now has heard of diminishing returns, but allow me to repeat it to illustrate my point. As you add more resources to a task - at some point, you get less oomph per quanta of resource devoted. I would go as far as to say that you start getting into negatives, but my economist friends tell me I'm wrong, and then there is factoring in externalities, but the basic idea is sound: each additional comment to an issue can be less helpful then any previous one.
- So - while it is nearly costless to each of us individually to speak up - we may in fact be adding nothing of value. We may be adding the opposite of value - we can be adding sound and fury and drama and anger and emotion and offense where rationality and clear thought will help more. It is the universal conceit of men that they are useful where others are not (pardon my hyperbole), but one might allay that tendency by thinking at the margins - which forces the question "is it really worth it, now, in this situation?"
- Being emotional and offended compromises that inquiry.--Tznkai (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those in power do what they do because they can. When people just shut up and take it they enable that behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, if you think ArbCom should handle appeals more openly, start a WP:RFC. This discussion is turning circular. Jehochman Brrr 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Pithy, but demonstrative of my point more than yours. Not all exercises of power are equal, and neither are all protests to that power. Consider for a moment that there are ways to not "just shut up and take it" that in fact enable the power more than they disable it. Consider further that disabling power is on occasion, and my contention is, on this occasion, less important than the costs incurred disabling it. In this instance: time wasted, bad blood engendered, outside observers infuriated, and otherwise "drama" encouraged. Kindly consider finally, that we've managed to have a complete conversation without once mentioning the issue on point, which might be an indicator as to how important it really is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those in power do what they do because they can. When people just shut up and take it they enable that behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- This sort of apathy is the problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having seen similar discussions follow many of the Committee's more notable administrator conduct actions, I am convinced that only the adoption of a viable community de-sysop method will suffice to address the community's concerns. As long as the community has no outlet to directly request removal of the administrator bit, some members thereof will continue to find fault with the Committee's decisions in this regard. The Committee's handling of ban appeals is spot on. However, it would appear that some editors feel that the standards for transparency and community input must be higher for regranting administrative tools. — James Kalmar 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I echo what James Kalmar said. AGK 13:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ban Appeal Subcommittee
- And thanks here to Fritzpoll, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie for stepping in so promptly for what is largely a thankless task. Hope I haven't put them off by saying that! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you guys have put at least one old timer in the barrel instead of dumping this on three n00bs? I thought hazing was out of fashion? :) ++Lar: t/c 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we were trying to ensure enough open seats for WP:ACE2010 by right-sizing the committee as soon as possible. MBisanz talk 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why is that link red?? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Never heard of it. Awesome job getting this out there. Hiberniantears (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- An important function (symbolically). Good appointments. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee
The announcement ought probably clarify the statement that "The current composition of AUSC (and the end-dates of their respective terms) is therefore: Risker (28 February 2010), Rlevse (30 April 2010) and Kirill Lokshin (30 June 2010)" to add the qualifier "arbitrator members" or make note of the other three members of the AUSC.
On another point, if it's not a sensitive matter, can we assume that Newyorkbrad's resignation is due to unavailability? Cheers, Skomorokh 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it probably should. I'll tweak it accordingly and then we have it as a boilerplate.
- Yes (and it's not a sensitive matter). Roger Davies talk 13:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response Roger, much appreciated. Skomorokh 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Emergency desysop: User:Cool3
Temporarily desysopped? So, we'll be seeing him again soon I hope. Anyway, congratulations again arbcom on deleting yet another useful editor. Majorly talk 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)